Is life more satisfying as an atheist or religionist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fair enough. The pejorative aspect of the term implies that there's a battle between agendas contending for control of a narrative, and the content in question deliberately omits relevant information that doesn't support the preferred agenda:

Information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions

Almost like there were competing religions trying to influence people.

[Istvan]

Fair enough. The pejorative aspect of the term implies that there's a battle between agendas contending for control of a narrative, and the content in question deliberately omits relevant information that doesn't support the preferred agenda:

Information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions

Of course. That's why @Ahriman's definition is both self-invented and self-serving, and need not be regarded as valid support for his point.

Okay. But in that case are we supposed to believe that religious art throughout history wasn't simply meant to inspire belief or reverence, but rather was deliberately intended to suppress information that refuted the idea that God exists?

I mean, that's not quite Building Seven shit there, but it's pretty tendentious nonetheless.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course. That's why @Ahriman's definition is both self-invented and self-serving, and need not be regarded as valid support for his point.

Okay. But in that case are we supposed to believe that religious art throughout history wasn't simply meant to inspire belief or reverence, but rather was deliberately intended to suppress information that refuted the idea that God exists?

No. But it can be regarded as propaganda in the sense that it may be one-sided in its portrayal of the religion itself. Or it could be propaganda for other ideas while dressed in religious garb -- for instance, the depiction of Christ as a white man could certainly be seen as racial propaganda, especially in antebellum America where nonwhites were enslaved or otherwise viciously repressed. I'd say it's a case-by-case thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay. But in that case are we supposed to believe that religious art throughout history wasn't simply meant to inspire belief or reverence, but rather was deliberately intended to suppress information that refuted the idea that God exists?

I mean, that's not quite Building Seven shit there, but it's pretty tendentious nonetheless.

Who said that?

[Belacqua]

So one might say that modern religious art is driven not by spirituality but by money? 

This is probably true of religious cultural products aimed at a large market. It's hard to know how sincere people are who make Hollywood-style movies like "God's Not Dead." I'm sure they're happy to make lots of money. 

I've heard there is a genre called "Christian rock" that sells pretty well, but I know nothing about it.

If we take the term "modern religious art" more broadly, I'm sure there are lots of sincere religious people making art. Or performing music. Or designing buildings. They tend not to be on the radar for a general audience. 

Why would someone inspired by your god care at all about markets and so forth?

emphasis added

As I've told you before, I am not a believer. On this thread I have written about the history of what artists are like. I have made no assertions concerning a god or gods.

Real art doesn't worry about things like market. Real art happens because to the artist it must happen. Once you're worrying about markets, it's not art, it's a commodity.

This has been a popular view of art since the Romantics. So, late 18th century to present. 

It is made somewhat problematic by the fact that a lot of this real art is seen in special stores called "galleries" with price tags on. 

For most of history (the Renaissance, for example) art was usually commissioned by rich people. They paid for it. Since the person or church who ordered the art, as well as the person who made it, were probably passionate about the subject, I see no reason why this financial arrangement is necessarily a sign of insincerity. 

Though it wasn't originally made as a commodity (that is, as something for sale) art objects were frequently bought and sold when their original owners died or went bankrupt. The fact that there is so much great art in Britain today has mostly to do with the Spanish economy going bust. 

So the line between "real art" and "commodity" is probably not a very solid one. 

Though in the communist paradise we dream of, each work of art would be given to the person who loves it the most.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christian rock. Wonderful example. Wherein a group that was so into what they were doing they started imagining themselves as the object of their theme...and for this.....end up pilloried and penniless, hated or forcibly forgotten by the very religious demographic they once served.

Evangelicals don't like creed anymore. Atheists are still fine with them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So one might say that modern religious art is driven not by spirituality but by money? 

This is probably true of religious cultural products aimed at a large market. It's hard to know how sincere people are who make Hollywood-style movies like "God's Not Dead." I'm sure they're happy to make lots of money. 

I've heard there is a genre called "Christian rock" that sells pretty well, but I know nothing about it.

If we take the term "modern religious art" more broadly, I'm sure there are lots of sincere religious people making art. Or performing music. Or designing buildings. They tend not to be on the radar for a general audience. 

Why would someone inspired by your god care at all about markets and so forth?

emphasis added

As I've told you before, I am not a believer. On this thread I have written about the history of what artists are like. I have made no assertions concerning a god or gods.

Real art doesn't worry about things like market. Real art happens because to the artist it must happen. Once you're worrying about markets, it's not art, it's a commodity.

This has been a popular view of art since the Romantics. So, late 18th century to present. 

It is made somewhat problematic by the fact that a lot of this real art is seen in special stores called "galleries" with price tags on. 

For most of history (the Renaissance, for example) art was usually commissioned by rich people. They paid for it. Since the person or church who ordered the art, as well as the person who made it, were probably passionate about the subject, I see no reason why this financial arrangement is necessarily a sign of insincerity. 

Though it wasn't originally made as a commodity (that is, as something for sale) art objects were frequently bought and sold when their original owners died or went bankrupt. The fact that there is so much great art in Britain today has mostly to do with the Spanish economy going bust. 

So the line between "real art" and "commodity" is probably not a very solid one. 

Though in the communist paradise we dream of, each work of art would be given to the person who loves it the most.

All fair critique. I only opine as someone who writes prose and poetry, composes music, and in the past has won a scholarship for visual art.