O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

In another place, I’m told that in my postings here I seem more interested in annoying Christians than in genuine dialogue (if you happen to know where the other place is, don’t harass the management there, comment here instead: this post is not calling in an air strike from the United Atheist Alliance).

In this blog, when I’m writing about religion, I try for a mix of serious discussion posts and cheerleading for atheism (“give me a D, give me an A, give me a W” etc. etc). The last couple of posts are examples of a serious discussion post. Comparing EvangelicalGod with Cthulhu and the Bishops Gone Wild series are examples of cheerleading. The recent stuff on C.S. Lewis is a mixture of the two.

What’s the value of the cheerleading? It’s light relief from the serious stuff, seeing other people doing the “theists do the funniest things” stuff gives others permission to doubt, and it’s cathartic for me when I’ve just read about some bishop saying something stupid.

I don’t believe that someone’s religious opinions are morally worthy of more respect than, say, their politics (another reason for the cheerleading is to promote this idea: would people be bothered if I were laying into Gordon Brown?) However, religion is currently a more sensitive subject than politics and this is not going to change overnight. As a matter of tactics, I don’t want to annoy people so much that they don’t bother reading the serious stuff, and as a matter of empathy, I don’t want to actually upset people.

So, I’m interested in what the people reading this think of my postings on religion. Here’s a poll about it (if you’re not an LJ user, you’ll need to login in with OpenID or create an account to fill it in). Let me know what you think:

[ LJ Poll 1380432 ]

7 thoughts on “O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

  1. My “something else”: a vague mix of humanist, Anglican (in the best middle-England, BCP sort of way), agnostic and atheist. It seems to work, but I suspect that if you take the cover off there’s all sorts of purple wobbly bits.

  2. I ticked “complicated”, but it’s more that I just don’t care about the fine detail and fiddly bits of the Christian mythology, so when you delve into the deep bits of continuity I find myself scanning down in the same way I do when people start talking about the different releases of Pokemon or the different X-Men teams of the late 80s.

  3. I enjoy your serious posts more than your mocking / cheerleading posts. I find discussion of detailed bits of Christian theology and apologetics interesting in a vague, academic way, and you cover the material at a level and in a style that works well for me. I don’t really share your sense of humour, which is not to say it’s morally bad for you to laugh at religious people or beliefs, it’s just that I personally don’t find it very funny when you do so.

  4. My “something else” is the ever so handy sitting on the fence phrase “Lapsed Catholic” – as in, currently, I don’t believe in God, but if I did I would do it through the Catholic faith. Hedging my bets a little there.

    I really like your religious posts. They’re thought-provoking and a bit cheeky. I usually don’t comment, because I’m not sure I could add anything to the discussion, being so up in the air about my own beliefs. So, carry on!

    1. I’m kind of like that; I’m not religious or a theist (and the two aren’t the same), but my background colours the way I see religion that it’s definitely relevant.

  5. I don’t see that anyone should find them irritating – if you don’t like, don’t read! I don’t tend to read cos it’s not an area I’m that interested in, but I have no problem with them being there – I just scan over!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *