No one is free from criticism. Harmful ideas should be condemned, when they are demonstrably harmful. But theist beliefs are such a vast range and diversity of ideas, some harmful, some useful, some healing, some vivifying, and still others having served as potent drivers of movements for justice; that to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.
By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the “Pyramid of Hate”, as well as the first of the “10 Stages of Genocide.”
If your religion is atheism, that’s perfectly valid. If someone is doing something harmful with a religious belief as justification, that specific belief should be challenged. But if you’re crossing the line into bigotry, you’re as bad as the very people you’re condemning.
Antitheism is a form of supremacy in and of itself.
"In other words, it is quite clear from the writings of the “four horsemen” that “new atheism” has little to do with atheism or any serious intellectual examination of the belief in God and everything to do with hatred and power.
Indeed, “new atheism” is the ideological foregrounding of liberal imperialism whose fanatical secularism extends the racist logic of white supremacy. It purports to be areligious, but it is not. It is, in fact, the twin brother of the rabid Christian conservatism which currently feeds the Trump administration’s destructive policies at home and abroad – minus all the biblical references."
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/5/4/the-resurrection-of-new-atheism/
It seems like you’re saying no one is allowed to criticize religion as a whole, but only certain aspects of certain religions that you agree are “harmful”.
The problem is that there are a growing number of people who find ALL religions to be harmful, and those people have a right to make their feelings known.
You are gaslighting people into believing that they are bigots for speaking out against bigoted religious practices. That sounds like you are the one with a problem
deleted by creator
My point was that many people feel that religion as a whole is harmful, and they should be free to criticize religion as a whole and not be restricted to only debating specific cherry picked aspects that OP here seems to think are not “off limits” to disagree with
Some people also feel certain races as a whole are harmful. There isn’t an obligation to tolerate that any more than tolerating antitheistic positions.
It’s just not convincing to claim people believing something religious is inherently harmful. It is possible to believe religious things without causing harm to others. So, why should people accept intolerance of religious views in general?
You’re comparing someone talking about some ideas or ways of thinking being harmful versus someone talking about how certain people are harmful based on innate characteristic. It’s not a reasonable comparison.
Okay, my point is modular enough that this is not a real problem:
Some people also feel --atheist ways of thinking-- are harmful. There isn’t an obligation to tolerate that any more than tolerating antitheistic positions.
Replace the text between the double – with whatever you like I guess. This is just a particular case of the paradox of tolerance (or very similar to it). Quibbling because you dislike my particular example doesn’t change the actual point.
Wth are you talking about. The argument is on whether or not it is ok (aka, we should tolerate) to belittle / argue against religion as a whole. You’re taking the position that it is not ok to do so. The supporting argument you gave is that it is functionally equivalent to racism. I explained that it was not functionally equivalent to racism.
Now you have no supporting argument but you tell me it doesn’t matter because your position hasn’t changed.
Also, I keep seing this paradox of tolerance bullshit on the fediverse. People need to understand: you must tolerate people, but you doesn’t have to tolerate their ideas or their actions. It’s not that complicated.
This whole not tolerating people who are intolerant is just another way of being intolerant. Pick any person in the world and I’ll find a reason to claim that they’re intolerant. At the end of the day, it’s just an excuse to otherize people who aren’t on your team.
Since you seem new to the term, here’s some info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=Karl%20Popper%20described%20it%20as,engage%20in%20%22rational%20argument%22.
It’s a legitimate argument even if you don’t agree.
Wth are you talking about. The argument is on whether or not it is ok (aka, we should tolerate) to belittle / argue against religion as a whole. You’re taking the position that it is not ok to do so. The supporting argument you gave is that it is functionally equivalent to racism. I explained that it was not functionally equivalent to racism.
The op QuaffPotions is arguing against intolerance against theists.
MrJamesGumb (the person I responded to) is arguing against the OPs point with: “It seems like you’re saying no one is allowed to criticize religion as a whole, but only certain aspects of certain religions that you agree are “harmful”. The problem is that there are a growing number of people who find ALL religions to be harmful, and those people have a right to make their feelings known…”
My point is that I can make this same exact argument using many other examples of people claiming they are justified in doing XYZ things solely because they believe some arbitrary thing is harmful. Claiming you believe something is harmful doesn’t really justify you to do whatever you want in all cases. Many Christians actively believe being a homosexual is harmful, but most sane people object to them actively spreading hate propaganda against homosexuals.
Just because somebody fears something is “harmful” doesn’t mean everybody has to accept them choosing to be intolerant as their response to that fear.
Now you have no supporting argument but you tell me it doesn’t matter because your position hasn’t changed.
Just because you chose not to respond to my supporting argument that addressed your previous point doesn’t mean I have no supporting argument.
Also, I keep seing this paradox of tolerance bullshit on the fediverse. People need to understand: you must tolerate people, but you doesn’t have to tolerate their ideas or their actions. It’s not that complicated.
The whole takeaway from Popper on the paradox of tolerance is that we don’t have to tolerate intolerance. What I’m saying is that being intolerant against theists doesn’t have to be tolerated either.
This whole not tolerating people who are intolerant is just another way of being intolerant. Pick any person in the world and I’ll find a reason to claim that they’re intolerant. At the end of the day, it’s just an excuse to otherize people who aren’t on your team.
I’m pretty explicitly saying we don’t have to otherize people who are religious solely for being religious. If somebody is actually harming other people in the name of religious beliefs, then by all means, stop them. But that doesn’t make anybody inherently deserving of harm or mistreatment solely because they are religious. Just because an individual believes all religions are harmful doesn’t really justify them to be a bigot. Criticism is fine, but outright hatred and disgust like what the op (QuaffPotions) is talking about isn’t justified.
Based. This exactly.
deleted by creator
So it’s disingenuous to say that it should be ok to criticize all religion? Every religion is off limits unless there is a specific “harmful” point to debate which some as yet unnamed party gives us permission to be critical about?
deleted by creator
OP stated that anyone who feels religion in general is a bad thing that hurts society is a “bigot” and I disagreed with them, and then you all started shitting all over me about it. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.
By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the “Pyramid of Hate”, as well as the first of the “10 Stages of Genocide.”
