ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

I can explain rationally and politely until I'm blue in the face,

But I thought your beliefs couldn't be explained rationally?

Atheism = "there is definitely no god at all" while Agnosticism = "I don't know if there is a god"

Wrong.

or "This is an unanswerable question. This is not something that humans are even capable of finding out the answer to."

Closer. Atheism = I don't believe in any gods. Agnosticism = I don't believe that existence or non-existence of god is fundamentally knowable by humans. Agnostic Atheist = we can't really know if there's a god or not, but I don't personally believe in any (for whatever reason). Agnostic Theist = I have faith that there is a god but there can never be any proof because god is fundamentally unknowable.

re: agnostic/atheist -- didn't agnostic used to be a catchall term for atheists? i get the feeling 'atheist' came into vogue by opposing parties wanting to emphasize the 'otherness' of this POV, because agnostic sounds too reasonable on one hand and conciliatory on the other.

Other way around. "The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century." "Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869." The term atheism is so demonized that people started calling themselves agnostics because it was a seemingly kinder, gentler term that seems to imply "gee I don't really know, I'm undecided" even though that's not what it means.

guys, just walked into my building's lobby and heard a guy telling an old lady, "we need to shoot all the athiests in this country, and that's it."

And maybe atheists sometimes try to tell religious people what they believe or stereotype and categorize religious beliefs in an overly simplistic way but the same thing happens with these terms atheist and agnostic. But at least religion is a vague assortment of millions of different ideas and beliefs and the best we can hope to do is make generalizations and talk about particular beliefs. There's no excuse for misrepresenting atheism since it's a relatively simple and clearly defined idea compared to the vast spectrum of religions. It's not like there are different dogmas and shades of interpretation. It's just a simple descriptor really.

Thinking back on this whole, "Oh, only a small group of religious people really believe in 'God' as an actual person or entity" it strikes me as nonsense of the first order, and a real attempt to evade some tough truths. It's tantamount to saying that mainstream Christianity now rejects the concepts of Jesus-as-God, the Trinity and the redemption from sin that took place in the crucifixion. If that's the case, then bravo for Christianity! But I don't believe for a millisecond that it is the case.

Fair point, but there's a distinction between what people think and what the guy at the front says. If you actually asked every Christian whether they believe that's literally true, and gave them anonymity and time to reflect, I'd expect you'd get a vast range of response.

'there is a wide spectrum of belief. I know that within that spectrum, there is a *group* of people who believe that god is a literal object or person, but that small group is nowhere near representative of the entire spectrum of belief.'

It's precisely this reason that I feel atheists ought to open their tent to include everyone outside of that small group, because that, to me, represents the worldview divisions more accurately and confers upon atheism the normative status I suspect it actually has (I don't think ilxor poll results are so far out of whack with the general populace as one might suspect). If you want to call it secularism instead of atheism, that's fine, but I feel that widening the goalposts of atheism is still a worthy goal, in that in identifying with it, you also identify with a tradition of doubt (which you can find comfortable root within many aspects of church history, and I suspect that modern atheism owes some intellectual debt to early atheists who operated within the church), and this doubt would act as a moderating presence against the abuses of religion most effectively if it were inside rather than outside the gates.

Yeah, if someone is criticizing the idea of god as an omniscient being who exists somewhere and intervenes into the lives of humans, they're talking about an idea that's pretty widespread throughout world religions. Of course we all understand that there are people who have a different conception of god, but we're not necessarily talking about them. And I don't see why a criticism of the other conception of god should be offensive to people who thing god is just represents the oneness of the universe or something. But if you say that atheists are people who are arrogantly certain that god doesn't exist that's just a flat out misuse of language.

Wrong.

wk, you have such a pretty way with words.

Not only are your definitons extremely similar to Karen's, but you were unable to provide us with definitions that you are willing to endorse as correct, making your answer "wrong", too. So, why are you parading around preening yourself, as if you were "right" instead of a tiny bit less wrong, at the margins?

My guess: it's because you are an ass.

"The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century." "Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869." The term atheism is so demonized that people started calling themselves agnostics because it was a seemingly kinder, gentler term that seems to imply "gee I don't really know, I'm undecided" even though that's not what it means.

That's interesting! Was there an inverse thing happening from the 1950s-1970s? Like I'll watch old movies and there's a secular weirdo in it (played by Ronald Reagan?) and he'll say, "I'm an agnostic" and everyone nods their heads like "oh he's one of them."

