ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Sorry, Hurting, I didn't mean to seem like I was ranting, but you seemed to want a more personal explanation, with specifics, rather than more vague mumblings that could be seen as prevericating. Like, there's nothing stalemate-y about what I think about religion. I think, like all human endeavours, it can do great harm, but it can, also, used correctly, do great good.

If there were a Quaker meeting house within walking distance of my house, I would totally go every week, because I experimented with going to one on Brixton Hill for a few weeks, and it was totally awesome, as far as religious experiences go (even though I would miss the high mass and smells and bells of my childhood, the philosophy of Quakers is much closer to what *I* feel than Episcopalianism, which often gets messy due to trying to balance too many conflicting communities) but hey, I'm lazy and really like to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

I think this is far more true in the opposite direction. What's the first things out of most peoples' mouths when they find out someone is an atheist? "How can you live without believing in God? How can life possibly have any meaning? How do you decide what's right and wrong?" Etc., etc., etc.

I think both sides get this, to be honest. I get a lot of "OMG, I *SO* thought you were a strict materialist atheist, you know, *normal*, like me, it's a bit weird that you're interested in religion, to be honest" from most of my liberal mates, so... I think everyone just notices more when it's against them.

Because it's obvious from a number of people on this thread that a lot of atheists simply cannot even *grasp* the idea of not being an atheist, and think that somehow, if you can just feed enough *facts* to a religion person, they will stop being religious, and just wake up and become a sensible atheist, like them.

I totally fall into this - carefully substituting "agnostic" for "atheist" re: myself - but I'm not pushy about it, nor do I attempt to feed anyone any facts pushing my point of view.

I just can't get the idea of believing, without any proof, in some sort of deity or the complete absence of one, much less applying rules to your diet, dress, behavior, and political opinions based on this concept. To me it just seems most logical to withhold opinion because there is no way of ever knowing.

I am atheist/agnostic but I was raised in a religious tradition and I like to maintain at least some contact with that

I thought this was an excellently-phrased poll option which really summed up how I felt, and it was a pleasure to be able to vote for something like this, rather than a flat 'I am an athiest' or 'I am an agnostic' as the only two non-believing choices, as I might have expected!

The diet, dress, behavior, and political opinions thing, to me, really is one of those "cultural" things dressed up as spirituality, as far as I'm concerned. And people will alter their behaviour on all kinds of cultural affiliations and philosophies, not just religious ones. So... eh.

I think this is far more true in the opposite direction. What's the first things out of most peoples' mouths when they find out someone is an atheist? "How can you live without believing in God? How can life possibly have any meaning? How do you decide what's right and wrong?" Etc., etc., etc.

My favorite example of this was in a college Lit class where we were discussing how a book we had just read was written by an atheist, one of my classmates asked "does that mean her characters didn't experience love?"

At my core, I'm an atheist. I don't believe God exists. I have no proof one way or the other, merely conviction. Because of the proof angle, I describe myself as an agnostic. Growing up, my parents stopped attending church when I was 7 because the minister they liked moved away and the new one said some very questionable things in his first few sermons that they found grossly offensive to their social liberalism. I basically grew up not having any real exposure to church outside of the occasional visit to the church they grew up in when we trekked back to Akron during the summer. When my oldest brother died while I was in high school, I pretty much decided then and there that God either didn't exist or didn't give two shits about humanity and therefore might as well not exist.

From September through May of every year, I sing as a member of a professional church choir for a UU church; I've been singing in church choirs ever since I went to college in 1991 aside from a 2-year hiatus after I graduated. Sacred choral music is astonishing, particularly when influenced by the classical tradition (ie, praise songs can go eat a diseased pubis). The inspiration people have claimed at the hands of the divine, whether through direct rapturous experience or indirect, more human "oh shit I have to have music for this year's Christmas service, let me write a ridiculously awesome cantata for my pocket orchestra" reasons have done more to make me think that God may exist than any amount of discussion or study.

It's a complicated question to answer well.

I really do wish that some of you had read or would comment on that Authoritarians book that I posted this morning and just sank to the bottom, because some of these issues are kind of discussed in it...

I should probably make time to read things that aren't pulpy SF/fantasy novels but, um... I haven't, so I can't comment on that book. Sorry.

