Belief only becomes a problem when someone weaponizes it. If you want to become a better person to appease the space rock, go for it, but if you tell me the space rock says no abortions for anyone, no it doesn't.
Belief is a problem because it normalizes magical thinking and pushes blame away from the self. Belief paves the way for snake oil, anti-intellectualism, and learned helplessness. Belief is comforting shackle but there are other ways to be comforted that do not leave one vulnerable to predation.
Nah, it really isn't a problem. At all actually. It doesn't matter if every single person believes in a different gemstone and that the gemstone will bestow upon them magical blessings for being a good person. If that is what they need to be good people, to motivate them, to inspire them to be better - who gives a fuck if it 'normalizes magic'?
I'm not so concerned with being right that I'd let us live in misery to be closer to 'intellectualism'. Not everyone will find other methods to cope and their belief doesn't harm anyone. I think you have to be a genuinely dank and dreary person to want to rob people of something like Santa Claus because it 'normalizes magic' while I'm sitting here hoping people just try to be better with the vague promise of presents.
Their preachers tell them how to vote, and their preachers tell them to take rights away from women and minorities. To not worry about climate change because the Rapture is coming. To give all their money to Trump. They hurt our society.
Everything has grifters. Elon Musk hasn't whispered a word of religion yet people will vote the way he tells them to. Magic has nothing to do with stupidity.
I’m an athiest, and I generally believe that religion can be easily used to be shitty towards others and push them to being the worst type of people in life (more generally this happens with all ideologies). But for many religious people they aren’t too different compared to an athiest. They might go to church only on the holidays, or maybe they go weekly. They probably have many religious values. But at the end of the day they often make similar decisions for different reasons.
But I genuinely believe that trying to convince people that god isn’t real is super shitty and counter-productive. Show some compassion you fucking deodorant-free 🤓-brained reddit moderator. Take a shower.
I occasionally hear people say something like “We should be making people atheists. Religion is a scourge that uses ideology to harm others.” I can’t help to laugh when I hear this, because someone who takes this seriously (perhaps the person in the comic) is doing the literal thing they are decrying.
So what if someone is a christian because it comforts them? I don’t care if you think it lacks logic when your alternative lacks compassion.
Instead of opposing religion unilaterally, oppose the harmful ideas laundered by religion. Shame the politicians and the charlatans. Don’t shame mary-sue who goes to church weekly for being the a Christian, even though the shitbags at NIFB hate church are also Christians.
It’s certainly possible for people to be good to each other due to their religious beliefs. The local pro-palestine protests near me are primarilly organized by christians, and they are often led by a local group of leftist christian pacifists. They organize anti-war protests, support palestinian freedom, and do many smaller actions to alleviate suffering such as volunteering at the local food bank or other similar orgs. Compared to other groups that organize near me, I vastly prefer them over my local PSL chapter, or almost every ML group I’ve ever come across. Unlike many atheists I’ve worked with, that christian group will happily work with a local mosque, or synagogue when it doesn’t help them materially. This is because they don’t oppose people based on simple reasons like religion, but instead have deep solidarity with everyone else suffering through life on this terrible world.
Instead of opposing religion because you think it’s cringe how about you show solidarity and compassion for your fellow human beings.
I disagree pretty strongly on especially the "don't shame someone for who is essentially a good person for sharing the same religion as a bad person."
Community is everything, and there's strength in names. If you say you are of the same religion as a bigot, you're telling the bigots that you agree with them, even if you don't. If you want to follow the teachings of the character known as Christ, you ironically have to call yourself something other than Christian, because that label is synonymous with all kinds of bigotry to a dangerous number of people. The bigotry isn't going to die out as long as they can claim to be a majority.
We're not talking about sports teams here. These labels matter, and have dangerous effects. I'd rather everyone drop religions labels entirely and just say how they claim to be a good person, because as it stands there are good people and bad people who share the same label, which makes the bad people stronger.