Please don't bring secularism into this.it's a beautiful concept that's only going to tarnished by pulling it into somebody else's crossfire. Kind of like how 'liberal' has been ruined by three decades of name-calling.

atheists ought to open their tent

I don't see why. Atheism isn't a movement, it's just a description of a conclusion some people have reached. I'm bemused by the recent militancy about it - nobody's being coerced into religion, why the dickishness about trying to prove them wrong? Not in the UK anyway, maybe things are different in the US but I don't imagine to a massive extent. No doubt Dawkins et al save their best efforts for their campaign in Saudi.

Not only are your definitons extremely similar to Karen's, but you were unable to provide us with definitions that you are willing to endorse as correct,

I did give what I thought were correct definitions. Can you show me where I went wrong? Or can you just call me an ass? You don't see the distinction between "Atheism = "there is definitely no god at all" and "Atheism = I don't believe in any gods"? It seems like a pretty major one to me. An infant doesn't believe in any gods but doesn't think "there is definitely no god at all."

There seems to be an awful lot of agreement going on in this thread, with the arguments centering around misunderstandings of each other's positions and definitions.

Very few people arguing for a monotheistic God, and very few people arguing the 'strict atheist' position that it is completely impossible that there could be nothing outside of our current knowledge that could be conceived of as some kind of spiritual power.

setting aside its legal and cultural status, why wouldn't you consider football in every functional respect a religion?

Yeah, football is kinda like a religion/replacement for, I guess. It is the most important thing to many people. You go every week never missing a game, A result on a Saturday can affect the mood of your entire week. Star players can be worshipped.

But that wasn't what I was talking about in my original post obviously.

I sort of agree about football, though not any of those specific points - it's more about belonging to a tribe and having your worldview filtered in a particular way. But then that's only in a tiny way - it's not really any different from having a particular job, or living in a particular place.

Very few people arguing for a monotheistic God, and very few people arguing the 'strict atheist' position that it is completely impossible that there could be nothing outside of our current knowledge that could be conceived of as some kind of spiritual power

But extremely few atheists would ever say something like "it is completely impossible that there could be (something) outside of our current knowledge that could be conceived of as some kind of spiritual power" while a slight majority of the people in the world believe in one of the monotheistic gods. I don't know why we should be focused on people's beliefs within this thread rather than within the world as a whole.

wk, I certainly may call you an ass, of the debating club variety, to be more exact. Believe it or not, what works best to score points in a debating club tends to fail in discussions of a less formalized and less competitive nature.

A definite dogmatic "Wrong." (I note the dramatics implied by the period) works fine at a debater's lecturn before an audience, but just makes you look like an ass in the context of ILE. Quibbles about the beliefs of babies won't do you much good here, although I acknowledge your fine debating club skills. They say a word to the wise is sufficient. please prove yourself to be among the wise.

Wrong.

(clutches at chest, heart level, and staggers away)

Football is no more a religion than knitting or keeping bees or any other pastime. It's easy to think of it as such due to coming together of various folk with a singular focal point for their being there, but no more than saying that going to Coldplay gigs or whatevs is a form of religion.

Could you please, for just one moment, stop putting up your straw men and listen to what I have said, repeatedly on this thread:

Like Karen, I too wish I could frequent an environment where my assumptions about the world were never rudely challenged. The difference is that she has one, in real life, called "church."

1) I do not currently belong to a church. I'm pretty sure I've said that several times on this thread.

2) When I did belong to a church, as I stated repeatedly upthread, we challenged our assumptions, questioned our faith, learned about other faiths (including a history of agnosticism and atheism) every god damn day of our lives.

Please stop drawing conclusions about my life that are the diametric opposite of everything I have repeated stated about my own experiences on this thread.

Your piss-poor reading comprehension is a really bad advertisement for your world view. That's simply an observation, but it can function as an ad hominem if you want to take it as one.

I think the philosophical niceties of the argument are pretty stale these days. In the absence of any Descartes style a priori proof or disproof of God, and with everyone starting from very different bases, I don't see any possibility of progress there. Even a question like 'does God intervene in the world' is going to mean something very different to a Berkeley-an idealist and an empirical materialist. I think the social implications are of much more interest really - I mean the vague, wishy-washy 'why can't we all get along' questions. And I don't see an answer for that in terms of religion that doesn't also address it in terms of race, nationality, class etc. Maybe Banaka can help us out with those...

