ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

And they don't pay taxes.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual statistics on how many Churches are what you'd consider activist Churches and what percentage of religious institutions overall they constitute.

So, when we discuss religion, you consider that we are ipso facto discussing churches as institutions and their effect on society? But the effects of all the extant personal faiths has still more effect on society, in that they form a larger set of ideas, of which the other is a smaller subset. Some of those effects are decidedly quite positive. by leaving them out of the discussion, you are excluding a valid part of what you say concerns you.

"to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets"

they're not only easy targets but they're the appropriate ones, don't you think? who here has a beef with benign churches who have kept their religion in check and had the courtesy not to impose it upon the public sphere? it's because they are so polite and basically good citizens that they have less influence on radio-christ.

Forming a church, in the sense of forming a community of shared ideals, is a normal human desire. Within that church it is not necessary that each person share an exact replica of the same beliefs for the church to function correctly, and when churches fall prey to this lockstep mentality they begin to fall away from the rightful purpose of a christian church, by making invidious distinctions between their neighbors and themselves, contrary to Christ's primary commandment.

and yet there's a good 1100 years where not only did this happen, the church fought tooth and nail to ensure it was that way.

not to mention from personal experience, where I sent a good amount of time (3+ years) at 4 different denominations, all of which believed their interpretation was the only true interpretation and ran services accordingly.

Churches, like governments, or sodalities, or sewing circles, can become corrupted. With certain twists, most of the arguments made here against "religion" could as easily be made against "politics".

I think that your ideal notion of what a christian church should be happens more as an aberration than a rule in the history of the churches.

I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle.

Gukbe: corrupted governments are far far more numerous than anything even approaching an ideal government, too. (shrugs)

Abbbottt: malicious gossip and backbiting?

1) Maybe you should read the book and see the guy's research before attempting to counter it with "well, I think..." - it's available free to download, very easy to find.

2) The Church of England (where the bulk of my experiences took place) is hardly a "mom and pop indie record shop" - it's a worldwide religion with over 77 million members.

well of course, and often those corrupted governments went hand in hand with the corrupted church. that doesn't make it any better though, does it? xpost

If every church was more like the Church of England, we'd be in a pretty okay place tbh.

Gukbe: corrupted governments are far far more numerous than anything even approaching an ideal government, too. (shrugs)

This is true. Which is why I'd like to limit the corrupting factors as much as possible. Religion is one of them. Not like I'm ever going to get my wish, so can't I just be permitted to be cranky about it?

1) Maybe you should read the book and see the guy's research before attempting to counter it with "well, I think..." - it's available free to download, very easy to find.

That's fine, but still, life is a lot more goddamned complicated than just "change the radio station." For realz.

Make it better? Of course not! We are in complete agreement when it comes to most of your specifics. It is when one generalizes from the corruptions of religion to condemn religion as wholly corrupt and without value that I fall to the other side.

religion is so entrenched in politics, it'd be hard to separate out what is uniquely objectionable about politics. I suppose reasonable polite people disagreeing could lead to inaction, where religious fiat would be more effective governance.

"I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle."
me too! this PBS special on quaker industry painted the sewing activiites as pretty DIY dischord records.

It is kinda funny that in a discussion of things as complicated as human behavior and religion you're resorting to THIS BOOK! PROVEN BY STATISTICS!

xp I do not think "religion" is wholly corrupt nor have I ever said so.

"I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle."

bad thread

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd120/hipsterrunoff/photographs/hro/834af0fc.jpg

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms. This is just not as fun or easy as slagging off on fundies.

So do you think it's unfair to criticize the actions and policies of major political parties because the people who make up those parties have millions of different personal, nuanced political beliefs?

So, when we discuss religion, you consider that we are ipso facto discussing churches as institutions and their effect on society?

I think when I'm talking about churches as institutions and their effect on society, it would be nice if the religious didn't try to change the subject off into the realm of personal belief and assume that invalidates any and all criticism.

