On reincarnation of God

[Farm Boy]

Anything to muddy the categories. Like how Michael Moore lies. Or any number of other people. I just wanted to pick on the fat socialist weasel(that called the 2016 election right).

 

[Modder_Mode]

What policies? Build the wall, give tons more money to an already bloated military? I think it was 90% cult of personality, I don't think anyone's shocked he didn't accomplish most of his promises, it was just about being caught up in the moment.

The wall, economy, standing up to China especially on economic issues and the general push-back on some of the crazy left wing ideas was attractive.

We can all throw quotes around!

For example here is a (non Christian) review of his most famous work.

“Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy.” - From a review by the Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy on Richard Dawkin’s book the God Delusion.

And here is a more fun quote from comedian Marcus Brigstocke “I was an atheist when I started reading The God Delusion. By the time I’d finished it, I was an agnostic. I was going to read it again, but I was worried I might turn into a fundamentalist Christian.”

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I think he's a bit cowardly, he generally picks on Christianity a lot more than any of the other religions, but that quote of his can in some sense sum up the old testament, not that I have much against Christianity, I have a lot of respect for the religion.

 

[Gorbles]

he generally picks on Christianity a lot more than any of the other religions

He does? I'm pretty sure for the past however long he's been very into the idea of criticising Islam. Well, "criticising". Having meltdowns at kids on social media is a form of criticism I guess.

 

[El_Machinae]

His first foray was into the incoherence of YEC beliefs. But when he pivoted to discussing the evils of the various faiths, fundamentalist Islam rocketed up higher on his list.

 

[Narz]

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I think he's a bit cowardly, he generally picks on Christianity a lot more than any of the other religions

You're less likely to get killed than messing w Islam

 

[Hygro]

I will say this, that the art, music, poetry and architecture of the deeply religious is often well beyond that of the those who are not.

I'm jumping in the conversation here but unless you are defining deeply religious in an unusual way, no I don't think so.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm jumping in the conversation here but unless you are defining deeply religious in an unusual way, no I don't think so.

If you go back several centuries the church was a major patron. Michelangelo and Da Vinci may or may not have been deeply religious but religious artwork was their bread and butter.
Not true for poetry though IMO.

 

[Hygro]

Great art was supported by the only institution that many people could agree on to add great art to. But like you said, we don't know if those artists were deeply religious in any different way than we could call great 20th/21st century artists religious.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Great art was supported by the only institution that many people could agree on to add great art to. But like you said, we don't know if those artists were deeply religious in any different way than we could call great 20th/21st century artists religious.

By the church and rich patrons.

 

[Hygro]

Rich patrons aren't artists.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No but they allowed and paid for religious art to be created.

 

[Farm Boy]

Only a subset of things that are beauty with meaning get called "art." It's sort of arrogant term, really.

 

[Gorbles]

You're less likely to get killed than messing w Islam

Dawkins bingo! Double ones!

(I don't know bingo but I know nonsense united statistics when I see them)

 

[El_Machinae]

No but they allowed and paid for religious art to be created.

Now that art is more democratised, I wonder if this is still true? Like, of the modern art, is the religiously inspired art "well beyond"?

It might be that there's a bit of selection bias going on. The religions had wealth and thought the most useful thing to do with that wealth was to create beautiful things. Whereas, other entities more valued "useful" expenditures. So, it's not like the religiously inspired are was 'better' because it was religiously inspired, but because it was funded.

Now that funding is more dispersed, "well beyond" is better associated with the funding than anything else. The movie industry could be a good example. That said, art that touches the numinous will still pull at my heart in ways that I can't explain with words, but my tear ducts know what to do. Arrival took my breath away for weeks. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once left me looking for my heart on the floor of the theatre for fear it had leaped out of my body. But I'd not call them 'religious'.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Now that art is more democratised, I wonder if this is still true? Like, of the modern art, is the religiously inspired art "well beyond"?

It might be that there's a bit of selection bias going on. The religions had wealth and thought the most useful thing to do with that wealth was to create beautiful things. Whereas, other entities more valued "useful" expenditures. So, it's not like the religiously inspired are was 'better' because it was religiously inspired, but because it was funded.

Now that funding is more dispersed, "well beyond" is better associated with the funding than anything else. The movie industry could be a good example. That said, art that touches the numinous will still pull at my heart in ways that I can't explain with words, but my tear ducts know what to do. Arrival took my breath away for weeks. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once left me looking for my heart on the floor of the theatre for fear it had leaped out of my body. But I'd not call them 'religious'.

