ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1397 of them)

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.

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:00 (fifteen years ago)

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?

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:02 (fifteen years ago)

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.

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:03 (fifteen years ago)

Precisely.

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:04 (fifteen years ago)

Yay Protestantism, imo

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:06 (fifteen years ago)

"You're all individuals!"

"Yes. We are all individuals!"

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:07 (fifteen years ago)

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.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:07 (fifteen years ago)

Oh for the love of Christ.

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:08 (fifteen years ago)

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.

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:09 (fifteen years ago)

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"

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:11 (fifteen years ago)

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.

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 10:12 (fifteen years ago)

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.

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:25 (fifteen years ago)

(Consensus: pretty high.)

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:34 (fifteen years ago)

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

ledge, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:38 (fifteen years ago)

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

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:44 (fifteen years ago)

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.

ledge, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:53 (fifteen years ago)

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

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:55 (fifteen years ago)

But let's not go there again.

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:56 (fifteen years ago)

it's violent video games imo

Bo Jackson Cruise Control (San Te), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:26 (fifteen years ago)

and those harlots in music videos

Bo Jackson Cruise Control (San Te), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:26 (fifteen years ago)

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.

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:50 (fifteen years ago)

Depends what circles you move in, I guess.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:53 (fifteen years ago)

true

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:54 (fifteen years ago)

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.

maintenant avec plus de fromage (suzy), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:57 (fifteen years ago)

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.

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 13:59 (fifteen years ago)

suzy mega-otm

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:02 (fifteen years ago)

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

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:03 (fifteen years ago)

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.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:04 (fifteen years ago)

kate mega-otm

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:04 (fifteen years ago)

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

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:05 (fifteen years ago)

We're an irreligious lot this side of the pond

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:06 (fifteen years ago)

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.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:07 (fifteen years ago)

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

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:09 (fifteen years ago)

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.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:10 (fifteen years ago)

interesting!

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:14 (fifteen years ago)

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.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:14 (fifteen years ago)

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!

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:15 (fifteen years ago)

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

xpost

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:15 (fifteen years ago)

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::

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:17 (fifteen years ago)

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.

maintenant avec plus de fromage (suzy), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:18 (fifteen years ago)

Having a self-confessed believer like Tony Blair as Prime Minister was considered weird in the UK. No idea who the last openly religious PM we had before that? Possibly in the 19th century.

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:18 (fifteen years ago)

i do understand if (reasonable) religious people feel a bit put out with the prickliness of a large segment of the atheist population.

i dunno about it being a 'large segment of' really.

unless you'd contend that reasonable religious people by % is somehow higher than reasonable atheist people by %, which I don't know how you'd measure.

k¸ (darraghmac), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:20 (fifteen years ago)

Cake or death?

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 14:21 (fifteen years ago)

admitting atheism where i am was essentially tantamount to saying "i eat babies" until prob the last 30 years or so. and still like o_O

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:21 (fifteen years ago)

i do understand if (reasonable) religious people feel a bit put out with the prickliness of a large segment of the atheist population lots of vocal atheists

went overboard trying to do the Soul Train → (will), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:23 (fifteen years ago)

I don't generally hand out the pricklies unless someone of faith says something really dumb or emotional-blackmaily to me about my lack of faith. My favourite response is generally 'according to your religion it's blasphemy to use God as an inducement like that. Am I worth BLASPHEMY?'

maintenant avec plus de fromage (suzy), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:23 (fifteen years ago)

i've not been harassed recently for my atheism, but then again I don't actively advertise it either. I will say in my life I've been persecuted more by religious sects than I've ever done persecuting.

Bo Jackson Cruise Control (San Te), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:24 (fifteen years ago)

I think that much of Britain is so far the other way that pretty much admitting anything beyond "yeah, I go to Church on Christmas/Easter, for the kids, really, you understand, but I'm not *overtly* religious" is viewed on with - not so much suspicion, but some kind of "tall poppies" in reverse thing. We don't really want to be seen as too much, too emotional, extraordinary in any way, it's viewed with the same mistrust as showing off, really.

cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:25 (fifteen years ago)

I find that it's much easier to tell white-ish lies and nod and smile than to actually engage casual acquaintances in religious conversation. I've rarely had anyone get pushy about the topic, if ever. Among friends, it's still kind of a non-issue. On the scale of intimate things that friends talk about, there are usually more interesting things than our ill-defined, non-standard religious beliefs. I have religious conversations with my very closest friends and ILX. And that's it. Apart from that, nobody asks and I don't tell.

kenan, Friday, 10 September 2010 14:36 (fifteen years ago)

Yes, considered all a bit "American" or "European/Catholic" (xp)

Tom A. (Tom B.) (Tom C.) (Tom D.), Friday, 10 September 2010 14:36 (fifteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.