That was an x-post so it wasn't directed at you, specifically, Dan, BTW.

I made a note of it, Kate, and I will -- I was also v v into the series of essays by Sara Robinson (starting here on authoritarianism and how to reach out to its adherents.

It all seemed like obvious common sense to me, but then I used to assume that the James Dobson-esque/ruled by the men at the top/win every battle of wills method of social organization was normal.

That's interesting, she's talking about the book by John Dean - who is mentioned in Altemayer's book - who she then goes on to mention as having done the research. But... yeah.

Everything I feel about religion is summed up in the Andrew W.K. song, "I Will Find God."

I heart Kate's mom btw, she sounds awesome

anybody here listen to the Gospel Gangstaz

I'm with those who are unsatisfied with the options. As a philosopher, I do not feel I can be anything other than agnostic, as there are simply no falsifiability criteria in discussions of spirituality. However, this same fact means that any such discussion about whether or not spiritual beliefs are 'real' or 'true' are completely pointless, and thus I err towards the atheist side in any debate.

There is of course the discussion about community and comfort as an aside, but this too is a stalemate - there are many people damaged and abused by religion, and there are many people aided and given solace by it. I would prefer to think that society could provide those things of value without resorting to religion, however.

Probably going with 'hardcore atheist', though not happily.

I would prefer to think that society could provide those things of value without resorting to religion, however.

well, historically it never has before, so what does that tell you

Thanks, Shakey. Thing is, I have had a tempestuous relationship with my mum, and for large periods of her life, she was not awesome. It's weird to me (and one of the other things that tipped me from agnosticism towards theism of some kind when I was younger) to see that the prime mover and facilitator of that shift to awesomeness *was* her religion (and also probably the process of her getting several university degrees - but again, religion was the motivation there, as she only went back to University to get into Seminary.)

So yeah, I think my mum - and her take on religion - are doubly awesome.

There is of course the discussion about community and comfort as an aside, but this too is a stalemate - there are many people damaged and abused by religion, and there are many people aided and given solace by it. I would prefer to think that society could provide those things of value without resorting to religion, however.

See, for me I would prefer to think that religion could provide aid and solace without damaging and abusing people, but even that simplification ignores the possibility that the people doing the abusing don't overlap with the people providing comfort.

well, historically it never has before, so what does that tell you

Very little, as such a statement is woefully inaccurate.

I'm a fan of big tent atheism -- there was some three-prong test to see if you were a 'real' Christian, and I feel if you fail any of those parts as applied to your professed religion, you're really one of us, dawg. (Talking to you, Obama and Charles Schulz RIP)

See, for me I would prefer to think that religion could provide aid and solace without damaging and abusing people, but even that simplification ignores the possibility that the people doing the abusing don't overlap with the people providing comfort.

I see little point in the fully religious aspects of religion, and so the only thing I can give them is the fact that they sometimes do good things. So if those religious people did good things without needing a nebulous God figure, it would seem all the more sensible to me. But I guess this would involve something happening that is unlikely to ever occur.

part of me wonders if i would be as jaded towards religion if I hadn't spent my formative years going to a fundamentalist church which one day in youth group decided to show us a propaganda vid attacking Mormonism and implying that they were a satanist religion.

I do doubt that that same group would be partaking in the Quran burnings, but I know darn well they'd be saying "while I don't agree with the BURNINGS ,per seee....."

Very little, as such a statement is woefully inaccurate.

? where in the historical record is this non-religious society you speak of

xp Well all religions whose members don't accept Jesus as their personal savior during a born-again experience are technically Satanist, since they're doing the devil's work by misleading good folk into something other than "real Christianity."

They didn't really have to bother showing us videos after we learned that good.

yea I realize that, but I mean outside of that, the video tried to correlate the roots of the name Mormon to correspond to that of a demon named Mormo.

Also same youth group director asked us to be "closed minded" to these other groups

I didn't speak of one at all - that is some extrapolation you've got going on there. Really, you thought my accusation of inaccuracy meant 'there has been such a society that has been both entirely benevolent and entirely without religion'? There has never been a society that has been entirely benevolent. What I in fact meant was that there have always been, and continue to be, benevolent portions of society/acts within that society that are driven by motives that are unrelated to any religiosity.

xposts to Shakey

They also taught me that the Bible was true due to the following logic:

Good people could not have written the Bible because they'd be lying, and thus not "good" people
Bad people could not have written the Bible because they'd be condemning themselves.
Therefore, the Bible is a divine work.