According to this guy I’m apparently worse than Hitler. I’m supposed to be super accepting of someone that starts their argument by calling me a bigot who is on the verge of starting a genocide?
deleted by creator
There is nothing inherently “good” about religion at all. Honestly, I believe it cheapens the human race. It says that humans aren’t strong enough on their own. They NEED the guidance and help of invisible beings to do the things they do.
I was a heroin addict for over a decade. I am now clean, and even off the methadone. I purposefully avoided things like NA because I got myself clean. God had no part in it. God doesn’t deserve the credit. I put in the work.
But the main problem with religion is that it is an override switch for critical thinking. Things that are obviously, and proven to be helpful and right. They can become muddy at best and downright wrong when viewed through the lens of religion. Think, abortion, and stem cell research. Good people get hurt when viewed through the lens of religion. Think LGBTQ, or people of a different religion.
In the end the small positives aren’t worth the negatives, and for those “good religious people” you still support machines that are into child marriage, child molestation, keeping women down, and hurting other humans just because your god said it’s cool.
I went to some AA meetings at one point in my life. It’s sickening to see people cheapen their success by thanking god, instead of their own willpower.
You made the decision, thank yourself, or the people around you.
Hey, you want to give the credit away for your accomplishments. That’s your choice to make. You worked for that sobriety. You can give the credit to whomever you like.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
So, i noticed that a lot of what you mentioned has been a European thing. I grew up in the US in a city that is majority black. Because I’m white I got int a lot of fights. So, my dad moved me to a southern baptist private school.
My new school the mascot was a confederate soldier. Our symbol was a confederate flag. Our basketball gym had confederate flags 2 stories tall painted on the walls. They used the Abeka book system, which teaches young earth creationism, and a generally more extreme version of American exceptionalism among other problematic views. I took bible for a school credit. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that there were only 3 black people in the entire school k-12.
The Ku Klux Klan is also a christian organization. I had a relative that cheated on his wife. The KKK showed up and beat him so bad that he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. They fancied themselves a Christian morality police. Obviously that was a long time ago, but if conservatives in the US have their way anything is possible.
When I was homeless and drug addicted. I used to have to beg for money, and occasionally you’d get someone that would tell you to “go ask a church for help. They’ll help ya”. Well, I have asked churches for help. I asked a few mosques too. Hell, I actually had a mosque give me some food one time. But of all the churches I asked and admittedly it was over 10 which is a super small sample size. Not a single one ever helped and 1 was kind enough to offer to call the police on me if I didn’t leave immediately.
Down here if you go to church and you’re white it’s like a secret handshake that says “I at least hate gay people but probably black people too”. I’d also like to point out that I’m painting a pretty broad stroke with that statement. Obviously not ALL christians in the southern US are racist homophobic bigots, but I’d bet my life that over half are. I’d bet 2 toes and a finger it’s close to 75%.
Churches down here promote homophobia. That’s almost all churches down here. It’s so rare to find a church down here that’s ok with the LGBTQ community that when one pops up they advertise it. They’ll say something like “Everyone is welcome regardless of race or sexual orientation”. Kinda weird that even has to be said in 2023 but here we are.
Here is a local version of what I mean. https://pilgrimuccbham.org/about/
In the end I can’t speak to the history of the church. I mean I could, but is Saturday and I have kids to feed. I feel though that the recent past and present right around me is bad enough.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I’m just going to say that as far as what you covered in that last comment there’s not really anything I disagree with. I only have one small criticism, and honestly it’s something that I’m sure you would have gotten to in a deeper explanation.
As far as eugenics and the negative side of Darwinism goes. I feel that science as an idea is free to change and expand. But, religion as a belief is far more rigid and set. This allows us to come back later and correct the science, but not the religion.
But yeah. I basically agree with the other things.
This is the take I cannot stand. I don’t care what anyone’s beliefs are, but to say that religion is inherently bad, or that it is incompatible with critical thinking is offensive, and quite frankly, extremely narrow minded and stupid.
Don’t most religions condemn atheism as inherently bad, stupid, dishonest, etc?
This is not inherent to all religions. Some particular religions are intolerant of other beliefs. Some aren’t. I’m not sure of “most”, you’d actually have to start listing out religions and gathering evidence for that claim.
It would be easier to list the religions that don’t teach that disbelief is wrong. I can’t think of any, though.
Daoism. Buddhism. That’s two off the top of my head. (Both, in fact, don’t care if you participate in other religions’ rites and ceremonies.)
You’ll find that most pantheistic, animistic, and shamanistic religions aren’t as bigoted as the Abrahamic faiths tend to be (which is the faith family most westerners think of as “religions”).
I agree. It is very frustrating that many major religions are like this.
From the Christians who have been proven to molest children, and set back rights of women and LGBTQ people. To the Muslims that also do horrible things to children, and women, and LGBTQ people. To Hindus that kill Sikhs and Muslims. To Sikhs that kill Hindus. I could keep going but I think I’ve got a large enough sample size already.
Even if you’re church or whatever doesn’t do these things directly. It still helps to breed the identity that is that religion. It still helps to spread the hate associated with that religion. In a lot of cases it sends money to fund the people that are fighting.
As far as religion messing with people’s ability to think critically. If you think religion doesn’t mess with that. I can’t help you. It’s literally in the news all day everyday. Pretty much everything that has to do with hate towards the LGBTQ people in the US was initiated by fear mongering politicians, and given legitimacy by religion.
Offensive to who? He was talking about religion, not a person. It doesn’t seem like you understand how being offended works. When you add nothing of value and go on the attack you lose all credibility. You should downvote yourself.
There is nothing inherently “good” about religion at all. Honestly, I believe it cheapens the human race. It says that humans aren’t strong enough on their own. They NEED the guidance and help of invisible beings to do the things they do
It’s arguable whether anything is inherently good at all.
The idea that belief in a god cheapens the human race, or that belief in a god makes people weak isn’t any different from saying belief in natural forces that we analyze scientifically cheapens the human race or makes people weaker in some sense.
God had no part in it. God doesn’t deserve the credit. I put in the work.
Scientific arguments can be made for why your success isn’t truly your own either. I.e. socioeconomic class, geographical proximity to resources, nature vs nurture arguments etc.
