• littleblue✨@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Or, you know, none of that bullshit? We could just let it slip back into the primordial muck with superstition and shitting into our bare hands… But, no. We like our invisible sky daddies and not being collectively intelligent. 🫥

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      shitting into our bare hands

      That might have been just you, no one else was doing that

      • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s what monkeys do, jackass, and even they know better than to believe some kid-diddlin’ geezer in a frock who says his dad is watching you breathe. Jog on.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Say this when it’s a country’s primary religion on the line, not when some minorities want equal rights for their religions.

      • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        No. Say it always for all religion. Fuck the entire system of mind control. Don’t cherry pick your oppressors, citizen.

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Unless the country’s primary religion is on the line, you are not going against all religion - you are going against the specific religion in question (or religions). Systems resit change, so if you advocate for “let’s not give this minority’s religion equal rights, and instead take away the rights of the primary religion” only the first part will get implemented.

          Analogy: Whenever there is a talk about legalizing same sex marriage, someone will always argue that the state should not get involved in any kind of marriage. Does this position have merit on on its own? Yes. But when presented in the contest of same sex marriage legalization, is it anything but pure support of continuing the oppression of same sex couples?

          • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Swing and a miss.

            Your logic is flawed insofar as “tolerance for intolerance” as well as propped up by complete conjecture & hyperbole. (Eg. “only the first part will get implemented”, “Whenever there is a talk about”, “But when presented”, etc. [citations needed])

            • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Got any more general purpose fit-all objections? The only thing here that is at least a bit specific is the “tolerance for intolerance” thing, but even that is completely unrelated - while many religions have their share of intolerances, celebration holidays is not one of them.

    • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      invisible sky daddies

      Oh I am definitely using this phrase from now on. I’ve been using “imaginary friends” until now, but this is SO much better :)

      • Snowcano@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        My go to is “invisible sky pixie” because it replaces the image of a caring parental figure with a diminutive and capricious sprite.

    • Gladaed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      How is a common rest day bullshit? Don’t take the weekends away. You could even prohibit supermarkets from opening on sunday/Saturday to encourage it. In Germany this is rather common. (But with too many exceptions and little flexibilty)

    • QuaffPotions@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Or, like, we could maybe recognize that humankind has always had diversity of beliefs, and just go ahead and respect that fact within reason.

      That’s the problem with anti-theists pretending their beliefs aren’t a religion. By acting like it’s something different, you think it gives you permission to call for taking away other’s rights. I respect atheism, but people like you can keep your bigoted hypocritical fundamentalist Atheism to yourselves.

        • Arrkk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          There are plenty of reasonable definitions of religion that would apply to atheism, but even that aside, it’s a-theism, not a-religionism, it’s a rejection of theism, and while many atheists do come at the topic from a generic anti-religion angle, there are many atheistic religions, like The Satanic Temple, who are doing fantastic legal work as a officially recognized religion to fight the current right wing legal nastiness like the abortion ban in Texas by arguing they have religious freedom to preform abortions.

          So you’re right in the strictest sense that the philosophy of atheism is not de-facto a religion, but next tmme I would recommend making an actual argument rather than incoherent swearing at someone with a mildly spicy take, you’re making us all look bad.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Depends on context. In regards to a lot of Federal discrimination legislation like that in Canada, atheism is actively protected under the subheading of “religious belief”.

          In some Provincial discrimination legislation it is covered by the term “creed” rather than religion but if something goes to the level of the Federal Supreme Court then for purposes of protection against discrimination or for matters of hate speech atheism is considered for all purposes legally a religious belief.

          Linguistically laws often term Atheism more broadly as a set of spiritual beliefs. Believing entirely in the absence of the supernatural is still describing what you believe about spiritual matters. Atheism is not a complete absence of belief. You still have things you believe about spirits - you believe they do not exist. If you truly had no spiritual beliefs you would have to be completely unaware that the concept of the belief of the spiritual exists at all including disbelief in the spiritual.

          Fundamentally law that applies atheism as a religion employs this logic despite religion having connotation of an internal dogma - something absent in atheism.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Too ignorant. There is no pretending. Not having a belief is not a belief.

        Believers are the hypocritical ones. By definition. And you can be very lucky that religion is still supported by some states. Because it really shouldn’t be. Nothing in religion reflects reality.

        Might as well invent a tax for used-up mind-energy for people who think a lot. Who cares if mind-energy can be proven, you’ll gladly pay it, right? Riiiight? Thoughts have to come from somewhere. The big energy-thought-pool. There should be six days of think-rest per year to protect the energy balance. No thinking allowed. How does that sound? Let me write that down, so people in 1000 years can use my book as proof.

        Who are the hypocritical ones, sitting on their holidays and rituals, and forcing them on everyone? It’s not the atheists.

        • QuaffPotions@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re sounding rather manic here. Relax, the evangelicals are not coming to get you.

