ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

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.

Yes, religious societies have tended to create religious institutions. What's your point? What a shock that the 2% of the people in the world who are atheists haven't had as big of an impact on history.

well re: the class discussion in the Pulp thread, i don't think the argument was "you went to U, therefore not working class" it was "you make more than the median income now, therefore not working class"

Well, that's a UK / US class appellation division I don't think we'll ever resolve.

Also, Philip, the reason I don't want to be called an "atheist" is that being an "atheist" requires that I be "a - theist" - without god. I have a pretty clear god concept which I have wrestled with and balanced rationality and emotion over, and there is no way that you can re-assign me into your Broad Church no matter how widely you define "atheism".

You do NOT have the right to tell me what I believe, any more than fundamentalist Christians do.

I think the closest I've ever come to what I understand people to be referring to when they refer to "spiritual" experiences are a) scuba diving and b) some rock concerts.

Kate, I kind of agree with you about big-r Rationality sometimes. But religion doesn't have the claim on emotive experience, and it makes some enormous ontological claims at the same time that simply aren't necessary.

^^^ this

If you want to find another word, and divide the world into "truth-seekers" vs. "those who are happy to accept whatever beliefs they are born into without questioning" then I'm happy to be a part of that flock.

But Atheist? Never. That's not what that word means. I reject it.

Religion != Spirituality. Spirituality != Religion.

If anyone takes away any message from this thread, of anything I have been saying, please let it be this.

Please can we stop using these terms as if they are synonymous, because they are not.

It's like saying "Justice" and "The Court System" are the same thing. They are related, but they are not the same.

For the love of fuck, I need to stay off this thread, because I hate repeating myself so much. :-(

i've always like this freud quote

There are a few men from whom their contemporaries do not withhold admiration, although their greatness rests on attributes and achievements which are completely foreign to the aims and ideals of the multitude... One of these exceptional few calls himself my friend in his letters to me. I had sent him my small book that treats religion as an illusion and he answered that he entirely agreed with my judgement upon religion, but that he was sorry I had not properly appreciated the true source of religious sentiments. This, he says, consists in a particular feeling which he himself is never without, which he finds confirmed by many others, and which he may suppose is present in millions of people. It is a feeling which he would like to call a sensation of 'eternity', a feeling as of something limitless, unbounded - as it were, 'oceanic'. This feeling, he adds, is a purely subjective fact, not an article of faith; it brings with it no assurance of personal immortality, but it is the source of religious energy which is seized upon by various Churches and religious systems, directed by them into particular channels, and doubtless also exhausted by them. One may, he thinks, rightly call oneself religious on the grounds of this oceanic feeling alone, even if one rejects every belief and every illusion.

The views expressed by the friend [Romain Rolland] whom I so much honour, and who himself once praised the magic of illusion in a poem, caused me no small difficulty. I cannot discover this oceanic feeling in myself.

I just think it's really *rude* not to mention presumptuous to *tell* other people what you think they believe

Definitely.

or to assign your labels to them.

Well, I don't think any of us created these labels. And words mean something, right? It's definitely frustrating to be labeled against your will. I don't think atheism needs a label, and it's definitely not an "ism." It just seems like common sense to me. But having been thus labeled, it becomes doubly frustrating when people twist the term to pervert its meaning or run from it like it's some kind of mark of shame.

Of course labels for the religious are a whole other complicated ball of wax (who is really a christian and who isn't).

"Spirituality" is a nearly indefinable word, in my experience. Like, its definition is completely and utterly idiosyncratic -- I have never seen two individuals use it to mean the same thing.

"Love" is a nearly indefinable word, in my experience. Like, its definition is completely and utterly idiosyncratic -- I have never seen two individuals use it to mean the same thing.

"Creativity" is a nearly indefinable word, in my experience. Like, its definition is completely and utterly idiosyncratic -- I have never seen two individuals use it to mean the same thing.