On top of that, not all theists would say you don’t deserve credit for your hard work.
But the main problem with religion is that it is an override switch for critical thinking. Things that are obviously, and proven to be helpful and right. They can become muddy at best and downright wrong when viewed through the lens of religion.
Failing to think critically is not an issue solely held by theists. Atheists can and regularly do fail at this. Normal people of all types fail at this often. The assumption that theism implies a failure to think critically is just wrong. Most theistic beliefs can easily be made consistent with scientific thinking for what it’s worth.
In the end the small positives aren’t worth the negatives, and for those “good religious people” you still support machines that are into child marriage, child molestation, keeping women down, and hurting other humans just because your god said it’s cool.
I don’t think religious institutions are the only institutions that do these things. Perhaps I am wrong? But to claim these crimes are solely a theistic thing seems incorrect to me.
But even if they are, the institutions themselves and the religious beliefs are distinct. All religions really try to do is to explain things we don’t really have answers for. This is not inherently bad, atheists do this about as much as theists as far as I can tell.
Nothing is inherently good. Life is a crapshoot. But religion likes to say that it is good.
Your second point. I’m guessing you’re equating science and religion? Which is a terrible argument. We can see and do science using our own brains and so, I’m just going to leave this one alone.
This one is true. I was homeless and ran into a girl that had a crush on me. She said that she would pay for my treatment if I was serious about getting clean. Another opportunity wasn’t going to come like that, and everyone I grew up with was already dead from overdoses. So, she paid for it and I did the suffering. After all no man is an island.
The theists that would say I don’t deserve credit for my accomplishments are the self hating humans I was referring to. They think we are too weak to do anything for ourselves. It also gives them plausible deniability when they do something fucked up. The good and the bad. It was all me baby.
Failing to think critically is something that happens to all of us from time to time. The difference is that religion is used to cause a mass directed lapse in critical thinking. As an example “god doesn’t like gay people because it says so in the bible. so all gay people bad”. When someone thinking critically would just judge individuals based on their own merit. Regardless of who they decide makes them happy.
Last point. Whew. Man. Just to be clear. I enjoyed reading your counter points. I thought all of them but one were pretty good, and that one may just be me misreading it.
So, you aren’t wrong. Boy Scouts comes to mind. But I feel like there is something especially egregious about someone telling you they’re going to save your soul, but the whole time they’re fucking your kid. Ya know what I mean? Not very holy of them.
Your second point. I’m guessing you’re equating science and religion? Which is a terrible argument. We can see and do science using our own brains and so, I’m just going to leave this one alone.
I’m not so much trying to equate science and religion but to argue against the claim that religion specifically is the issue, as far as your comment about certain religions taking credit for your own work. All sorts of institutions besides religion and science can and will attempt to do this.
The theists that would say I don’t deserve credit for my accomplishments are the self hating humans I was referring to. They think we are too weak to do anything for ourselves. It also gives them plausible deniability when they do something fucked up. The good and the bad. It was all me baby.
I still think this is an overgeneralization of theistic positions. I get that some theists would do this. They are shitty for that. But plenty of non-theists would do the same. There have been millions of theists throughout all of human history. It just doesn’t make sense to me to chalk this kind of thing up to being uniquely a theist thing.
Failing to think critically is something that happens to all of us from time to time. The difference is that religion is used to cause a mass directed lapse in critical thinking. As an example “god doesn’t like gay people because it says so in the bible. so all gay people bad”. When someone thinking critically would just judge individuals based on their own merit. Regardless of who they decide makes them happy.
I understand your point here, but this seems more like a point against abuses by religious institutions specifically. There’s a difference between some extremist christian cult telling people they ought to murder gay people and some random innocent person believing the earth was created by a small women on mars who dispenses cotton candy from her hair. Condemnation of religion by many people often includes the latter case I mentioned despite it being pretty harmless.
So, you aren’t wrong. Boy Scouts comes to mind. But I feel like there is something especially egregious about someone telling you they’re going to save your soul, but the whole time they’re fucking your kid. Ya know what I mean? Not very holy of them.
I totally agree with you on this.
Ok, I see what you’re saying, and I agree. But, the difference is a chain of tangible things coming together to exert force one way or the other in my life.
VS.
An invisible force with no other proof than “because they work in mysterious ways?”
For instance. I am a white male, and I have a genetically? high tolerance to opiates (I only say genetically high tolerance because most of my friends are dead). I also won the genetic lottery. Not like the billion dollar genetic lottery, but like a really good scratch off genetic lottery. I am fairly charismatic. I live in a major city center in the US. All these things and more came together to for instance get someone to like me enough to pay for treatment. Keep my criminal record minimal.
I agree with all those things. But, at the end of the day. I still had to make the decision and have the constitution to stick with it.
But I definitely see what you were saying now, and I agree with you. Except I can follow the science one. The religious one is still just kinda silly.
So, on to the next thing, and I agree with what you’re saying. I’ll give you that one. I don’t really see any flaw in your thinking on that one. People just kind of suck. Heh
Yeah, I really was just talking about abuses. Because, truthfully if religions were happy to stay out of politics, and mind their own business. I wouldn’t care one bit. The only reason I am as outspoken against religion as I am is because their choices affect mine and countless other lives across the world daily, and not in a good way, or even a way that the majority wants. But here we are.
No worries, I see the logic in your point of view too. Thanks for hearing me out. I appreciated getting to see your view point too.
I was just telling my partner that I had a super cool discussion with someone online today. That doesn’t happen very often. I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Most theistic beliefs can easily be made consistent with scientific thinking for what it’s worth.
Literally all theism starts with a claim that has no proof “there is a god”.
As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.
As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.
There are plenty of claims without proof that shouldn’t be dismissed. The majority of scientific inquiry investigates claims we can’t currently prove or disprove.
There really isn’t any objective proof there isn’t a god either. If we can dismiss claims that a god exists based on lack of proof, then it seems like logically we also can dismiss claims that no god exists based on lack of proof too?
You have just repeated the fallacy of proving a negative and proven you’re not worth the time to discuss anything with.
Seems a lot more to me like you don’t understand that we can reason rationally as well as empirically.