(I'm not even making this up).

err by "written" I mean "invented"

My Sunday School teachers used to make the joke that SOME people are so open-minded, their brains were falling out!

"Open-minded" was code for "unChristian", btw.

I mean across the board.

Crikey, my Sunday School teachers used to tell me things like "it's a very poor faith that cannot withstand questioning and examination."

^^^^ would have liked that

I'm with the fundies on this one -- if you indulge in skepticism, maybe you're not really religious.

skepticism over a religion that comes from a book written by several men who seem to have different accounts of how things went down? y'don't say!

xp nah that's ridic

I'm with the fundies on this one -- if you indulge in skepticism, maybe you're not really religious.

um.... no

But, you know, I also went to "A Christian School" where A Priest would come in four days a week and walk us through all the contradictions in the Bible and explain the different layers of how it was written and who edited it and why it's like that, and then shrug and say "well, clearly God *inspired* these ignorant humans, but he didn't always make them poets."

I'm with the fundies on this one -- if you indulge in skepticism, maybe you're not really religious.

How on earth would *you* know? Who are you to tell people that their experience religion is or isn't "authentic"?

To me, that's worse than being a Fundamentalist. You should *know* better. Shame on you.

(Oh my god I just channelled my Sunday School teacher with that "shame on you")

xxpost that's a double edged sword anyway, cuz if someone states they unequivocally believe everything that the Bible said and take everything as gospel and therefore have no questions, they get lampooned for being brainwashed.

What I in fact meant was that there have always been, and continue to be, benevolent portions of society/acts within that society that are driven by motives that are unrelated to any religiosity.

nice people who are not religious are one thing. an institution providing for the common good is quite another, and historically I can't really think of very many that were NOT, on some level, either guided by or explicitly an extension of a religious institution.

xp

Well I mean they did laud the spiritual tradition of "wrestling with God" as Jacob wrestled with the angel (blah blah) but it was kind of assumed that you would do your questioning from inside the pre-set strictures of Faith, and that no matter the outcome, you would submit to God's will on the matter and not choose your own leanings.

How you were supposed to know God's will on the matter, it was never quite explained. Better to err, then, on the side of caution and become more conservative over time.

I'm with the fundies on this one -- if you indulge in skepticism, maybe you're not really religious.

this is bullshit, and pretty antithetical to Xtianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and (I'm sure) many others

there are simply no falsifiability criteria in discussions of spirituality

i think this is simply false tbh - if spiritual equals supernatural. religions, amongst other spiritual enterprises, make claims about the world, which can be tested. and i think the only thing that can survive such testing is a deism so vague and drained of content as to be virutally worthless.

"hardcore atheist" is kind of offensive. As if not believing in god makes you some kind of obnoxious extremist. Would you label all christians as "hardcore anti-Zeusists"?

xxpost Agreed. there's a big difference between "I'm not so sure that Random Bible Book Verses 2-3 happened exactly as described" and "y'know I'm not sure that this Jesus feller was real".

xp i don't think that was the intent of the phrasing?

(But, our Priests also didn't just shrug and go "ah well" - we also talked about capital-M Myth and we read Joseph Campbell and Robert Graves and talked about how to find the symbolism behind the stories.)

the only thing that can survive such testing is a deism so vague and drained of content as to be virutally worthless.

Go talk to my mum about whether what's survived her testing and whether that's worthless or not. No, really.

And for lots of people spirituality != "supernatural" - that's a conceptual leap where not everybody goes there.

xxpost that's a double edged sword anyway, cuz if someone states they unequivocally believe everything that the Bible said and take everything as gospel and therefore have no questions, they get lampooned for being brainwashed.

The problem with the Bible being a full-stop divine article is twofold:

- It was written by humans, who by definition are not divine and are therefore fallible, ergo the possibility exists that mistakes may have been written into it.

- Even if the document is somehow pure, it is read by humans, who by definition are not divine and therefore fallible, ergo the possibility exists that mistakes may have been made when interpreting it.