Now that art is democratized, we have much much more of it and much more to wade through to figure out what is worthwhile. Since religion is no longer the major focus of Art, we have had lots of equally good/even better in some cases secular art. Passions change so artists have much "broader canvases" to work with. Sure we get tons of crap (maybe it will be great later though) because anyone with a bit of spare time can try their hand at creating art. In addition, it is hard to predict what those 100 years in the future will deem fabulous enough from late 20th and early 21st C to worth paying for.

The globalization and digitalization of everything, including our lives, will remake the world in way we cannot imagine. At the moment, I think, we are mostly overwhelmed (collectively and often individually) by the world we are making. Art as well is transitioning.

 

[EvaDK]

The Renaissance artists made some of the most stunning works I have seen with my own eyes. Regardless of the religious merits of the art, the Renaissance effectively ended Catholicism's grasp on Europe and paved the way for The Reformation, Protestantism, the printing press, scientific research and free thought.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Only a subset of things that are beauty with meaning get called "art." It's sort of arrogant term, really.

Then theres the divide between high and low art or between arts and crafts.
If it is easily accessible its low art, if its useful as well as beautiful its craft.
Both are lesser than high art, art for arts sake, at least to those who consider them selves the elite.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Dawkins bingo! Double ones!

(I don't know bingo but I know nonsense united statistics when I see them)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

yeah, u r right. atheism is too broad and diverse to be classified as a religion.
it's like human has three ethnics: "north californian, south californian, and others"
atheism should be represented as a family of beliefs, consisting of religious ones and non-religious ones.

Whut? If it's not a religion, it's certainly absurd to classify it as a "family of beliefs."

i suspect a substantial % of christians/islam/etc could not tell you precisely how the world would look different under the hypothetical of god existing vs not existing...aka listing the specific things we'd expect to see differently depending on that point, holding everything else equal. in this sense, people's actions don't differ much from atheists, day to day.

I have to laugh whenever someone sneers at me, for my "atheist lifestyle." My lifestyle is no different from that of any other person in whatever subgroup or demographic I'm in. The only relevant difference is the lack of religious rituals and gatherings.

I will say this, that the art, music, poetry and architecture of the deeply religious is often well beyond that of the those who are not.

Oh?

"Beyond" in what way? Art is something that is in the senses of the beholder.

That said, I'm glad you think my avatar is in the realm of "beyond." It's one of the most beautiful representations of the cat-form of Bastet I've ever seen - and it's based on a cross-stitch project. Whoever designed it was incredibly talented.

Lol, back in the day maybe, that's cause the church would pay your bills if you create art for the cathedrals. Draw some elephant God instead and you'll probably be killed. Draw a bowl of fruit and you probably won't have any $ for actual fruit.

What you said certainly doesn't hold true for modern times.

It depends on where you create the art. Draw the elephant god in a temple where the people worship elephants, and they'd probably pay something.

In spite of paintings of bowls of fruit being really boring to look at, there seems to be a lot of them that were created. One of the game series I have is Pixel Art, and I've done a LOT of still-life pictures of bowls of fruit. I wouldn't buy any for my RL walls, but I guess some people would.

I said "deeply religious" and not Christian. I would include all of those things from all around the world and through time. If by "modern times" you mean the last 200 years or so, that is only a tiny slice of historical time. Cathedral like buildings were usually paid for by rich churches or governments but those are not the sum total of religious artistry. Regardless of who paid for any such art, the artist or artists involved were expressing religious belief in their work. Did you miss my point entirely? Deep religious belief can produce awesome art in all its forms.

Were they, though? You don't actually need to be religious to produce religion-themed art. Did the person who created the needlework design my avatar was based on worship Bastet? I rather doubt it. They probably like Egyptian art and cats, though, and would have made some money from the design and sale of the kits.

Someone once commissioned me to make a set of Christmas angels. It was a custom order, unique, and she was very happy with the results, to the extent of asking for several more. Did I need to be Christian to do a good job with them? No. Did I huff and complain that I, as an atheist, would refuse to make religious-themed items? No. I did the opposite of those bigoted bakers with the "gay wedding cakes" nonsense, and behaved like a professional.

No doubt. I like some hymns n stuff. But certainly not enuf to listen to regularly. My playlist includes 0% religious music, my instagram, my youtube algorhym has 0% religious images & videos. Do you find yourself mostly admiring art & music that's religiously inspired (or financed)?

