ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Also, I haven't seen anyone on this thread actually argue that "people would be less likely to be shitty to each other if they were not able to justify this shittiness as divinely inspired" but go ahead and keep tilting at strawmen.

there's a natural mindset against introducing weird things (toxins) into your body. I feel like Scientology codifies and amplifies this mindset to an unhealthy degree, with the narrative of (and I'm not sure it's really spiritual or something they claim physically exists) struggle against these invasive presences.

re: "blind adherence to something you hold as an article of faith"
what constitutes religion if not this? I don't think it's just for added color that people say things like "football is a religion to me"
institutions with these properties are functionally religions. they have rituals, articles of faith, regular services, communion, opposing forces, sometimes wanton ecstatic experiences.

re: communism
which of those experiments were carried in good faith and not actually de facto theocracies?

BTW, I don't think such an experiment could or should be carried out without the presence of churches, particularly in the US.
Ideally you would have at least 4 distinct sects in close proximity. (There's some weird game theory/social dynamic thing where two or three groups are unstable and fall into in-fighting, but four groups are somehow the magic number for harmony)

I haven't seen anyone on this thread actually argue that "people would be less likely...

um, wk, I was quoting Phiip Nunez. From this thread.

Now, as for whether these experiments were carried out in "good faith", this seems to presuppose that the elimination of religious belief, whenever it is attempted, must be done in some kindly or humanitarian manner, or it is untrue to itself. I'm not certain that is inherent.

And for calling these brutal dictatorships "de facto theocracies", this seems to conflate all dictatorship with theocracy, and to give theocracy then definitional primacy, whether or not god, divinity or religion is incorporated in the "theocracy", which seems like an odd approach.

um, wk, I was quoting Phiip Nunez. From this thread.

Yes, I know. I was responding to him as well. He was saying "it takes a leap of faith to believe that..." and then proceeded to lay out an argument that nobody was making.

I realize now that it seems like I was responding to you, but actually I meant it as a continuation of your WTF to Philip.

well I would like to make that argument, then!

"this seems to conflate all dictatorship with theocracy"

true, I don't feel there's any functional difference between god-emperor and president-for-life.

In which case, I would suggest that the salient feature is the dictatorship, and not the theology, since the theology seems optional, while the dictatorial power is not.

well I would like to make that argument, then!

Oh I see. I was totally confused as to which side you were coming from after the "I don't think it is possible to be a literal "without god" atheist" stuff.

xp

...which would result in those governments being 'de facto dictatorships', which condemnation of them, while apt and truthful, is not exactly relevant to the point I was making, which had to do with the experiment of doing away with religion and its bearing on whether that made people less shitty to one another..

I don't think you can be a dictator without some kind of organizing principle (i.e. theocracy), an implicit "God/Destiny speaks through Me" narrative that your subjects must sign on to.

re: literal "without god" atheist, I don't think it's possible to be one -- which is why purging churches is exactly the wrong approach. if anything, you need a multiplicity of churches.

Pretty sure you're the only one here that's advocated anything even remotely like "purging churches."

I think I see the problem here. The "extreme, hardcore, obnoxious, whatever" atheists are not debating the existence of god. They're debating the value of religion. In my opinion, religion is the primary problem in the world

Yes, I think we have discovered the problem here. As far as the value of religion, it seems the subjective value is only answerable by theists, and the social value is another question. I think looking around the world, with widespread diseases, poverty, war, exploitation etc. and seeing religion as the primary cause is pure superstition - what possible tests, data or hypothesis could be devised to demonstrate this? Religions have had many different functions and relation to society throughout history, yet the world always seems to have contained unhappiness and suffering, without varying in relation to religion but to the socio-economic relations withing that society. There's 'more' religion in the USA than there is in Italy, so which has more problems? Could I correlate Church attendance to life expectancy? The whole idea has so many problems that it's hard to know where to start. Religions, of course, are not shy about causing or exacerbating problems in the world, but (as I suggested upthread) churches function and behave within the confines of capitalism (or the prevailing socio-economic system) rather than the other way around.

otm

"Primary problem" was an ill considered way to phrase it. I should have said "the problem that personally concerns me the most." Which even then would probably be an exaggeration. I just bristled at your earlier suggestion that when atheists bring these things up it's somehow an ad hominem attack against the existence of god, and that you have no time to deal with the topic because you're more concerned about "real problems."