Invisible unicorns are real and you’re a bigot if you don’t agree.
It’s not my fault you can’t argue your point any further. There’s no need to reply to me to confirm it.
There are already some good rebuttals to your comment here, but I’m going to add another. The entire language of your argument is geared toward the theistic religions. You claim God did nothing to help you overcome your addiction. As an aside I could argue, from the theistic perspective that God did help you overcome your addiction, and you’re just not aware of it. But more to the point I can point out how, in the pantheistic model of theology the universe and everything in it is God, and therefore you are God who got a part of themself clean without the help of a concept of God, in order to claim that God doesn’t deserve to claim credit for getting them self clean.
Please ignore those arguments in themselves, I’m not trying to debate religion. I pointed that out to highlight that what you positioned as an argument against religion as a whole doesn’t even make sense, and is completely irrelevant, to one subset of religions. If you have grievances with the theistic, maybe even more specifically the monotheistic religions, then why not take those grievances up with who they belong?
And also ignoring that atheism is a religion.
And speaking of LGBTQ, I once worked at a summer camp that was run by a Christian church. The pastor and her wife had programs in place for the purpose of protecting and helping LGBTQ youth. Justice and injustice can come from theists and atheists alike.
So, I have been typing out responses to each person. You are the last one, and kind of like you said. I have covered pretty much everything, but I want to leave you with one final thought.
Let’s pretend that I start a business. Let’s say that I call this business “Save The Whales”. Now I start running advertisements and I say that for a small donation every Sunday I will feed the whales. So, people start donating and things are going well. Until, you find out that only 10% of the money you donate actually feeds the whales. The other 90% goes to killing whales.
The point to this is that regardless of what you claim to be. You are what you do. Religion often talks a big game about love, and tolerance, and forgiveness. But then says unless your gay, or black, or whatever. Where as it may not say it in the book. Religion is what its followers do.
When I was 5 my mother kidnapped me and ran to Florida. We were in church every time the doors opened. When I was six she got sick. I had to learn to cook, but we were still going to church. When I was seven she died. I didn’t know this then, but she couldn’t afford her insulin. I watched her die slowly just she and I. Where was god?
When I moved in with my dad. We kept going to church. I started being sexually abused by a neighbor when I was 9. Where was god?
I mean if god deserves credit for my sobriety. When I was old enough to make my own decisions. Then certainly god deserves credit for the things that happened to me as a child when I had no clue right?
As I said previously I’m not interested in debating religion in itself, but I guess I could give my two cents anyway. If you don’t believe in any deitys, that’s totally fine. It’s completely valid to have those beliefs.
Or on the other hand if you do believe in a higher power, or powers, then it becomes a question of what ontology you believe in. Somewhat similar to what I mentioned previously, I lean more toward a panentheistic framework, with somewhat of a gnostic leaning. By gnostic I mean to say that I do not accept the idea of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence. In that model, “God” is everything, though I believe there’s room for polytheism within that framework - that there are potentially countless beings, corporeal and incorporeal.
In my view there’s no disparity to reconcile, because everything in life works the way it works and we have no way to know if it could be otherwise. Maybe there are just fundamental constraints on what a physical reality can be? Maybe some beings are malevolent to humans, others benevolence, and sometimes one group has more success than the other?
So I would agree that the deity of the Abrahamic religions is a cruel one. I have my criticisms of their ways, many criticisms. But I don’t use those criticisms to attack theistic belief as a whole, because I know there are a wide diversity of beliefs out there with fundamentally different ways of viewing and relating with life.
I believe that we are nothing more than accidental chemical robots. When our batteries run out our systems cease to function and we exist no more. Life is like a game of pac man. Over several generations it’s pretty cool to see how high of a score we can get, but in the end there is no real reason or goal to our existence. I believe that absolutely no god exists.
With that being said. I also think that anyone that claims to know the answer is full of shit. Along with any religion that claims to know who his is. I’m willing to concede that having a nebulous idea about what god might be is fine.
For that matter, as I have previously stated. As long as religions stay in their lane and out of my life and affairs I don’t care what you believe. I only have a problem when your religion affects the freedoms and rights of other people.
I’d also like to point out that you mentioned abrahamic religions, but hindus and to a lesser extent sikhs are also problematic.
So, to wrap up this mental diarrhea. Believe whatever you want as long as you don’t mess with my life. Heavens Gate is a great example. If you and a bunch of friends want to castrate yourselves and commit suicide to jump on a comet. Be my guest. Just don’t take kids with you, and don’t lobby to have abortion made illegal. That’s literally the simplest terms I can put it in.
If you don’t want people to hate you. Leave people alone.
I decided that god didn’t exist when I was 8 for obvious reasons. But I never cared if people were religious or not. That is until I became older and realized just how much religion affects our lives. It’s disgusting how many lives are put at risk daily because an imaginary sky daddy might get pissed.
By all means your beliefs are fine, and you have every right to express them. What fundamentalists and evangelicals are doing to attack our rights is awful and I look forward to every ounce of power that we can take away from them — hopefully permanently. Church and state should be separate, and the state’s goal should be supporting diversity of belief and practice within a secular framework.
Here’s one of the problems I’m having right now though: there is so much hatred and stigma directed toward non-atheists as a whole these days, particularly in online spaces, that there’s been a sort of soft-censorship going on. In many public spaces, a theist can’t openly talk about their beliefs without immediately being mocked, stereotyped, and stigmatized into silence by antitheists. It’s roughly on par with the people who claim that anyone lgbtq+ can do what they want as long as they keep it out of public.
People should not have to seek isolated pocket communities just to be able to express their ontology.
Yeah, I mean it’s one of those things where you get a knee jerk reaction out of a lot of people just by mentioning religion. I don’t know in what ways or spaces you’re trying to talk about your religion. Nor can I speak for other atheists.
What I can say is that if you aren’t one of the big religions, I personally don’t care. Personally, I like the idea of quantum immortality. I don’t think that’s what happens when we die. But man that’s a fun idea.
Anyway, maybe next time try leading with “I’m not one of the main religions”. See if that helps. Maybe, try saying “I have some ideas that I’d like to share”. Instead of whipping out religion and waving it about. Because in the end that’s all that any of us have is some ideas, and anyone that says differently is a liar.