But the effects of all the extant personal faiths has still more effect on society, in that they form a larger set of ideas, of which the other is a smaller subset. Some of those effects are decidedly quite positive. by leaving them out of the discussion, you are excluding a valid part of what you say concerns you.

Personally I don't see anything of value in religion that can't be provided in a secular way so that doesn't concern me.

If I had an iPad I would totally read this Authoritarians book.

I do not think "religion" is wholly corrupt nor have I ever said so.

Phil, when a couple of lines ago you identified "religion" as a "corrupting factor" in governance, apparently you misspoke yourself and meant to say something like "corrupted religion". Again, religion is the larger set, and should not be identified solely with one of its subsets. This misstatement of yours is probably just due to a certain habit of speech and thought you can clarify in the future.

Phil D, I give up. It feels really pointless talking to someone who has already made their mind up and will not even read anything that suggests another way.

You use vast over simplifications and I try to tell you "things are more complicated than that..." and you shrug that off.

I try to explain something in a metaphor which is necessarily a simplification, and you resort to "things are more complicated than that."

If you want to read some research and make up your own mind, go ahead. If you just want to decide that you know best, then you are actually starting to sound a *lot* like the people you claim to despise.

Personally I don't see anything of value in religion that can't be provided in a secular way so that doesn't concern me.

If a value comes through the avenue of religion or of secularism, it is still of value. Please consider the idea that for some people, the avenue of religion is more open and accessible than the secular one, and if you were to try to eliminate it, you might fall prey to the law of unintended consequences.

pretty sure Christianity will be dead and gone in 500 years anyway. not sure this conversation really matters.

Thank goodness, we can all rest easy now.

what? where did this 500 years figure come from? not some bible code i hope.

random number. somewhere around then, if not before.

The Church of England (where the bulk of my experiences took place) is hardly a "mom and pop indie record shop" - it's a worldwide religion with over 77 million members.

Well not exactly the indie record store, but we're talking 77 million Anglicans vs. 1.2 billion Catholics. If the Vatican were Walmart with $400 billion a year in revenues, the CofE would make around $27 billion a year which a little more than half of the revenues of #186 on the list of the biggest corporations in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
So maybe it's more like an Apple or something?

i mean why is Xianity going to die out within 500 years. this doesn't have anything to do with singularity, does it?

re: church of england, what exactly is the monarchy's role there besides being the titular head?

DJ

i swear i saw footage of prince charles scratching decks in jamaica. it was obviously for a goof but he seemed pretty natural at it.

So maybe it's more like an Apple or something?

I HATE APPLE?

Prince Charles would make a terrible DJ, he'd spin all early disco and nothing after about '76. I mean, it'd be alright, but that's all he'd do and then he'd keep making sniffy speeches attacking Frankie Knuckles and hip-hop.

also has terrible ryhythm according to geldof's autobiography

Phil, when a couple of lines ago you identified "religion" as a "corrupting factor" in governance, apparently you misspoke yourself and meant to say something like "corrupted religion". Again, religion is the larger set, and should not be identified solely with one of its subsets. This misstatement of yours is probably just due to a certain habit of speech and thought you can clarify in the future.

No, because I can believe that religion as an institution in the public sphere is a corrupting factor in governance without believing that religion as practiced in the private sphere is at all corrupt. If you want to commune privately with your idea of the infinite, fine, no skin off my back. If you want government to be a certain way -- whatever way that is! even if it's something I like! -- because God Told Us To, I have a real problem with that.

But screw you and your condescension anyway JFTR.

You use vast over simplifications and I try to tell you "things are more complicated than that..." and you shrug that off.

When did I do this? I have repeatedly acknowledged that things are complicated. Again and again and again. I mean, if I did that, quote me, don't just keep accusing me of shit! Because you are, quite simply, wrong. I have not "shrugged off" anything.

I try to explain something in a metaphor which is necessarily a simplification, and you resort to "things are more complicated than that."

Because they are!

I was pointing out the irony of you trying to resort to science and statistics to prove something regarding religion, an endeavor -- i.e., "proof" -- that you assured us above was fruitless. It's funny, and I'm truly sorry if you don't get it.

