ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

I believe in the book of Job, I think. The world is wonderful, and then it's awful, and it all seems meaningless much of the time, but if you ask God why, his answer is going to be, "You don't get to ask that question, little one." God seems like a bit of an egotist as he explains to Job that he made everything, and Job is very small by comparison, but that's not what the writer is getting at. Imagine Job as a stand-in for all the writer's questions, and God as a stand-in not for a supreme supernatural being but instead for everything the writer is awed and cowed by, and God's speech makes perfect sense. "You do not get to ask."

Thik you're confusing 'Book of Job' with 'ILX FAQ' there

Shh! I'm trying to be all deep and shit.

I love Job - and it's interesting in that it has pretty much always (from early Judaism through the Church fathers on up) been considered an allegory, and Job not a historical figure. It's only recently that biblical literalism got a hold of some groups that this changed.

xp yeah sorry, that was a good post. Think underrated aerosmith and others have stanned hard for 'Book of Job' before too.

iirc the acceptance of the creation story in Genesis as literal started with Martin Luther, and remains primarily a feature of protestantism?

boy that guy really liked to stir it up huh

tho not having entered a discussion on theology with a priest since i was maybe 11, i couldn't give you an irish catholic perspective for certain- but i think that if asked officially they have to declare as literalists as well so not sure about it being 'mainly protestant'

I've kind of lost track of what is happening in this thread any more (I now understand that the things I was objecting to in Phil N's posts are basically some wacky misreading of atheism that not even the atheists on this thread agree with.)

Dowd has been talking a lot of sense, especially:

the debate between theists and atheists is a distraction from real problems.

Yeah, this has been my experience again and again, that it tends to divide people (who might otherwise work together on solving those problems).

I think it's quite easy for Atheists to fall into the trap of saying "religion is the cause of 90% of the world's problems!" when actually it's something more like "humanity is the cause of 90% of the world's problems" and "90% of the world's humans are the cause of the world's religions." B and C may be true, but that doesn't mean that A follows.

(And this is probably the atheist equivalent of the "how can you be moral without god?" fallacy.)

xp Martin Luther presented the creation story as being literal because he didn't think the unwashed masses understood the concept of allegory. Or, even more cynically, he understood that "it's just a story" was no way to start a revolution.

I think most Atheists are less interested in making religion a big issue as they are in saying 'religion isn't really relevant, can we please not bring it up in this context' tbph. Which is what Dowd was saying too I think, and is probably compatible enough with the 'my spirituality is a personal phenomenon' people as well.

It's weird to me that people are seemingly still continuing to insist that current christians don't *ever* stand up and say "it's a bunch of stories and allegories and Myths" given that was basically my entire education in christian schools all down the line.

Like, is Episcopalianism that weird and unusual a sect?

xp

yeah there's also (re: luther) the idea that a lot of luther's (protestism in general's?) power and authority came from bringing the bible directly to the people without church intervention- which would have made it in his interest to authenticate as much as possible the information therein i suppose.

Precisely.

Yay Protestantism, imo

"You're all individuals!"

"Yes. We are all individuals!"

Darragh, I think that religion is pretty darn relevant in a thread about people's religious (or not) experiences and beliefs. Why is it that that atheists feel they have to vent about how it's brought up in inappropriate settings, in a place where it is highly appropriate?

(This is not just about this thread, it's about every religion thread I've ever been on, across every forum I've been on, on the internet.)

Again, this is where us reasonable theists start to feel really impinged on, and start to get negative views of atheists, who come across as wanting no discussion of religious topics, ever, anywhere.

But anyway, I have to actually do some work this morning.

Oh for the love of Christ.

eh i was broadly sketching what atheists outlook on religion was in the real world, not commenting on the discussion of religion in a thread about religion, if you see what i mean.

but if it's not clear after i don't know how many posts to this thread, i'm not against "discussion of religious topics, ever, anywhere"

and i think most atheists (as i do) still find it a fascinating topic, you can't seperate it from any aspect of human history. and even to hear those with faith/belief discuss it like in this thread is a fascinating read imo.