Anyway, I don’t know in what context you’re trying to talk about your religion. For all I know you could be trying to recruit people and they’re telling you to kick rocks. Who knows?
At any rate. I hope you find some people willing to talk about your religion with you.
deleted by creator
If you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism then this is false. If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false.
I’ve always found the idea that you are replacing religious faith with science to be ridiculous, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science does not ask for faith, it plainly lays out the facts and frameworks to be scrutinized. The scrutiny is the point.
Many atheists don’t actually apply the scrutiny you’re talking about. The issue isn’t the science here. It’s the blind faith.
If you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism then this is false.
… no.
If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones […]
That is a straw man made up by religious people - thus, pretty irrelevant.
If you have no convincing argument against my points that is fine, but you don’t need to post and tell me.
Nope, this is wrong, because science doesn’t have “beliefs” it has theories, which change based on evidence, peer review, and experiments. How often do you see atheists congregate in a laboratory, with a scientist leading a sermon from “On the Origin of Species”? Darwin got things wrong too, but you don’t see different sects of atheism who argue over whether individual traits are passed down to Offspring via genes or gemmules. Because one has evidence and peer review to back it up, and one lacks evidence because it was peer reviewed.
Nope, this is wrong, because science doesn’t have “beliefs” it has theories…
My point is not about science. Science is great. My point is about the people and their beliefs.
How often do you see atheists congregate in a laboratory, with a scientist leading a sermon from “On the Origin of Species”?
You absolutely see atheists circlejerk online propagating the same stupid antitheistic arguments repeatedly online.
Darwin got things wrong too, but you don’t see different sects of atheism who argue over whether individual traits are passed down to Offspring via genes or gemmules.
Argument, interpretation, disagreement and so on are all essential parts of doing science. People across all sciences argue about all sorts of different topics within their respective fields. There’s plenty of topics where scientific thought hasn’t actually reached a consensus. The scientific method itself isn’t really intended to confirm beliefs but to falsify.
My actual issue here isn’t with the scientific method or doing science. My issue here is replacing blind faith in one dogma for another and pretending like that is preferable when it really isn’t.
Because one has evidence and peer review to back it up, and one lacks evidence because it was peer reviewed.
Is this a typo? Peer review does not make a thing lack evidence?
Dogma is something that is “incontrovertibly” true. Science doesn’t work that way, you can’t just believe gravity doesn’t exist and then the Earth stops orbiting the sun. You can’t just decide water only freezes at 0°C regardless of pressure. But you can believe that abortion is a grave sin and murder a doctor for it.
What you’re saying is when people attempt to twist data to support their preconceived beliefs. For instance Belgians used phrenology to confirm their belief that Tutsis were superior to Hutus and fuel the Rwandan genocide. They already believed their racist dogma and attempted to use “science” to prove it. But science doesn’t have a bias, and it has no dogma.
And no, it’s not a typo. Darwin purported the idea that offspring of sexual organisms received their traits through gemmules shed by each organ of the body. Another scientist reviewed this theory by analyzing rabbit blood and found no gemmules, because those only exist in asexual reproduction, sponges specifically. The lack of evidence of gemmules essentially proves the theory of pangenesis wrong.
Dogma is something that is “incontrovertibly” true. Science doesn’t work that way, you can’t just believe gravity doesn’t exist and then the Earth stops orbiting the sun. You can’t just decide water only freezes at 0°C regardless of pressure. But you can believe that abortion is a grave sin and murder a doctor for it.
I think I’m just misunderstanding what you mean, but that’s not what dogma means at all. Dogma does not have to be true (incontrovertibly or not).
People can believe scientific things dogmatically. Attempts at scientific work can lead you to wrong conclusions in certain senses. Small sample sizes, biased samples etc. Science as a whole is not a foolproof thing. People make mistakes, false conclusions and so on. Ideally we work things out well enough that these issues are rectified over time but mistakes happen.
What you’re saying is when people attempt to twist data to support their preconceived beliefs. For instance Belgians used phrenology to confirm their belief that Tutsis were superior to Hutus and fuel the Rwandan genocide. They already believed their racist dogma and attempted to use “science” to prove it. But science doesn’t have a bias, and it has no dogma.
My issue isn’t with the science itself but the people who fail to interpret scientific results in sane ways or that twist and abuse scientific works (like you mention).
And no, it’s not a typo. Darwin purported the idea that offspring of sexual organisms received their traits through gemmules shed by each organ of the body. Another scientist reviewed this theory by analyzing rabbit blood and found no gemmules, because those only exist in asexual reproduction, sponges specifically. The lack of evidence of gemmules essentially proves the theory of pangenesis wrong.
My apologies, my confusion is this: “because one has evidence and peer review to back it up, and one lacks evidence because it was peer reviewed”. Peer review doesn’t remove evidence. At best it adds confidence or allows people a chance to say “Hey! This work is not correct because …” Your point is that a work by Darwin was peer reviewed and later found to be lacking right?
If you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism then this is false. If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false.
Religion is when people believe things? Reductio ad absurdum.
Beliefs that are founded in non-falsifiable reproducible objective evidence are not generally religious beliefs, they are scientific ones. Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded.
Religion is when people believe things?
Are you claiming that this is what I’m saying? It’s definitely not what I’m saying.
Beliefs that are founded in non-falsifiable reproducible objective evidence are not generally religious beliefs, they are scientific ones.
I don’t think there’s any necessity to distinguish between religious and scientific beliefs in this specific way. To me this comes across as you choosing to define scientific beliefs in the usual way, and then to explicitly exclude scientific beliefs from your definition to further your own point. Do you think religions can’t be willing to accept evidence about certain facts or to consider the possible falsifiability of certain propositions? If so then you are wrong. There’s no shortage of backpedaling, twisting and turning in the history of apologetics.
Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded.
This is absolutely a mischaracterization of the position/intent of religious people/religions. If you want to have good arguments against them you should argue against what they actually say and not things you make up in your head.
Are you claiming that this is what I’m saying? It’s definitely not what I’m saying.
It seems like that’s what you’re saying when you state that religious and scientific beliefs are interchangeable, and that Atheism is more or less a religion because of this. Belief system != religion.