"Intelligence" is a nearly indefinable word, in my experience. Like, its definition is completely and utterly idiosyncratic -- I have never seen two individuals use it to mean the same thing.

Most of our *really important* words fall in this category. This does not render them meaningless.

Mind=blown.

I need to re-evaluate my whole life now.

I have respect for the fact that although loads and loads of American religious people are pushing the easy, fundamentalist answers in order to placate their flocks or raise their congregations, that my mother is sitting down and teaching a more intellectual and difficult, but more *tolerant* and conscious and conscience-based version of Christianity.

uh since you said this upthread i dont think you can take a total high ground on other people making suppositions about the beliefs of others tbf

"Justice" is a nearly indefinable word, in my experience. Like, its definition is completely and utterly idiosyncratic -- I have never seen two individuals use it to mean the same thing.

We recognise that the Court System is supposed to embody and carry out Justice, but we also recognise that when it goes wrong, that the Court System has created a "miscarriage of Justice" but that does not mean that we completely negate that there is such a thing as Justice.

I really feel a very similar thing about Religion and Spirituality. That yes, Religion frequently goes very very wrong. But that does not invalidate that "oceanic feeling" (though obviously there are people who have never felt it, like there are obviously people who have never felt, for example, "being in love".)

and im not trying to like call you out or establish an "im right yer wrong", more getting at the idea that people tend to think they arent viewing other peeps religious/spiritual views through a lens, but 99% of the time its kinda inevitable. doesnt mean the discussion isnt worth having tho. xpost

uh since you said this upthread i dont think you can take a total high ground on other people making suppositions about the beliefs of others tbf

I did not, you notice, *label* them and tell them that they WERE NOT CHRISTIAN the way that some people on this thread are trying to tell me that I MUST BE ATHEIST because I've done a bit of questioning. Do you understand the difference?

I'm not trying to be all "don't tell me what to think" but seriously, labelling and shouting at someone "YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, ADMIT IT!" really doesn't win anyone over, in fact, it drives people in the opposite direction. It's a really misguided tactic.

Instead of telling people what they are, or what they think, it's a much better idea to try and identify the common ground *and* the differences between the two points of view to see if/where they can align. That is the way that you can actually bring about any kind of change.

I don't think it is possible to be a literal "without god" atheist and therefore I feel you shouldn't be disqualified simply for having any kind of faith. The term becomes more useful and less stigmatized when applied to people who practice skepticism, which is a totally normal behavior and something that ought to be a social norm.

Obviously people will be resistant to this new world order, so I am preparing a series of comic booklets, tracts if you will, that will cultivate the idea that you are all secret atheists through amusing stories, mostly involving truckers.

I did not, you notice, *label* them and tell them that they WERE NOT CHRISTIAN the way that some people on this thread are trying to tell me that I MUST BE ATHEIST because I've done a bit of questioning.

Only one person said that, and in not in reference to you, I don't think. But yeah, I think the idea of 'tests' to see if you are 'really atheist' when you think you're not, uh, that idea is incredibly stupid.

well phil as a hardcore atheist fuck your new definition tbqh

yeah but i think lots of people that identify as fundamentalists would be equivalently offended by someone describing their religious views as "easy" or a means towards placation or growing the church coffers. again, not gunning for a fight, but every worldview seems to carry its biases and intolerences, and one doesnt really outweigh another imo xxxpost

xpost i'm more of a milquetoast atheist

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/real_stuff/ReadingLevelByReligion.png

lol is that from okcupid

This isn't a question of "offending" so can we please take that word off the table, because it's about self definitions vs. being defined by others.

Yes, OK, I recognise that my description of Fundamentalism was itself lazy and probably pretty offensive to some of the Christians I grew up with. Fair enough. But being not-lazy, part of my problem with that way of thinking is the ease with which they hurl "NOT CHRISTIAN!" at people who don't believe the same as they do. It's an ugly way of acting, to un-name someone. (To use L'Engle's term.) I just do not understand why Skeptics, again and again, seem to imitate the most unpleasant aspects of that which they claim to be fighting against.