Karen, imo you've done an admirable job of stating and defending your own views on this subject.

At this point, you have become a target to a few, simply on the basis of your still being present, engaged, and prominent by virtue of your participation. This makes you about the only target to snipe at, for anyone inclined to do so. My advice is, don't take it personally, because those who are using you as a whipping post are viewing you impersonally, as the symbol of a position they wish to deride. The urge to do so is overriding their ability to respect you as a fellow human.

You and I know you are a person. The internet does tend to obscure this fact in the minds of some people.

Could you please, for just one moment, stop putting up your straw men and listen to what I have said

I will when you will!

I just want to know what kind of hippy-dippy church Karen went to. Mine was all hellfire and AIDs is a punishment for gays.

and that was just the Sunday School, amirite?

xp You're right about football of course, ailsa - but that's not to say that religion doesn't fulfil that function as well.

It does a lot of other things too, of course, which is at least partly what "I was raised in a religious tradition and I like to maintain at least some contact with that" meant to me. One of the things I'm interested in is religion's role in learning, or as a repository of knowledge. On the whole this has been a good thing, though you don't have to look too hard to think of where it's gone all wrong - the problem being when religion tries to determine what knowledge is or should be, I guess. Despite the best efforts of intelligent designists, this only really appears today to be a significant issue with islam. The others appear to have mostly accepted that they have to retreat gracefully before science, economics, politics, medicine, philosophy, the law, etc etc, but islam (at least in its most vocal forms) seems to be holding onto transmit mode only.

yes, and so not joking. xpost

football has the same function of religion (opium for the masses). what do you think about that ilx?

also the bible says that races shall not mix.

football? religion? same function?! (slaps forehead) eureka!

Fair point, but there's a distinction between what people think and what the guy at the front says. If you actually asked every Christian whether they believe that's literally true, and gave them anonymity and time to reflect, I'd expect you'd get a vast range of response.

Look, let's take this down to a very basic level:

1. When people pray to "God" (using quote marks here to not tie it down to a particular conception of "God" or any one "idea of God"), or say to someone, "I'll pray for you," what is it they're doing? Beseeching a particular, specific entity to perform some action? Calling upon the energy of the universe to effect a particular end? Simply hoping that the randomness of life results in a good outcome? Some of the above? None of the above?

2. When -- to limit this to the dominant US cultural narrative -- people pray "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" or "in the name of Almighty God," what are they doing then? Is it the same as or different from (1), above?

I know answers might vary by believer, but this "only a small group" thing is really bugging me, and I refuse to believe, based on my own experience every single day, that Christianity, generally speaking, has evolved into some sort of deism and does not believe in God as a specific entity, or in Christ as a real, living person/god who is the Savior of mankind. Maybe Karen's right, maybe that's how it is in the UK, but I would literally be shocked to find out it was so.

I am an agnostic in that I believe that we can never fully comprehend the nature of the universe, but I am an atheist in that I believe it is impossible for there to be gods or a God or any sort of supernatural beings with special access to & investment in this universe.

was joking about football and religion btw.

My impression of the UK was always that people believed in the Christian God, but most never really actively participated in church or prayed or followed his teachings. It was much more of cultural, we were raised in this way so why question it kind of thing.

2) When I did belong to a church, as I stated repeatedly upthread, we challenged our assumptions, questioned our faith, learned about other faiths (including a history of agnosticism and atheism) every god damn day of our lives.

In the course of any of these challenges and question, did anyone ever stand up and say, "Hmmm . . . you know, this whole thing really doesn't make any sense, see y'all later?" Or did everyone sort of come around to, "Well, if we simply define 'God' as 'X,' then I do still believe in God after all?"

What kind of a stupid question is that?

I mean, really; maybe I'm going out on a limb but I am more than reasonably certain there were instances of people leaving the church Karen went to, since it happens like all the fucking time everywhere.

but instead of the dogmatic rigidity of a standard church, this church had enough open discussion and exploration of ideas to ensure that people could intellectually rationalize their beliefs and thus never want to leave the church.

or more likely people come and go just like every other church

people could intellectually rationalize their beliefs and thus never want to leave the church

This presumes that the sole or main function of a church is to provide a framework of belief to its members. The relaitionship between a church and its members is much more complicted than that.

hey i'm just spitballing here

I thought the question was pretty simple, but maybe not. In the context of "Don't tell me I don't want my beliefs challenged, my church challenged them all the time" the question means, "Do you mean 'challenged' or do you mean 'gave you an opportunity to rationalize?'"