Do you think religions can’t be willing to accept evidence about certain facts or to consider the possible falsifiability of certain propositions? If so then you are wrong.
Yes I do. There is willful suspension of disbelief, and belief in absurdities is inherent to religion. Catholics believe the sacrament literally becomes flesh and blood, for example. This is easily disproven yet remains a cornerstone of the religion. Believing absurdities is the price of admission, a litmus test showing that one will uncritically obey those who claim to speak for god(s) without compelling objective evidence. Many religions consider this willful ignorance a virtue, which they call faith.
Were these belief systems evidence-based they wouldn’t be in the domain of religion, they would be incorporated into science.
This is absolutely a mischaracterization of the position/intent of religious people/religions. If you want to have good arguments against them you should argue against what they actually say and not things you make up in your head.
I can’t speak for their intent, but it absolutely is the position of most religions. If I showed up to services and started arguing with the preacher I would likely not be invited back. At very least one must show reverence for their absurd claims to be accepted into the fold, (with a few exceptions like unitarianism, various reform denominations, omnism, atheistic satanism, etc.,) Many/most claim that the supernatural rewards like access to the afterlife are dependent upon belief and behavior.
Having attended many religious services by many religions I feel quite confident asserting that they are all bullshit. They make contradicting and overlapping claims, most claim to have a monopoly on the afterlife, they all rely on manipulative psychology, and they all propagate and persist through indoctrination of children.
It seems like that’s what you’re saying when you state that religious and scientific beliefs are interchangeable, and that Atheism is more or less a religion because of this. Belief system != religion.
I’m not claiming religion and scientific beliefs are wholly interchangeable and I’m not claiming all belief systems are effectively religious belief systems.
Here is the original comment I’m replying to: “Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the lack of a religion.”
Here is my second point: “If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false.”
What I do think is that there are inherently religious questions that both theists and (at least some) atheists answer via religious means. In the case of atheists I think they often refuse to admit to themselves that they do it. For example, a theist believes some mysterious god being created the universe, an atheist believes some mysterious force of nature created the universe (though maybe this force is something different from a god). I would call these kinds of beliefs religious whether it’s an atheist doing it or a theist.
I’m not saying all atheists do this. I’m not saying it’s bad to answer these kinds of questions in this way either. If nobody is hurt and the question is just answerable, then who even cares? But the idea that atheism is just totally a lack of religion seems untrue in some cases. Rejection of theistic deities does not mean rejection of all religion, all religious beliefs and all religious thought whatsoever.
Yes I do. There is willful suspension of disbelief, and belief in absurdities is inherent to religion. Catholics believe the sacrament literally becomes flesh and blood, for example. This is easily disproven yet remains a cornerstone of the religion. Believing absurdities is the price of admission, a litmus test showing that one will uncritically obey those who claim to speak for god(s) without compelling objective evidence. Many religions consider this willful ignorance a virtue, which they call faith.
Claims about the Catholic religion in particular aren’t claims that are applicable to all religions. There are many other religions besides western Christianity that have been practiced throughout human history. Christianity does not represent all religious beliefs and one should be careful not to take the shitty things many do in the name of their flavor of Christianity as a rule that ought to apply to all religions or all religious belief systems.
I can’t speak for their intent, but it absolutely is the position of most religions. If I showed up to services and started arguing with the preacher I would likely not be invited back. At very least one must show reverence for their absurd claims to be accepted into the fold, (with a few exceptions like unitarianism, various reform denominations, omnism, atheistic satanism, etc.,) Many/most claim that the supernatural rewards like access to the afterlife are dependent upon belief and behavior.
The original point they made was: “Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded.”
This part here: “Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded.” is not a correct interpretation of the intent of religious people. You can believe their views are absurd, but they don’t believe that, and arguing that their views are absurd just because you think so just begs the question.
That would imply atheists worship science. Which is not true.
No, that’s not what I said, nor is it really implied by anything I said.
The original comment said: “Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the lack of a religion.”
My reply was: “If you distinguish between agnosticism and atheism then this is false. If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false.”
For the second point: This has nothing to do with worship. This is about religious beliefs. For example, believing that the universe came into being by some mysterious god in the sky is a religious belief. Believing there is a man in Montana who willed all of us into existence is a religious belief. Believing some force of nature that we can analyze scientifically is also a religious belief. There’s no worship required for this and I am not claiming atheists worship science or scientific beliefs. My actual point here is that atheists can and do often have religious beliefs, whether they actually realize it and are willing to admit it or not.
For my first point: There’s no implication of worshiping scientific beliefs here either. My point is that agnosticism and atheism are two different things. One explicitly does not commit to a set of religious beliefs, one explicitly denies the existence of deities. These are not the same thing and claiming atheism is simply the lack of religion is at best an oversimplification and at worst stupidly wrong.
Ok fine, science is not a religious belief. Better?
I’m not intending to claim science is a religious belief. Did you read what I said? I don’t think this is the gotcha against my actual point that you think it is.
If you have a better term for the types of beliefs I’m talking about feel free to let me know and we can use that instead. Better?
Atheism is a religion. To argue that it isn’t is an attempt to use language to set it apart from other religions, as if it’s something special or superior. It’s a part of that same kind of supremacy talked about in the first article I posted.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not playing a sport makes one a pro athlete, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism is a religion.
Lol. No
Removed by mod
Couple of thoughts:
-
Atheism is not a religion. Religion is defined by doctrine and rituals, atheism has neither. It is the absence of religion. Some argue that atheism requires faith when compared to agnosticism, which is fair, but it does not make it a religion per se.
-
Antitheism typically stands on the ground that religion has been used to justify atrocities. It posits that religion is poisonous due to its effect on people and its ability to control their behavior to do irrational or evil things. Antitheism is not misanthropic in nature, nor is it trying to persecute people for their religion (at least not inherently), it is just the belief that a purely secular would would be more harmonious.
-
The idea that a minority group like antitheists have started the beginning stages of a “genocide” against religious people just because they find their beliefs to be harmful is absurd, even at face value. Even atheists hold no institutional power anywhere in the world and antitheistic, hardline anti-religion beliefs tend to be fringe, even among atheists.
tl;dr - Generally disagree about everything
Some argue that atheism requires faith when compared to agnosticism, which is fair, but it does not make it a religion per se.
