In general, suppose I postulate a theory of a god that created the world, but then what he really was interested in was a planet so awesome yet distant that it would take several lifetimes to comprehend/realize its glory (thus making it incomprehensible to the living). Suppose this god really was interested in this awesome planet and that the resulting universe (as we know it today) was a natural but not intended purpose of this god (like how cleaning your room by sweeping it, throws dust around). Now suppose it (being god) knew that earth and all would occur, but was more interested in "Awesometopia" (its real purpose) would that satisfy everybody ?

In the above, we have a creator, who created (Awesometopia) with particular and unintended purposes (earth, planets and any form of life we may hereafter discover). This takes care of the theists.
We also have a creator god who created the world and does not interfere in its affairs. This should satisfy the deists.
I am stumped as to what would satisfy the atheists (honestly). In fact, I'm pretty much sure they are required to reject every supernatural notion unless it can be proven. Happily I can say that much like other gods known to man, this god can not be proven. If an atheist asks for proof of our god, we simply ask him to disprove our god.
I think the deists get the best deal out of this proposed theory.

Anyway, this is but a rough sketch and I'm going to need input from a lot of people. First of all, the name "Awesometopia" may not be the best but it was the best I could do at the moment. We need a name for the deity as well. What will his followers be called ? ETC
Again, since he is not interested in the earth or in anything apart from the planet he purposely created, is there any point in worshiping him ?
Just musings. Who knows what will happen if we develop this religion ? A lot of mumbo jumbo must be thrown in too as that is the only way certain folks will consider it. All theologians,philosophers, deists, wise men, etc are welcome to make input.

jayriginal:

Again, since he is not interested in the earth or in anything apart from the planet he purposely created, is there any point in worshiping him ?

Oh no, just be awesome! That should do!

Must what you believe in have a name? Must you refer to yourself by a name or as a believer? People may call me deist (closest word available) but i have my own way of thought that i have refused to give a name, heck even the Universe was seen by Einstien as the god.

mkmyers45:

Must what you believe in have a name? Must you refer to yourself by a name or as a believer? People may call me deist (closest word available) but i have my own way of thought that i have refused to give a name, heck even the Universe was seen by Einstien as the god.

We are humans. If we are going to refer to it inevitably some kind of name will come up even if its "the un-nameable one". I understand your point though. I just think its easier for humans to have some kind of tangible way to deal with a concept.
You may have a spiritual leaning without a formalized name, but I bet you, as soon as it gets really big, it will expand beyond boundaries you thought possible. A name will be one of the first things and I cant help but notice how you used a name to give me an idea of your line of thought.
Good input though.

Deep Sight:

Oh no, just be awesome! That should do!

Well, fine. But will this awesomeness be enough to attract its attention to us with all the attendant benefits to our planet. In other words are we being awesome (to one another) in order to attract the god of Awesometopia to us or we are being good for goodness sake.
Remember the theory here is that we are in existence by its power, but it cares only about its direct creation "Awesometopia" and it lets us be as we are while it is active in the affairs of "Awesometopia".
Appreciate your input.

DeepSight
Thinking a bit further about your post, I believe you are saying that since we know that we arent going to command the attention of this god, we should just be awesome. Life is already awesome on "Awesometopia" and in order to reach towards something close to that standard, we should start by being awesome.
Am I interpreting you correctly ?

If I am, then consider human nature.
It is often more profitable to be selfish, wicked, brutal etc than to be "awesome".
A lot of people respond to the punishment-reward model. They are more likely to be awesome if we tell them that being awesome will attract a visitation and reward by the "Most Awesome" the unnameable one. As for punishment, we dont have to threaten them with a hell or anything like it (which would flatly contradict the theory that he is not interested in us) though I see an easy way to work hell in. We could simply promise a much better life by being awesome.
In other words dont you think people will respond positively and deny their base human nature more enthusiastically if they felt there was something in it for them ?

I don't believe in taking chances with probability thats why im not ready to pick from 40,000 "this-is-the-way" religions so i see dont know why you want to model a pattern to add to those existing. You must consider atheist if you really mean to model an ideal path to God(gods)

mkmyers45:

It don't believe in taking chances with probability thats why i mean im not ready to pick from 40,000 "this-is-the-way" religions so i see dont know why you want to model a pattern to add to those existing. You must consider atheist if you really mean to model an ideal path to God(gods)

This is just an academic exercise. I wish to pick minds here. I am not for one suggesting that this supposed religion is true. Im really trying to see if a hypothetical religion that allows for belief in god can be constructed. In doing so I am taking facts of existence, particularly the non intervention of supernatural deities and trying to incorporate it into a religion.

My OP has more details if you care to read it again. Remember the title is "A Religion Under Construction". Its an academic exercise really.

It's a common train of thought

ramalot
Thanks for contributing. It is an academic exercise really. The aim is to see if we can construct the most realistic religion.

ramalot:

There you have it. Yet another formal religion serving no other purpose than further dividing humans.

The purpose is not to divide but to create a plausible religion.

ramalot:


You say its an academic exercise. which is nice, provided you're evaluating hard facts, and trying to make some sense of it.
NOT trying to brainstorm up a new fairy tale.

I assure its a purely academic exercise at this stage. Maybe if fully developed, we could turn it into a money making venture (why should these Pastors get rich alone).
^^ Just kidding though (or am I ?).

Like i keep saying, god, any of the gods, is playing golf somewhere and left humans to fend for themselves. Why won't they let him(or is it them) be? I would say this "unnamed" would look at the adherents to "unnamity"-let's call the religion that, with disdain. He's thinking i have given you guys all you need, how about some peace? Then i can see "unnamed" amused at all the antics that follow "in his name", i can hear him think "how pathetic". I can see him swing by from time to time, shake his head like damn, they do make a fine mess of things and go back to whatever.