"what possible tests, data or hypothesis could be devised to demonstrate this?"

if you took two roughly equivalent geographical areas and treated them as longitudinal twin case study might be worth doing.
Like haiti/barbados.

also i think atheists are better suited to determine the subjective value as many of them were once believers.

As far as the value of religion, it seems the subjective value is only answerable by theists,

And yet theists continually try to judge the subjective value of atheism re: "comfort", "values", etc.

- what possible tests, data or hypothesis could be devised to demonstrate this? Religions have had many different functions and relation to society throughout history, yet the world always seems to have contained unhappiness and suffering, without varying in relation to religion but to the socio-economic relations withing that society.

I don't think the problem is as difficult as you make it out to be. Yes statements like "religion is the root of all evil" are certainly impossible to defend objectively. But we can certainly judge individual church actions, policies, and their effects.

There's 'more' religion in the USA than there is in Italy, so which has more problems?

The church as a systemic power is much bigger in Italy obviously.

Could I correlate Church attendance to life expectancy?

Yes, you can. There are studies that show such correlations and we can easily separate out such factors from anti-gay policies or whatever.

The whole idea has so many problems that it's hard to know where to start.

Well, I disagree. I feel like overall, theists make some vague claims about religion's benefits and ask us to overlook any negatives, as though all religion was some undefinable whole and we have to take or leave it all. Conversely, some atheists may seem content to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But the religious haven't made very strong arguments in favor of the baby's cuteness and they seem awfully concerned with defending the potability of the bathwater as well.

x-posts

I think we were just arguing part each other, wk - by no means do I think that is the only reason atheists bring up real world effects of religion; there is a lot to criticize in that field, after all. But atheism is surely different from being irreligious, or anti-religious. When I first began to believe in God I was still anti-religion, as I had been when I was an atheist. And as for my concern about "real problems" (which I understand you found smug), I guess I feel that a problem should be solved because it's a problem, and not because of who caused it. Hence AIDS in Africa is a problem not because it's exacerbated by Catholicism but because it's destroying lives - and malaria in Africa deserves attention for the same reason, although as far as I'm aware no religion has any big problems with mosquito nets (maybe Jainism? The treated nets don't kill mosquitos, do they? /stupid).

And yet theists continually try to judge the subjective value of atheism re: "comfort", "values", etc.

Theists who do so are wrong, imo.

"churches function and behave within the confines of capitalism (or the prevailing socio-economic system)"
I don't know if they are so neatly separable, at least in the US. They're both so woven into the tapestry of each other.
and on even a basic organizational unit of civilization, churches and marketplaces serve very consonant purposes.
getting a bunch of people together, exchange of goods/services, providing a framework for transactions

dowd is my kind of theist, wkiw in a heartbeat

Re: capitalism, communism and religion...

One of the lessons of communism to me is that religion is one of the most powerful and useful methods of social control and you can't easily replace it with propaganda and brutal military oppression. As Philip says, capitalism and religion are so intertwined that I don't know how you could mount an effective critique of capitalism while ignoring one of the biggest moneymaking schemes in history. Has the strange biblical literalism in the U.S. shaped the attitudes of global warming denying politicians, or have the forces of big oil merely take advantage of these people as useful dupes? How do you get away with vast economic inequality without promising something better in the next life?

Well, the place I live is mostly a military base, and it's the airshow this weekend, so I'm going out for one last pint before I get overrun by creepy little men with binoculars and band-scanners, and will be similarly frustrated/busy all weekend, so I'll bow out of the discussion here - been given plenty to think about anyway, especially by those on the (apparent) opposite side. Later.

x-post I'll need to think about that, in a hurry, but certainly religion functioned well (and had a more controlling role) under feudalism.

But atheism is surely different from being irreligious, or anti-religious.

Yes, definitely. I'll admit to being both atheist, and anti-religious.