I agree with most of your points, but I’m not sure I think it’s fair.
While atheism/antitheism is obviously a belief, it is not “capital F Faith” in the usual religious sense. You have a “faith” in gravity and that it’ll keep doing gravity things, which is based on measurable phenomena. The other kind, “just-have-faith/God works in mysterious ways” faith, is specifically based on the opposite, and is more akin to trust and hope. Trust and hope are great, but it does make the concepts fundamentally different. Equating the two is a very common occurrence that just so happens to either paint atheism/antitheism as a much more “random” belief, or paint theism as much more substantiated than it is, depending on perspective.
I agree that it’s more of a semantics game. Religious faith is different from a faith in secular theories and hypotheses. One is based on superstition, while the other on reasonable probability. That said, the answer to the question “why do you believe in anything if knowledge can never be guaranteed” always ends up being some variation of “faith” in my experience, whether the beliefs are secular or religious, but I know there are those who disagree and/or will categorize these things differently based on their choice of language.
Antitheism has plenty of blood on its hands, just like every other religion. Counting human lives only:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion
And going beyond human lives, only something like 1-3% of the human population is vegan. That means 97% of people are actively complicit in an egregious atrocity every day, and that is blood on the hands of people of all religions.
Again, antitheism does not have the defining characteristics of religion. And what you’re pointing to is state violence, which again, is not an issue today since antitheists do not hold institutional power, are considered a fringe group, and would generally not accept a state-sponsored genocide of religious people. I feel like you are arguing against the ghost of Stalinism.
-
Atheism is not a religion. It’s the idea that there are no gods, and in most cases no religion follows.
Atheism is not getting involved. Your whole thing then is really just pro-theist vs. Antitheist. I would say that even the most diehard anti-theists aren’t invading other countries, jailing people, or beheading them for their beliefs.
Teasing religious people for their dick head beliefs, is a response to all the shitty things that have been done and are currently being done in the name of religion.
If you NEED religion to be a good person then you’re not a good person. Every single shitty thing happening on the planet right now is directly related to greed, or religion. Yet you still think it’s “bigotry” to call that out.
Fuck religion, and fuck a god that would sit and watch all this happen and do nothing. If god is real he’s a real piece of shit.
Atheism is not a religion. It’s the idea that there are no gods, and in most cases no religion follows.
The notion that “atheism is a religion” is so comical that I’d love to watch the brain sprain when people who spout that nonsense come across a legit, non-parody, atheistic religion.
So I’m not talking about the Temple of Satan types. Nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster types. Nor the myriad of other spoof religions. I’m talking a serious religion with a long history (it’s older than Christianity) that is at the very least agnostic if not flat-out atheistic¹: 儒教 (which you’d know as Confucianism).
So here we have a religion that is either agnostic or atheistic. Kind of hinting that atheism and religion are separate axes.
¹ “You are not yet able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?” was 孔夫子’s (Confucius’) stance on paying homage to gods.
Atheism is a religion. To argue that it isn’t is an attempt to use language to set it apart from other religions, as if it’s something special or superior. It’s a part of that same kind of supremacy talked about in the first article I posted.
The lack of religion isn’t a religion. What is so difficult about this for the religious to grasp?
An atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in any gods. Some religions are atheistic. Atheism itself is not a religion.
If you are a theist, that implies specific beliefs following specific patterns. If you are not, you are an atheist. That is the specific, universally accepted definition of that word. Whatever you want it to mean instead, for the purposes of making your point less bad, is not all that interesting to most people.
Atheism isn’t a religion. Full stop. From that one statement you made the rest is safely dismissible.
The best analogy I’ve heard was along the lines of: Atheism isn’t a channel on the TV, it’s the off button
Consider it yoinked. I’m going to use that one from now on.
Atheism isn’t a religion, but there are definitely forms of antitheism, such as New Atheism, that qualify as pseudoreligions.
That isn’t what OP said, however. This is what was said:
If your religion is atheism, that’s perfectly valid.
Religious belief is a voluntary characteristic. Why should that not be considered when judging someone’s character?
deleted by creator
External pressures, community, etc. also factor in to membership in groups like the KKK. Should we not judge racists for being racist?
Everybody’s job is voluntary as well, would you not say that glosses over reality?
Not in the context of judging their character on the basis of their chosen employment, no. For example, a slaver deserves to be judged harshly for choosing to be a slaver.
deleted by creator
I was not drawing that kind of comparison. I’m pointing out that the same excuses can be used for both.
deleted by creator
The point is that involuntary characteristics are the ones that can’t be used legitimately. Voluntary characteristics can be.
deleted by creator
Are beliefs voluntary? Do you choose to believe that the sky is blue or that you need to drink water to survive? You certainly choose whether you support certain religious institutions and practices or not. But I’m not sure how much I buy the idea that beliefs (or religious ones specifically) are voluntary.
I don’t understand how its not voluntary. Can you explain?
Can you explain how it is voluntary? I don’t see why beliefs about things are choices?
It’s voluntary because people choose to believe it.
In fact, for many religions that conscious decision is a necessary step. Christians, for example, teach that only those who accept Jesus Christ can be saved.
It’s voluntary because people choose to believe it.
You are arguing this: “It’s a choice (i.e. voluntary) because it’s a choice.” This is circular reasoning.
What we’re arguing about is called doxastic voluntarism. My whole point here is that there isn’t some single consensus on this topic. There are arguments for and against doxastic voluntarism.
I don’t care about your personal beliefs regarding this topic. I’m pointing out the fact that “A chooses to believe B, therefore …” is a form of argument that doesn’t guarantee its conclusions if the premise “A chooses to believe B” isn’t true. For this kind of argument to work you need to address whether or not “A chooses to believe B” really is true beyond just begging the question.
deleted by creator
technically, yeah, you’re choosing based on evidence. just a lot of very consistent evidence.
technically, yeah, you’re choosing based on evidence.
I’m questioning whether or not this is really choice?
Think of it as a sliding scale based on amount and consistency of evidence. You picked some on the extreme end of happening everyday and always consistent.