          I personally would prefer it if we could shake off the last vestiges of christocentrism in our culture - the predominance of their national holidays, their stranglehold on government and taking away women’s and lgbtq rights, and even the documenting of history based on bc and ad.

          But your assertion is illogical because religion is incidental to bigotry, sometimes used as a vehicle for it, but not inherent to it. For example I once worked as an intern for a summer camp owned and operated by a Lutheran church. It was run by a pastor and her wife, and much of their operations were specifically meant for sheltering and supporting lgbtq+ youth. They never once made any attempt to convert me, and only ever made me feel welcomed and accepted for who I was.

          One of the core problems with most branches of Christianity, historically, and into today is the idea of religious exclusivism. They hold that the only valid belief is their belief, and everything else is false and must be done away with. This idea that only Christianity was valid is what allowed them to feel justified in the eradication of pagans in ancient Rome, forced conversions in Europe, and the genocides and cultural erasure of indigenous people on Turtle Island.

          So for you and other antitheists to say that only atheism is correct and valid, is just another form of religious exclusivism. Clearly you are already calling for the cultural erasure of all these other competing beliefs, just as the Christians in antiquity did. And likewise, state-atheism already has a history of oppression under Mao and Lenin. Are you a tankie too?

          As a sidenote, it would be more accurate to say agnosticism, or even agnostic-atheism are nonbeliefs or nonreligions. But the more proselytizing and dogmatic Atheism gets, the more religiony it gets. So yes you are religious, and yes you are hypocritically guilty of the same bigoted religious exclusivism that your oh-so-hated Christian brothers are. You want to be better than them? Then don’t be like them. Support a religiously plural world, a world where we can explore belief freely and still respect each other despite, or even because of, differences of worship.

          • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You should write a book. Some people might believe it. But in my opinion, it is complete bullshit.

            I believe in no God. There was never a god, and there will never be a god. A creature with powers? Maybe. I watched Star Trek. But a god? Creator of everything? Never. That is what atheism means.

            Yet I have to live with theists, and they yield a lot of power. Not god-given, but self-imposed. I’m not angry. But you talk about LGBTQ rights? Where is my right to ignore theist holidays? There are laws against that. IMO, you are the bigot. Talking about rights.

            And that is not a religion. And I’m not acting religious. I don’t see why you interpret that as being angry, but you are already trying to convert me to something of your liking, something that is in its core dividing and prone to create inequality.

            So no, I will not yield and simply say, oh, what gives. Religions are destroying freedom. Often on a state level. Much worse than the LGTBQ community has to face. Religion basically created the hate against LGTBQ. So don’t tell me to oblige.

            There is no god, so everyone acting in god’s name is misguided. They sometimes do good. Fantastic. And trying to defend freedom is not a religion either. Every animal does it. Humans just argue about it more.

            Nothing you say can convince me of a god. Not even a God showing up could. He’d be “god-like” at best. I do not believe in any god.

            • QuaffPotions@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m not trying to convert you, atheism is fine and has a lot going for it. So give the persecution complex a rest. Having to share a world where other people are granted their own rights, does not necessarily infringe on your rights. You think your freedom is infringed because people get days off on theist holidays? That’s like when straight people complain about gay marriage. Don’t like gay marriage? Nobody is forcing straight people to be gay. Don’t like theist holidays? Then don’t celebrate them.

              And you say yourself that if God themself came down, you would still not belief in God? That’s like when a Christian says that no amount of evidence contradicting the Bible can shake their faith in the Bible. The whole idea with atheism is to be skeptical and evidence-based. And yet here you are with a faith so strong it cannot be shaken by anything.

              Antitheists are as hypocritical and cognitively dissonant as carnists. Believe whatever you want, but here’s a reality check: there are as many religions as there are people. The world has always had a diversity of belief, and always will. You will always have to share this planet with theists. Any program that seeks the eradication of all but one religion will always be a hugely destructive and traumatic failure, because humans are always looking to disagree with each other and explore new possibilities. And yes, at a certain point atheism becomes a religion, particularly when it becomes dogmatic and institutionalized. You’re not special. You in particular have demonstrated a religiosity that is only comparable to the staunchest Christians.

              • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You really do not get the point. Atheism does only mean to not believe in a single, almighty God.

                I have no problem accepting powerful aliens, extradimensional beings, or unimaginable creatures. As long as they can be proven not to be hallucinations.

                Whatever they are, they are not God, because God is some contradictory being thought up by people, conjured out of nothing, without relatives or ancestors. Religions based on such concepts are nonsensical in the least.

                The stories are inconsistent; the whole concept is ridiculous. No matter what comes down, I will not believe. Atheism is not a religion.

                I could accept religions being wrong, and that people mistakenly declared some alien to be God, and invented ridiculous stories around the concept.