this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
1181 points (99.7% liked)

Atheism

6425 readers
1141 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not to mention that the early Christians were nothing like what came several hundred years later.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

I mean, sure, but what I'm cautioning against is prescribing any normative definition or configuration of Christianity, as it then implies an idealized version is real, and therefore that the problem is that people aren't following the religion the "right" way, not that there is something systemic that influences how the religion functions in society.

There were baptists in central Europe that allowed women to serve as pastors as early as the early modern period, which is markedly different than what Baptism is like in the US today. During the Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, there were Christian denominations that practiced polyamory and collective property ownership. These were developments that coincided with Christianity as an institution of settler-colonialism and EuroAmerican imperialism, and they were certainly not accepted by larger or more formal denominations at the time; still wouldn't be today. It should also go without saying that they wouldn't reflect the churches in the period you're referring to even if just because they emerged in relation to what came afterward.

It is important to deny ownership of moral values by the institutions that configure and disseminate them for this exact same reason. Even though they serve a purpose within the system they exist in, they meet a need of the people who subscribe to them, and normativity is what stifles their ability to wrestle that utility away from these institutions.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Oh sure, I think my point was more that they've cherry-picked what "version" they want to idealize.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm saying "cherry-picking" suggests there are bad and good cherries, when it's just cherries.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Well, it's arguable that some of these religious "cherries" are worse than others, but I don't find any of them to be crisp and delicious.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

Yes, exactly, it is arguable, which why I'm saying that you can't say there's actually "good" or "bad" cherries.

Check out "postructuralism" and scholars like Derrida or Foucault. The role that language plays in our constructions and effects on things forces us to interrogate the reality of how we understand this thing to be "good" or "bad," as it is itself subject to the systems of power we are subject to. So, it's very hard not to reproduce the values we're trying to challenge when we don't address how those values are constructed.

Yes, we all know white supremacy is bad, but if it is only bad because it hurts people, then many people think that it only exists at the level of individual actions, like calling someone a slur, and not at a systemic level like how laws and knowledge are oriented around fundamentally devaluing certain groups of people; or why it is those groups of people in the first place besides "hating what's different." White supremacy does hurt people, and that is bad, but our understanding of how it does that changes how we understand what is needed to end it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

many people think that it only exists at the level of individual actions, like calling someone a slur, and not at a systemic level

Is this not just lack of abstract thinking?

  • Direct racism has a straightforward cause and effect. It is clearcut, simple to understand, and easy to place yourself in a role and distinguish right from wrong
  • systemic racism has multiple steps and indirect causes. There may be no clear culprit, no direct causes, or primarily historical causes. Some of us can see reality and have the empathy to distinguish what is wrong. Others can see the abstracted perpetrators or web of steps to better understand a complex situation resulting in wrongs . But some people have a harder time with abstraction, with there not being a clearly identified cause, without a specific action to blame
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 3 points 21 hours ago

I think you think that I am failing to think. I also think you are mistaken.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

I've read Foucault, and you've made a compelling argument. But I don't get what you're trying to say in this last comment.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

So you think you have a better chance of fighting religion as a whole than to get people to follow an idealized version of Christianity, the one that they advertise as when they want to be seen as a force for good.

[–] Akuchimoya@startrek.website -1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

There is an idealized definition and configuration of Christianity, its Jesus Fucking Christ. Do you act like him and what he taught (or at least try your best to)? Christian. Do you do literally the opposite of what he did and taught? Not Christian. It not hard.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Hey everybody, I've got super powers!