Like, i have a less firm belief that we’ll have a snowstorm this winter. Much less amount of evidence, and less consistent, but it does usually happen so id probably plan for it to.
I can understand if this is how it feels to you, but I’m not sure everybody has this experience. I’d imagine a hardcore true believer in some christian sect probably feels more like they have to believe. Like, things are just so objectively true to them about their own religion that they can’t not believe. Or something along those lines. I can’t exactly vouch for the experience of all theists.
I dunno if you grasp objective vs subjective.
I see reading comprehension is hard for you. Let me help you. Please note the part I put in bold for you: “Like, things are just so objectively true to them…”
The sky being blue or my need to drink water aren’t beliefs, they’re facts. I don’t need faith to know that they are true
Your original statement was about beliefs and whether they are voluntary not facts. I’m talking about your belief about the sky being blue and your belief about the fact that you need to drink water to survive. Facts and beliefs about what things are facts are two separate things and whether or not these things actually are facts is irrelevant to my point.
Facts can be proven (if you stop drinking water you die), beliefs can not be proven (they don’t need to be, you have faith).
Proof, belief and fact are all different things. I’m talking about belief. You’re trying to make a point about facts that is irrelevant to my point. Yes, I get that you can believe true, untrue, provable and unprovable things. This is beside my point.
beliefs can not be proven (they don’t need to be, you have faith).
This is objectively untrue. Some beliefs are provable. You can believe the sun will rise tomorrow. You can prove whether or not it actually does by checking tomorrow if the sun did or did not rise.
Calling it bigotry is a stretch.
If your religion is atheism
Not a thing, not how it works, and only serves to show your ignorance.
as well as the first of the “10 Stages of Genocide.”
Lets fucking go boys! We can start with the religious extremists funding al jazeera.
We’re ALL born atheist. Belief is voluntary.
…because there is no parental indoctrination?
My parents were religious, still are, I haven’t believed in God since 4th grade.
Kinda agree. Somewhat same here. Still its not that simple for all people in all places.
deleted by creator
Exactly
I would rather believe in a fairy tale book about a unicorn farting rainbows than the bible, quarn and other bs.
That would be perfectly valid too, as long as you aren’t causing harm.
All of the bad things that are absolutely true about aleister Crowley aside, his phrase, “and it harm none, do as you will shall be the whole of the law” has always been useful to me.
I’ll sit my happy ass in the corner and say my prayers to my God in secret.
I’ll discuss religion with the people that bring it up into conversation and defend my stances on it should it come to it.
I won’t shove my religion in your face, I won’t make you feel bad for not adhering to my weird set of personal rules, and should I pray on your behalf I will do so without the expectation that you have to join my side in order to receive the benefits.
And, assuming that I follow those rules perfectly, if somebody has a problem with that then I will address that issue but I’m not going to change what I believe or who I am to make you feel comfortable.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There is a difference between criticizing a religion, criticizing all religion, and hating or mocking religious people. The first two are okay, the third is not.
Hating and mocking people who want to kill you seems fine to me.
The OPs whole post is supported/predicated on those links, and what a surprise, would you look at who funds aljazeera!
is a Qatari state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news television network
I wonder what Qatar think about atheists?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Most religious people that you’re actually going to meet don’t want to kill you.
Oh so I should be happy that only some of them want to kill me?
You shouldn’t be prejudiced against people.
Prejudice does not apply; my preconceived judgement is reasonable, I understand all the relevant facts and there is nothing irrational about condemning cultists.
Hate is not reasonable.
Hatred of Nazis is reasonable, the Catholic church supported the Nazis, therefore hatred of both is reasonable.
ISIS were Sunni and supported by Sunni muslims, and its entirely reasonable to hate both.
Evangelicals in the US have supported, participated in and perpetuated horrific racism and have been drivers of inequality. It’s entirely reasonable to hate them.
There are many and varied circumstances where hate is not only reasonable, it is the only reasonable position to take.
religion is just the opposite of science. Science is evidence based beliefs, religion is faith, or rather belief with lack of evidence.
It’s just in an awkward phase right now where science has proven itself as correct and religious people warp their beliefs to try and fit it. Liiiike, folks shaving their beards. Science says it’s fine, people have shaved plenty of times, with no ill effects. Religion says it’s bad, it will anger God. People still call themselves religious while shaving their beards, despite the singular source of their religious belief explicitly saying otherwise. Bible praises the efficacy of prayer to quite an extent, turns out that’s a testable hypothesis. How many religious people do you know that would bet money on prayer affecting the outcome of a study? People in developed countries stopped believing we should be stoning homosexuals to death, but the books never changed, all those words are still there, they’re just ignored now. Oh but it’s still the infallible word of God.
Science is not atheism.
And religion is not the opposite of science.
Science is the formalized study of nature.
The supernatural is the opposite of science.
Gods are by choice or by default supernatural in nature.
Religion itself is the organized practice by which worshipers converge to worship a god or to study and practice the supernatural.
We know religion exists whereas whether or not a God exists of any type whatsoever is up for debate and not scientifically provable.
Religion itself is the organized practice by which worshipers converge to worship a god or to study and practice the supernatural.
Man is 儒教 going to fuck with your head.
is up for debate
There is no need to debate claims which have zero evidence.
If there was no need for a debate about it then why are you debating me about it?
Didnt mention atheism
Like many labels people choose to self-apply (including but by no means limited to religious ones), “atheist” has a bit of an image problem, since the people who are most eager to self-apply it, and to broadcast that self-application far and wide, tend to be insecure, over-compensating, self-absorbed, obnoxious assholes.
There are a great many generally kind, decent people who identify as “atheists.” You just don’t generally know that they do, since, being generally kind and decent people, they aren’t crashing around like football hooligans, alternately screeching about their own team and atacking the opposing team.
And that’s the case with pretty much all labels. The problem is almost never with people who self-apply a particular label, but simply with noxious assholes, regardless of the label. It’s generally just our own biases that make it so that we consider the noxious assholes who wear one label to define all who do and the noxious assholes who wear another to be unfortunate exceptions to the rule.
insecure, over-compensating, self-absorbed, obnoxious assholes.
Or so is claimed from the pulpits.