Because she really seems to be on a mission to convince people that either her experience is truly sui generis, or that the words "God," "person," "church," "belief" etc. mean something other than what millions and millions of people actually understand them to mean.

Not that I actually care that much, but my wife's asleep with a headache, I just did a bunch of lawn work and I'm bored. Like I said way upthread, people can believe whatever they want and by and large it's no skin off my back, I only care about what they do. But I reserve the right to think they're silly and misguided, too.

Phil you seem to me to have a really strange conception of what a church is like. It's not like it's some weird cult that people are not allowed to leave, ever. People came & went (including my family!) but more likely they'd go to another Anglican church where they liked the priest better rather than leave & not come back. Sometimes they went off & became Unitarians or Presbyterians. It was quite open.

People certainly talked & discussed & even challenged. Bible study was pretty exciting because my dad is an atheist & he was certainly encouraged to share his views. People were free to discuss. There were even huge schisms - I can remember leaving that particular church because the priest was gay & half the congregation supported him & half were trying to get his curate to replace him - we left in solidarity when the "coup" succeeded & actually the church dwindled afterwards because the curate was not as open minded & accepting as the original vicar!

When I left a few congregations down the line (& I discovered later on that the priest had really liked me because I asked so many questions in class even though they were difficult questions & didn't have answers) I was still greeted warmly by the priest when he came round for dinner with my mum. I remember him asking me for book reccommendations because he'd just read A Brief History Of Time & loved it & he knew I loved science. We had good talks for years even after I left the church.

I don't think that my experiences are in any way *uncommon*. Different denominations have different characters but mostly it's down to the charisma & character of the priest - like, one of the priests I've described in this post was Roman Catholic & the others were C of E.

You seem to have this idea of Christianity as this monolithic instititution but it varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, congregation to congregation, person to person. At least that was my experience, and within the people I knew over 3 places in 2 countries, it was FAR from unique. If your experiences of church were different, I'm sorry, but that doesn't invalidate what my & my family's & friends experiences were & are.

Karen, imo you've done an admirable job of stating and defending your own views on this subject.

I agree. I understand her point of view on religion and agree with most of it. It's the stuff about atheists being arrogant and "hardcore" about their indefensible positions (so go eat a bag of dicks) that I have a problem with. But admittedly I'm an ass, so it's probably totally unreasonable of me to be bugged about it.

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

I consider myself "spiritual but not religious" -- I'm more into, like, the poetry of the ocean at night, man

can't i have both?

Abbott pulled me up on this by email & we had a nice chat. I do NOT believe that ALL atheists are arrogant, not by a longshot! But people who like to TELL other people that their experiences or beliefs are RONG (especially when they have not listened to what those experiences ARE) - I believe those peoe are arrogant whether they are atheists or Anglicans or what!

Sorry iPhone typing. At Elephant now, have to find some aphex acid.

You seem to have this idea of Christianity as this monolithic instititution but it varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, congregation to congregation, person to person. At least that was my experience, and within the people I knew over 3 places in 2 countries, it was FAR from unique. If your experiences of church were different, I'm sorry, but that doesn't invalidate what my & my family's & friends experiences were & are.

But you seem to view atheists in a similarly monolithic way. And of course one person's experience of religion don't invalidate somebody else's experience, but it works both ways. Sometimes it is "like it's some weird cult that people are not allowed to leave, ever." Your personal experiences shouldn't invalidate that either.

xpost

I do NOT believe that ALL atheists are arrogant, not by a longshot! But people who like to TELL other people that their experiences or beliefs are RONG (especially when they have not listened to what those experiences ARE) - I believe those peoe are arrogant whether they are atheists or Anglicans or what!

I agree. But you seem to be have made this distinction of "hardcore atheists" as being the ones who are arrogant. And you've defined that as anyone who is certain that god doesn't exist. So if I'm personally certain that god doesn't exist, then I'm an arrogant hardcore atheist, right? Which is like a huge number of atheists who are probably perfectly nice people and never even discuss religion. I mean, I may be making an ass of myself on this thread, but IRL I've probably only mentioned that I'm an atheist to a handful of people ever.

oops, "doesn't invalidate"