Agnostics and atheists - religious things you appreciate?

Id like to think that I enjoy these things because they are wonderful, not because they
were produced by a person who happened to be religious.

 

music again, for me, the religious musics of islam and eastern orthodoxy rate most highly

oh, the arts, architecture, same religions

and i generally listen to nothing but reggae, much of which is highly religious, the rest of which is highly not

 

....

duh?

 

I just miss the point of adding 'religious' to 'things you appreciate'.

 

The point of this thread is for atheists and agnostics to state things that they appreciate despite their religious ties.

It is a way to practice tolerance and to show tolerance to those of the religious that think us unable.

 

We're not tolerating the religious aspects of anything though, this is
an aesthetic thread masquerading as religious tolerance.

No doubt the artists conviction has a hand in how beautiful the
work is, but the conviction belongs to the artist, not the art.

 

The Bible is a religious text even if looked at by a secular mind. As long as the notion of religion exists, even if it would be only in memory, this shall remain true.

 

You could claim as much about any book. What makes the bible any more
religious than Dr.Seuss?

 

As soon as people start worshiping Green Eggs and Ham, it is a religious text.

The Bible may be fiction to you an I, but it is still religious to 2 billion other people; it can be, and is, both.

Now, I could disregard the Bible, being an atheist, as a religious text and not for me. Or, I could study it, from my secular point of view and possibly appreciate it.

Maybe it is aesthetic but it still is. Atheism is an aesthetic reaction to the religious. Before religion, surely, no one claimed atheism.

 

If anything can be considered a religious text, why do we need
to describe any text, or art as religious if "religious" only describes
the conviction of the artist or reader?

 

Why do we need to describe ourselves as atheist, if it is only in contrast to those who have religious conviction?

Association.

 

Agreed, but only because there is contrast between atheism and theism to describe.

There is no 'religious' and 'secular' art, its a false dichotomy, just like there are no 'religious
and 'secular' books.

There are only religious and secular people.

 

If religion is not a true path to salvation, then 'religious' and 'secular' is just as aesthetic for humans, is it not?

Those who believe, and those who don't believe, is a rather pointless distinction when the belief is false.

Once again, it is the association to the believers that causes these arts and texts to be religious; just like contrast to them causes us to be atheist.

If you don't like it, change the vocabulary, but you'll have far more than me to convince.

 

Religion and secularity speculate about objective reality. Aesthetics
is a subjective matter.

You're speaking through an understanding other people don't have though.
I cant imagine why you would say the distinction is pointless, but the
difference I recognise is the inquisition, gay rights, stem cell research, 9-11.
I think its well worth mentioning when people actually do believe heretics
deserve to die.

Arts and texts cant think and don't have opinions, how could they possibly
be religious?

 

They speculate subjectively about objective reality. If they were not subjective, there would be no debate.

But they have thought and opinion put into them, forming them; sometimes religious thought and opinion.

Was imprisoning Galileo for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun not a religious act?
Is kneeling and reciting prayer towards mecca not a religious act?
Was each person slain and tortured during the inquisition not done so during a religious event?
Is All Saint's Day not a religious holiday?

 

I don't know if holidays think or have opinions either.

You can hear a song and recognize that its beautiful without also counting
the fact that the singer is religious right?---that's the only point here.

When you say 'religious' thing, what you're asking for is 'things produced by
religious people', which can be (as we explained with the Dr.Seuss example)
absolutely anything.

The most common example of this is the "religious experience". As if profound
experience is arbitrated by iron age superstition. The truth is, neither have
anything to do with religion.

 

Family values. I find atheists to be inheriantly self-absorbed. Since you were so brilliant to discover there is no god, you are god huh?

 

I really appreciate Monks, and the fact their religion is a way of life rather than an ideology; also some true Buddhist traditions and teachings are pretty cool

 

Say what you will about the religious groups, they usually have a good sense of architectural/artistic taste.

 

Well I'm Church of England Christian. I never really had any strict religious teachings forced on me as I was growing up, but I consider myself ever-so-slightly Agnostic because I'm not entirely convinced of any biblical writings OR scientific theories. So really I am sort of sat on the fence, but my legs are dangling over the spiritual side.

I do find a eerie comfort with crucifixes, which I actually collect. I wear three round my neck, I have them on my walls, I have rosary beads hanging everywhere including in my car along with other random little bits of Christian stuff. Gospel music has also been known to reduce me to tears.