I guess I feel that a problem should be solved because it's a problem, and not because of who caused it. Hence AIDS in Africa is a problem not because it's exacerbated by Catholicism but because it's destroying lives -

Absolutely, but how do you then solve a problem in the face of continuous systemic opposition to the solution, or outright denial of the problem? How do you get someone to wear a condom when god is telling them not to?

I don't know, but getting Catholicism to become more secular as their leadership dies off feels like a more tractable solution than converting people away from it. I think there's plenty of room for influence within the church. At least that's the sense I get from reading an article about the weird circumstances that caused them flip/flop on the birth control pill issue.

I'm Catholic -- Catholicism leaves you, not the other way around.

Anyway: I am a hardcore atheist. I don't want to go anywhere near a house of worship unless it's for my gay wedding.

Could I correlate Church attendance to life expectancy?

Yes, you can. There are studies that show such correlations and we can easily separate out such factors from anti-gay policies or whatever.

sorry, not been keeping up with the conversation, but are you saying that if you go to church you live longer, and if so, how?

sorry, not been keeping up with the conversation, but are you saying that if you go to church you live longer, and if so, how?

I believe there have been longevity studies that have shown exceptional longevity within certain religious communities. But there are also indications that longevity is connected to family and a sense of community, where elders are valued and still feel like they have something to contribute. So while there may be a correlation between religion and longevity, I seriously doubt there's any causation there.

oh yeah could believe that- in catholicism it's very likely that you'll take steps to avoid the final judgement for as long as fuckin possible, for instance

Hellfire sermon in Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man to thread!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Can I please vote hardcore atheist twice?

Especially after this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515, which is a little strong coming from someone who was with the Hitler jugend himself - he must have seen the German army's "Gott mit uns" slogan up close at the time, one would imagine: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Coat_of_arms_of_Prussia_1933.svg .

which is a little strong coming from someone who was with the Hitler jugend himself

Every 14-year-old boy in Germany was in the Hitler Youth by law, it's not like he went out of his way to sign up.

Still bad form to pull Godwin's Law on atheism all the same.

Ok, I stand corrected on that Hitler jugend membership - it's just that I'm a little, let's say frustrated, at what's going on at the moment (Belgium is in a massive catholic pedophile scandal and popes going around saying pedophilia is a disease (so nobody's responsible and those damned priests are victims as well) isn't helping at all).

how well did Catholicism acquit itself re: the Hitler situation? It seems like there were strains of conscience perking within the laity, like the guy in valkyrie, but not reading too many flattering things about the clergy at the time.

pretty badly

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaW-eSmOOK_Uh41TmhwcAe3PGYf2i2VvALYcy2f7nQNILvv1I&t=1&usg=__zhej1ZQbEDKF-unk6JlMPt0bgK4=

just hangin out, salutin der fuehrer

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxYWn4JNv64Sp6Ed4Rw6HDqZ3g4-ojnx3dYpwWKM-gFeU2KbY&t=1&usg=__oFEtExE2KxrMq94lni5nxTU9T74=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0xgy3dzl6To1TcI-0jor433zb8mTJXZl89AIqM7EMigZOqm8&t=1&usg=__lmRoVSqYxR7NI2Y2-yOWurcdSOI=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYdNDDEA6xleyGPHJsjaKnrvEzksHS5XTURc6Fut5f2cZSaLs&t=1&usg=__YgAwFQc5TfJROkDnuBpCGNm7xJA=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTPOP5MLWC4ivY6rElXSw-ABmig1cNibKqtsK2OVj95eGOWdo&t=1&usg=__yLPvUTknoaxJn9IIUoj-Fzn4v30=

Those evil soldiers are doing the Nazi salute, the holy saints are replying with the completely innocent Roman salute.

unchill complicit-in-genocide pontiff bro

just some bros waving at each other

tbf, Pope John Paul's speech at the wailing wall about the Holocaust and apologizing for the Church's role in it was pretty moving

(altho calling it an apology is probably an overstatement)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I0gXJZ6XmU/S6AzgHLfJ0I/AAAAAAAAAog/ksDTMUxjvoI/s1600-h/pope-benedict-nazi-salute.jpg

Huh? Not working? In case that image link really isn't working (doesn't look so at the moment), here it is on another site:

http://i53.tinypic.com/907x3l.jpg

(that's the Ratz man himself)