There came a time when I told my music teachers that aside from the material in my regular course books, I did not want them to assign me any hymns or American patriotic music (as a Canadian I saw no point in learning another country's anthems that I'd never have any reason to play).

That said, I did make a point of learning my grandmother's favorite songs, which included two hymns. One was "Amazing Grace." The other was one she liked to sing when I was a child, and she was happy when I learned to play it.

Christmas music... well, it's good fodder for filksongs. Some of them are incredibly challenging to play on the organ, at least if you do them right. And my Grade 7 music class outsang an adult choir at the Kiwanis Carol Festival in 1975.

We can all throw quotes around!

For example here is a (non Christian) review of his most famous work.

“Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy.” - From a review by the Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy on Richard Dawkin’s book the God Delusion.

And here is a more fun quote from comedian Marcus Brigstocke “I was an atheist when I started reading The God Delusion. By the time I’d finished it, I was an agnostic. I was going to read it again, but I was worried I might turn into a fundamentalist Christian.”



Several issues here. Firstly what is an evangelical? Most people can't answer this question clearly or accurately. Well it is (or at least originally was) a purely theological term. See below for the most common definition of what is an evangelical.

View attachment 631483

It is not a political or racial term. For example a lot of black Christians who consistently vote Democrat could be considered evangelicals. It is therefore hard to say how many 'evangelicals' voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, but out of the main Christian groups (Protestant and Catholic) he at most only got 60% of their votes in either election. Meaning 40% or more of Christians did not vote for Trump in either election.
I suspect when people say 'evangelical' they probably mean 'white' and 'protestant.' Possibly also mean 'conservative' and from the 'bible belt.'

The Ten Minute Bible Hour has a couple of good videos on the subject; "what is an evangelical," and "the word evangelical is dead." But if you don't want to watch the videos it can be summarized as we need to stop using the word as it is unclear what it means. If you categorize using the original meaning of the word, categorize by those who self identify as an evangelical (I don't think many Christians these days actually use the term), or categorize as it is used by political pundits you will get 3 radically different looking groups of Christians.

Somehow I rather doubt the televangelists are interested in "serving God." Serving their bank balances? Yeah, I can believe that.

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I think he's a bit cowardly, he generally picks on Christianity a lot more than any of the other religions, but that quote of his can in some sense sum up the old testament, not that I have much against Christianity, I have a lot of respect for the religion.

He does? I'm pretty sure for the past however long he's been very into the idea of criticising Islam. Well, "criticising". Having meltdowns at kids on social media is a form of criticism I guess.

I've seen him do both. I haven't seen any videos of him "having meltdowns at kids". I have seen him doing his very best to be polite to clueless people like Wendy Wright, though.

If you go back several centuries the church was a major patron. Michelangelo and Da Vinci may or may not have been deeply religious but religious artwork was their bread and butter.
Not true for poetry though IMO.

Da Vinci was a genius born in the wrong century.

No but they allowed and paid for religious art to be created.

Some art was commissioned not for religious purposes, but for propaganda. If you're a ruler and you want to make your subjects think you're even more special than normal rulership grants, then commission an artist to paint you as a famous religious figure like a saint - or better yet, commission a set of paintings for your whole family in that style. It's the sort of advertising billboard only the very wealthy could afford, and the bonus is that the people who see and admire it and are influenced by it don't even need to know how to read.

Then theres the divide between high and low art or between arts and crafts.
If it is easily accessible its low art, if its useful as well as beautiful its craft.
Both are lesser than high art, art for arts sake, at least to those who consider them selves the elite.

It's funny how Shakespeare used to be considered low-class entertainment for the peasants, but now it's something of an "elitist" thing to go to Shakespeare plays that aren't performed free of charge for the non-paying public. I remember being on the receiving end of a few glares from people when I turned up for my first experience of watching a live Shakespeare play in my regular shirt and jeans. Apparently I was supposed to wear an evening dress, at least according to some people there. My own take is that since everyone will be watching the stage and not me, what I was wearing was irrelevant.

 

[citizenofdoom]

it's certainly absurd to classify it as a "family of beliefs."

belief is probably one of the most abstract terms I could think.
because the word atheism exists, set of beliefs/things must have some similarities to be considered as atheism.
so yeah, set of beliefs that satisfy a boolean statement, should be a well-defined set.
that statement altho hold nearly no value but must be right to everyone
idk where it's absurb