Yeah, I don't get that. There's a word of difference to me between an institution being a "corrupting factor" in some part of our lives and being "completely corrupt". And neither of those things have much to do with an institution's value either IMO. There are corrupt institutions that are very valuable to society and totally innocent institutions that are useless.

oops, that was a 3x xpost

The only valuable institutions are those that serve to venerate God and bring awareness of His Word to all of Creation.

If you want government to be a certain way -- whatever way that is! even if it's something I like! -- because God Told Us To, I have a real problem with that.

yes! and it's not just the atheists/agnostics who have a right to feel pissed about this, but also people of other faiths than those imposing these changes.

TBQH I cannot for the life of me figure out why you're so pissed off at me, when you've engaged repeatedly in all the things you're actually accusing me of doing. (Oversimplifying, misstating my positions, dismissing my experiences as either not valid or nonexistent, etc.) Do you want me to simply concede all your arguments, such as they are? Because I'm not going to do that, nor am I going to concede in advance that one particular book -- be it the Bible or The Authoritarians -- proves anything at all. Making the reading of one particular book, whatever it is, a condition of discussing Politics And Religion On The Ground In America 2010 -- when I and others both religious and otherwise actually live it every day -- is the kind of dogmatic approach I, and I hope you, actually oppose.

I'm sorry that the thread you started to discuss the book didn't get any love, but that's not my problem. Doesn't give you the authority (<----NOTE, A JOKE HA HA) to turn this thread into a referendum on the damned book.

verily, men's hearts are full of Wickedness

There is no god, but in the future a state equivalent to God might be achieved. Technology will have advanced the New Society to a level beyond current comprehension.

i like where this thread is going

yeah, playstation 4 is gonna kick ass.

xpost

http://nazareneblogs.org/kpprobst/files/2010/07/oopinin.jpg

Lol, I guess this is the debating style that has endeared Christianity to so many of you.

But screw you and your condescension anyway JFTR.

I like a man who speaks his mind.

If we're looking for consensus, though, this thread is actually pretty good. I think everyone here, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believes that secularism is a goal we wish to see fulfilled in our societies, right? If that is the case (and sorry if I forgot someone who doesn't wish this), is that all the strong atheists here want? Or would you like to be actively dissuading people from religious beliefs? Because if we do just want secularism, then as far as the social or policy implications of faith we're all on the same page.

How to achieve this is another question. Ironically, I think that Britain, while less religious as a whole, will have a more complicated job ensuring that the state plays no role in religious life. This is, of course, because of the monarchy and it's peculiar relationship with the established church. Because the church, the monarchy, and therefore the state are constitutionally entangled it's hard to see a way to disentangle them without widespread republican reforms.

Maybe if Labour had pushed through on their promises to replace the House of Lords we would have seen the momentum carry through to the elimination of the monarchy (I doubt it, actually), but I think we might have missed the chance on reform for this generation - other concerns are too pressing for constitutional change to occur.

America, at least, has a tradition of secularism (even if large parts of the population won't admit that) and I do sometimes find myself wondering if the religious right is something of a paper tiger. Either way, people do seem to be getting more confident about standing up for their right to live without interference from someone else's religious beliefs, and I see no reason why this tendency shouldn't continue to grow. Secularism in America could occur now, if it was anyone's priority, with the passing of some tax reforms, guarantees of educational independence etc. Admittedly a lot of these problems are hampered by ideas about states' rights, and I don't expect them to happen anytime soon, but I really don't see much cause for pessimism in regard to secular reform. Obviously my ignorance of the USA will show through here, and hopefully someone can help me understand the hindrances to reform a bit better.

But I do think the idea of State protection of religious sensibilities is dying out, and will continue to do so. This is probably why some activist religious groups have got 'whatever religious undergarments they wear' in a twist of late. It's important to recognize how much we all agree on this - politically if not personally. As I said upthread, I think religions lose out by being complicit in the State too.

Anyway, tl:dr, I know, I know - I'm bored and haven't slept, sorry.