162
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
162 points (98.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26672 readers
884 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, it's the community that keeps people around. The rules and dogma push people who aren't being served well by the community out.
So in group this is natural to say. But external, directed at religious peoples, it's not going to do the work of bringing them into your community. It's not welcoming and it serves to push people to build walls rather than promote a change in thinking.
So i think you're right in the context of being in community with a believer, but the comment wasn't about that to begin with.
Alternatively, it's hard to see how much religion is pushed until you're outside of it. It's like the opposite of getting a new (to you) car or phone. When you are, all of a sudden you realize how saturated everything is with it. It's like living off the end of the runway of an international hub airport, there's no rest.
I don't deny there's an element of groupthink within the Christian community that keeps its participants ensnared in the system while also alienating potential partakers, but adding the word 'psychosis' - like the user i responded to did - is rather disrespectful of the Christian position. You'd be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.
Classifying belief in Christianity as psychosis simply shows one's ignorance as they think one can only be religious if they're "insane" which is just not the case since there are many who participate in Christianity with perfectly reasonable reasons.
I'm an atheist, but i think it's high time, as atheists, we stopped making these stupid ad hominem attacks towards differing ideas.
Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.
The thing is, the second you let in a Nazi, it becomes a Nazi bar.
Also, yes we all know how indoctrination works.
Once again, you're committing the same mistake as before. You'd be surprised to learn that the discourse concerning this is more nuanced than before.
Also, non-acceptance of LGBTQ groups isn't actually a disproof of religion. I mean think about it. Christianity is an absolutist doctrine, that means that regardless of what you feel or how the times have changed, Christian law remains absolute. If an all powerful being deems it so that homosexuality is a sin, then all power to him really. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality you're presented with if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists.
You've got the burden of proof turned around. Its not on us to diprove the existence of your mythical skyfairy. Its not our job to respect it in any way either. Feel free to start a religion that worships toe-jam if you want to. No one cares. What if I told you that lower intelligence correlates to higher religious fervor?
I'm not religious. Stop saying my mythical skyfairy. Also, you have to show me a source for your last claim and even if your last claim is true, correlation IS NOT causation.
I answered a simple question with a simple answer. You proved the point better than I ever could have. Now tell us how to think and talk again.
Why is the christian position worthy of any respect al all? Labeling any idea thats "religion" as automatically worthy of reverence is simply privelage speaking, at best. At worst its deep stupidity protecting itself from analysis. You're in a cult buddy. One that has inconsistent medieval ideas and a pedophilia problem. The fact that we even need to remind you of those absolute facts doesnt speak well of you.
It deserves its respect because it is largely practiced and is defended by many intellectuals. I'm an atheist just like you playing devil's advocate. So let's stop with the ad hominem
That doesn't make it worthy of respect, the same used to be said of eugenics
OK fair enough on the ad homs, you are right on that and I apologize. I would challenge you on the idea that religion been examined as rigorously and freely as every other philosphical ideas. Faith is belief without question, is it not? And the christian bible is a bit of a joke-- most if not all "holy" books are. But they are held up as a standin for morality and we are demanded to respect them, and not ask too many questions about them, usualyl at threat of violence or other coercions. Isnt history littered with the bodies of scientists and philosophers who werent allowed to inconvenience the church?
It amazed me that when you find religious strife, atheists are often singled out for the worst punishments.
I think its summarized pretty well with this quote of Bakker's: "Theres nothing the ignorant prize more than the ignorance of others."
I think if people should generally mind their own business unless something directly impinges on their individual freedom to live. That includes not making rules about how women should use their bodies. Let women decide that themselevs, or you're being a tyrant. (I am an old white guy). Christianity doesnt beleive in that, and refuses to honestly examine it. Dogma and whatever the oldest white guy in a funny hat says trumps rational discourse every time.
the only "god" we should be worshipping is ourselves as entities that are constituent of a human society that differentiates us from the other animals. In my opinion, everything else is someone trying to use you or get you to adopt their worldview. This forces us to be our own masters and own the outcomes we create in the world. And to treat each other better.
What do you think?
Firstly, thank you for wishing to engage in peaceful discourse. And yes, I do agree with you on the fact that religion should be challenged just like any other philosophy. My point about according it respect was simply due to how the other users i responded to earlier resorted to ad hominems and not valid criticisms of the religion itself. Like i said, I don't believe religion (especially Christianity) can be just thrown to the side as "group psychosis" considering how widespread it is and how much it's defended by many intellectuals.
On the point of personal freedom (women's rights, LGBTQ rights, sexual rights, etc), I 100% agree with your stance on Christianity infringing on those freedoms; especially considering the increasing liberalisation of society - which is a good thing - but i don't personally think it's a great rebuttal to Christianity's validity. Like i said in another comment, Christianity is an absolutist philosophy, that means that regardless of the changing times or your personal feelings, its laws remain immutable. Does that mean that the Christian God is a jerk? Probably. But it's what you'd have to deal with if he did exist.
Personally, i think the strongest argument against a God is simply the fact that he's unpresent. As i believe about 90% of people are atheists simply because they don't feel his presence. Every other argument is supplementary.
You have a very interestingly nuanced position in all this.
I'd be happy if some sort of god entity announced its existence and was interested in us and not malevolent. Why not. I've been wrong enough times in life that I wouldnt be surprised to be wrong again. Like you, I think its extraorinarily unlikely, especially with the reinforcement of the arc of history. In life you have to act according to the odds. If theres a .0001 chance of fish being in a pond, its not worth spending the time to fish there. I consider religion in a similar light. The odds of a god being there seem miniscule to me, and yet their followers are here all the time, and take an oversized stage for having such a miniscule chance of being correct, and they push their ideas on the rest of us, but seldom will entertain challenges to why they do these things. Like championing more reproduction but being against feeding the poor from their church kitchens (for some, not all of them).
My experiences in this regard are not average, I hope, so feel free to take what I say with whatever amojnt of salt you judge appropriate. I come from an intensely catholic upbringing. Even after my aunt was raped by a monk, who went unpunished. My parents' generation of two large families stayed catholic even in light of that. The kids, universally, could not stay with the church upon hearing this. I think the perception of religion has gone through a generational change starting at genX, and churches broadly have not kept pace, as you alluded to. I am convinced, like you, that this is progress for humanity. I am willing to give religious people the respect for their ideas they hold dear commensurate with the liklihood of them being correct or even useful, although I deem them to be .00000000000000000001% useless compared to the chance of there being no deities involved with our affairs, and that we should own our world ourselves.
cheers, good chat.
Oh definitely. If I there's a low chance of something, then what's the point in engaging right?
Thanks for the chat as well!