Religiosity compared ... Western European vs. US

[Elok]

I strongly argued against this, insisting that she should choose a religion because its metaphysical claims are correct, not because they're appealing. Alas.

This isn't that uncommon in America, I think; if you start with the mindset that religions are all equally valid in some unspecified way, and you just have to find the one that's right for you, then this is a perfectly honest approach. Remember a few years back, when Imran said he considered Christianity superior to Islam, and at least one person here reacted with shock that he would say such a thing--even though it followed logically from his believing the one and not the other? A lot of us have been conditioned to think in incoherent ways about religion. Blame the Treaty of Westphalia, or maybe just blame Luther. I blame Luther. Everything is Luther's fault.

[Proteus_MST]

My dad was shift worker who used to love when they came by during the day. It gave him someone to talk to.

Back in uni a roommate of mine answered the door at 10am with a joint in hand. He invited them in for a chat but they declined.

Heard they also tend to cut their visits short, if you mention that you currently are performing a pagan or satanist ritual before inviting them into the house

Our street preachers are truly offensive. Pretty much every woman passerby is called a name of some sort ("harlot" is a favourite). If they stood quietly and distributed materials no one would care.

Wow, that is extreme.
If street preachers tried this in germany, they would be in police custody very fast, for causing public nuisance (and probably also would get a ban from the location where they caused it (like, the pedestrian area))

[Elok]

Are those street preachers affiliated with an actual religious tradition, or mentally ill homeless people who latched onto religious mania? Or are they equivalent to the WBC, where offending and alienating people is the whole point?

[Wezil]

Are those street preachers affiliated with an actual religious tradition, or mentally ill homeless people who latched onto religious mania? Or are they equivalent to the WBC, where offending and alienating people is the whole point?

Good questions Elok. As you know I am not a fan of religion but I try to be fair....

There are two in particular that are a problem. From what I gather the younger one is a "former student" of the older (I'm not sure what that means).

They are not homeless but I would argue they are mentally ill. I think the WBC people are also mentally ill so yes, I would put them in that category. They certainly aren't gaining any converts.

As to their particular flavour of religion - Christian but that's all I could venture.

[Wezil]

Heard they also tend to cut their visits short, if you mention that you currently are performing a pagan or satanist ritual before inviting them into the house

I have never seen a JW refuse an opportunity to talk about their religion before or since. Since pot will be legal here in the next few months the JW's may need to rethink their tolerances.

Wow, that is extreme.
If street preachers tried this in germany, they would be in police custody very fast, for causing public nuisance (and probably also would get a ban from the location where they caused it (like, the pedestrian area))

Yeah, they are quite offensive. I am a strong supporter of free speech unless it is outright harmful and I just don't find these people to be a threat in any way. They are probably mentally ill (see above) and law enforcement is not an acceptable solution to mental illness.

Also, I do not believe people have a "right" not to be offended.

[Broken_Erika]

You cannot be an atheist and believe in a god.

And yet there are Atheist Churches. Apart from the social gathering aspect and possible use as a community center, what would an atheist church actually do? Like do they all sit there while the Totally-not-a-priest-cause-he/she's-and-atheist gets up on a podium and reads "Atheist Sermons"?

[Elok]

Sounds like a weirdo minor sect of breakaways. You get that here, where sects splinter into smaller and smaller groups because of insufficient purity in following some obscure point, and eventually the most extreme and hateful people are in a tiny group by themselves, freed from all moderating influences, and they set to damning the world because they know they won't be winning any more converts and don't really want to.

[Elok]

And yet there are Atheist Churches. Apart from the social gathering aspect and possible use as a community center, what would an atheist church actually do? Like do they all sit there while the Totally-not-a-priest-cause-he/she's-and-atheist gets up on a podium and reads "Atheist Sermons"?

There have been intermittent attempts since the nineteenth century to have pleasant social Sunday gatherings for atheists, so that they don't miss out on the social benefits of religion just because they don't believe in anything. I gather the idea is to get together, sing totally secular songs for fun, and maybe listen to a lecture about science or some other humanistically acceptable subject. These gatherings eventually die off when the novelty fades and people realize they'd rather just go clubbing on Saturdays and sleep it off the next morning. Also it takes money to keep these things going.

[Wezil]

Elok - Youtubes of the ugliness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j18lccX51iA (preacher vs public)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD3UMfXfWgI (they take their "show" on the road to neighbouring small towns)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOeT-Vto3iw (The "**** these guys" sign guy is hilarious 0:35 - I like his approach )

[Proteus_MST]

And yet there are Atheist Churches. Apart from the social gathering aspect and possible use as a community center, what would an atheist church actually do? Like do they all sit there while the Totally-not-a-priest-cause-he/she's-and-atheist gets up on a podium and reads "Atheist Sermons"?

The article I linked in my OP has a further link to an article about atheist churches.

https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2018/05/16/the-elusive-phenomenon-of-churches-without-god

Sounds to me like they are some combination of debate (about ethical/sociological/scientific topics) and social clubs
Some also seem to offer some kind of sunday school, where the little ones learn how to debate with classmates who come from religious families

[Broken_Erika]

Pretty much what i figured. Still; The term "Atheist Church" does sound rather odd/funny.

[Proteus_MST]

Of course. An atheist who says he believes in (a) god also sounds strange, as Dinner already rightly pointed out earlier in the thread
(although I assume that those 27% of god believing people with a religious affiliation of "none" just are not atheists but rather fit into the "spiritual" category that was mentioned)

[Wezil]

Sounds like a weirdo minor sect of breakaways. You get that here, where sects splinter into smaller and smaller groups because of insufficient purity in following some obscure point, and eventually the most extreme and hateful people are in a tiny group by themselves, freed from all moderating influences, and they set to damning the world because they know they won't be winning any more converts and don't really want to.

I accept that.

They are particularly grating in our culture because, as I mentioned earlier, public displays of religion aren't common here. Public proselytizing is bad manners to start with (never mind the extremes these guys go to).

[Kidlicious]

I believe that belief in God is both rare and common, because I'm an existentialist. What people say is a different matter and too much is made about what people say. This is why we have atheist churches, and why we have a lot of atheists in Christian churches.

[Proteus_MST]

I believe that belief in God is both rare and common, because I'm an existentialist. What people say is a different matter and too much is made about what people say. This is why we have atheist churches, and why we have a lot of atheists in Christian churches.

That fits into what the researchets in the article of my OP say.
They basically say that the traditional separation between religious and atheist falls too short of the realities,
as many people say they are not religious, but also don't fit into the cetegory "atheist" because, while not adhering to one of the traditional religions, they still have personal beliefs in certain aspects of those religions, like an immortal soul or a divine being.
Which is why they defined "spiritual" as a third category between atheist and religious

[Wezil]

I think it is in human nature to want to believe in a supreme being. It is comforting.

[Lorizael]

This isn't that uncommon in America, I think; if you start with the mindset that religions are all equally valid in some unspecified way, and you just have to find the one that's right for you, then this is a perfectly honest approach. Remember a few years back, when Imran said he considered Christianity superior to Islam, and at least one person here reacted with shock that he would say such a thing--even though it followed logically from his believing the one and not the other? A lot of us have been conditioned to think in incoherent ways about religion. Blame the Treaty of Westphalia, or maybe just blame Luther. I blame Luther. Everything is Luther's fault.

Hmm. Can you explain what you see as the difference between the above and your idea that the Orthodox Church just has a better idea of what humanity's disease is? Because the latter doesn't sound like belief in the correctness of their metaphysical claims.