I've tried to explain this on here before I think but I identify as atheist not agnostic not because I'm certain that there is no "God" - I don't believe there is, in any intelligent design/unmoved mover sense, but hey never rule anything out as a possibility - but because I am certain that none of the great monotheistical religions have a correct conception of "God", and anyway I'd reject each of those versions even if you could prove to me that one of them was true.

And a lot of this revolves around great religions has being hugely contested sites of struggle but I wonder at what distance from the "centre" it's rational to insist that you belong to a church - like, how many unCatholic beliefs can you hold and still call yourself a Catholic?

self-described loosely Presbyterian drunk

this is not contributing to this discussion but i had to post this hilarious rapture image somewhere:

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8gjawvReL1qzbqf4o1_500.png

Everyone going to heaven and that guy's taking the moment to scope out a crafty upskirt.

Glad that anatomically unlikely blonde up front did a few hits of E before getting Raptured.

elmo that is wonderful

"I'd reject each of those versions even if you could prove to me that one of them was true."
Does not compute... Error Error... *smoking gears*

You have converted me. I am now a born-again Snatchist.

I don't think it is possible to be a literal "without god" atheist

WTF?

yeah that's a strange one tbh

I assume the sentiment behind that is that religion so thoroughly permeates human culture that it is impossible to live your life without internalizing some aspect of their teachings, because most if not all human societies drastically intermingle their religious codes and their moral codes?

well basically I don't think it's possible as a human being to purge yourself of superstitious thought because that just seems to be the way our brains operate, so an unseen mover is always going to be there lurking in your cognition.

I wish there were something between the first two. I'm agnostic but I have reached conclusions about the place of religion in my life, plus I'm only agnostic about the existence of God/gods in a very broad sense (I'm convinced Christianity is false and that the all powerful/all good God of classical theism doesn't exist). I'm functionally an atheist: I'm agnostic but I'm not searching and the possibility that there is a god or gods doesn't normally figure into my decision making.

(at a very quick glance over the thread I guess I'm kind of like Noodle Vague)

I decided to go with the first choice.

it's not like i've done extensive reading on this, but lately i'm really stuck on the idea of capital-I Ideas as "animal spirits" that have a life of their own, have their own conflicts, and "use" people to enact those conflicts. i guess you could call this "ideology".

we think that people, as individuals, have ideas, and some of those ideas they hold in common with other people. i wonder if it's backwards; i sometimes think that its ideas that "have" people, masses of people, sometimes in common with other ideas. religious systems are sets of ideas, overlapping with and contesting with other sets, and carrying people with them through history.

this probably comes from some ted talk i watched once or something.

well basically I don't think it's possible as a human being to purge yourself of superstitious thought because that just seems to be the way our brains operate, so an unseen mover is always going to be there lurking in your cognition.

I still don't see what that has to do with god. Atheism means that you don't believe in any gods. I personally don't believe that any gods exist, therefore I'm an atheist. My brain still may or may not be drawn to certain superstitious thoughts (I'm not really convinced that that's scientifically true, but whatever) but that doesn't have anything to do with a god. You're saying that since our brain chemistry is an "unseen mover" we have to call it god?

i mean that heuristics that form the basis of cognition commit you to believing in magic on some level -- it's a shortcut -- you'd be forever examining causal chains otherwise. Purely rational thought is computationally expensive. Whether you personify the source of this magic as a bearded dude or an amorphous cloud is a cosmetic detail.

It's basically "there's no atheists in foxholes" but everywhere is a foxhole, which is why I feel a commitment to skepticism ought to be the defining characteristic, not degrees of belief or non-belief.

so there's literally no in between from behaving like a computer to believeing in magic

huh.

well... computers are binary, so it makes some amount of sense until you realize that it's totally wrong

*please wait while darraghmac computes the most rational answer out of all possible combinations*

most of the advanced tasks we set computers to do rely on hand-waving heuristics, too, so it's not like they're off the hook either.