I think it's quite easy for Atheists to fall into the trap of saying "religion is the cause of 90% of the world's problems!" when actually it's something more like "humanity is the cause of 90% of the world's problems" and "90% of the world's humans are the cause of the world's religions." B and C may be true, but that doesn't mean that A follows.

Amen.

After several of my friends and I saw that Bill Maher movie, the discussion was not so much about theology as about what percentage stuffed with fluff Bill Maher was.

(Consensus: pretty high.)

he's fucking nuts, he doesn't believe in germ theory

That's overstating a little bit, but he has said things about vaccines that are way Hollywood, imo.

BM: I don't believe in vaccinaiton either. That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp(s) was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in.

...

BM: You're in denial, about I think is a key fact, which is it is the at... people get sick because of an aggregate toxicity, because their body has so much poison in it, from the air, the water...

i think he may have rescinded somewhat under pressure. still nuts though.

Again with someone saying "Something is terribly wrong with the world, and I have decided what it is."

But let's not go there again.

it's violent video games imo

and those harlots in music videos

i do understand if (reasonable) religious people feel a bit put out with the prickliness of a large segment of the atheist population. but you have to expect some degree of backlash. atheists have been (and still are imo) treated like pariahs by, like, practically everybody who's not one.

Depends what circles you move in, I guess.

true

Religious people generally don't have to suffer responses like 'oh, you ARE NOT' and similar when they define their beliefs, and if that makes me a bit spiky, fine.

Religious people generally don't have to suffer responses like 'oh, you ARE NOT' and similar when they define their beliefs

Not sure about that. Actual Christians seem a bit thin on the ground here for instance.

suzy mega-otm

That's never happened to me, as far as I can remember

As someone who is usually the lone "theist sort of person" in a friend group of liberal atheist skeptics I can actually definitively state that Suzy *not* OTM.

kate mega-otm

admittedly my bible belt environs prob shades the way i see this issue

We're an irreligious lot this side of the pond

Just as my "snarky London media types" environs probably shades mine.

It is a "lone X in a group of Y" problem, not related to being X or being Y.

but wouldn't you say that "snarky London media types" is a relatively recent development?

Not, really, no. I mean, you have to remember that my priest mum was the first non-atheist in her Britishes (atheist, freethinker Scottishes) family for about 200 years or so.

interesting!

It's my impression that "being an atheist" has been kind of common currency within the London intelligensia type for at least 50 years, probably at least a century - Britain has, by design, since a couple of bloody civil wars, been a lot less for making-an-issue of religion (or lack thereof) than the states, but my history isn't good enough to state this with any real conviction, but it's certainly the case in bohemia and academia and has been for some time.

but wouldn't you say that "snarky London media types" is a relatively recent development?

It's not just "snarky London media types" who are irreligious in the UK! I don't think I know anyone who is esp. religious - including my mother!

(i mean really. i hope that didn't read as sarcastic)

xpost

Yeah, it's funny - I mean, pretty recently I've had the experience of making a friend who is definitely arty-intellectual type but not Londoner or snarky media type - who actually said to me "OMG, I had actually forgotten there *were* people who weren't atheists" in a way that read - I couldn't tell if she was being snarky or not, but it was definitely like... ::step back::

Kate, I'm talking about conversations with Normal People, not media people. Am completely on the money WRT my own life experiences, which I am not really interested in having judged valid or otherwise - they happen, they are what they are.

Hahahahaha Tom, just because it's never happened to you doesn't mean you won't someday enjoy the spectacle of someone less educated than you who claims to be a Christian (or, worse, that America is a Christian nation) trying to 'explain' why you're misguided or Christian, really. Evangelicals of the Benny Hinn variety also use the term 'downcast' to describe people who are not into Jebus - I love it when not terribly bright people spend time feeling sorry for me for my godlessness, generally after they've sent $39.95 to Robert Schuller or someone.