Christianity is a big tent term that encompasses a lot of differing groups of thought. You've got Catholics and Protestants, being the largest groups that come to mind. Below that you have everything from Lutherans to Presbyterians to Christian Scientists to Westboro Baptists. Admittedly, I don't think I made it clear enough in my comment I was speaking more big-tent Christianity when referring to mary-sue rather than a specific denomination (or a specific church), as I was speaking about religion as a whole, using Christianity as an example, hence why I was saying "Oppose harmful ideas laundered by religion" rather than opposing religion unilaterally. For example, we should oppose the colonialist ideology smuggled through religion, such as forced religious conversions (in order to save their soul!) or the necessity to colonize to do said conversions. We should oppose genocidal rhetoric smuggled through religion. Heck, we should even oppose the shitty bits of text in a religious text like when or when not to stone someone or the punishment for whatever crime.
However, you are implying that you should simply give up your label when bad actors take up your label. While I don't dispute that labels matter, because they do, I think it's silly to just give it up once another person/group tries to coopt your label. If you don't want bigots using your label, you've gotta kick them out. If you change your label to something else, and the bigots come to hide in the crowd, what are you supposed to do, change it for the 5th time?
As far as dropping labels goes, while I like the idea (I hate labels though I find them useful), I think it's impractical. As you said, "there's strength in names," and I think it would be crazy to ask someone to entirely drop a label that they hold dearly, such as their religious affiliation. It would also be crazy to ask them to just say "I believe in Jesus Christ..." and then list out 95 theses to indicate that they oppose aspects of the catholic church, then a good 95 more when they need to indicate their church had a schism in 1893, and another in 1913.
But whenever we do say that those evil people aren't Christians and push them away, we get accused of "no true Scotsman fallacy" or some BS and "you are part of the problem not taking responsibility".
As for coming up with a new label, the thing with the label "Christian" is that it's prescribed in the Bible. Even other religions far removed from Nicene Christianity that respect the Bible or some form of it use the label, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. So the productive thing to do is calling them out on not being one for not following the teachings of the Bible
Oops! Sorry! Atheists are always right because they are very very very intelligent and their intelligence knows no bounds, so maybe if it's not in the Bible, then Jesus did actually say it and the evil xtians removed it! Because atheists are never wrong! Every single argument an atheist makes is valid and isn't completely disingenuous!
If you say you are of the same religion as a bigot, you're telling the bigots that you agree with them, even if you don't.
Hitler and I may have agreed that the sky is blue, but if someone uses this to say we agree in general, they are simply being unreasonable. There are countless denominations of Christianity as a result of people disagreeing with each other about history and values. The Christian label is not synonymous with bigotry, and we could use more counterexamples if people seem to think otherwise.
I 100% agree. I think most anti-relious atheist are still living in reaction to their religious up bringing or unable to recognize where power resides to be able to hold it to account or both.
Agreed, except for proselytizers. If they came to my door, bus stop, or campus to try to "convert" me, I'm gonna use their own "holy book" against them.
Numbers 5: 11-21 is one of the more effective passages, since it's the only time The Bible mentions abortion, and it tells you how to perform a questionable method.
I mean, I haven’t dealt with proselytizers in so long I kinda forgot about them. I used to get the odd mormon or Jehovah’s witness but they stopped coming a long while ago, and I don’t miss em.
Numbers 5: 11-21 is pretty good imho. But I rarely debate religious people since I’ve gotten in a position where I really don’t see people like that anymore between the online algorithms which don’t show that shit and the fact that there aren’t too many religious people near me who are fascistic.
I struggled a lot when I lost my faith. I truly believe I’m better off now but I don’t take other people’s spiritual paths lightly. You go to dark places when you haven’t learned how to cope otherwise.
Yeah, and also I wouldn’t go out of my way to shit on someone who believes we live in a simulation. Simulation theory is sort of plausible with our current understanding of tech—but right now it has just as much evidence as most religions (which is none for both). So yeah, I don’t think it’s good practice to try and dunk on people for their beliefs.
I had the opposite experience. I was convinced I was going to hell and that there was nothing I could do about it, so I thought I may as well be glutinous and selfish to enjoy my time here before getting tortured for eternity. It caused me some serious trauma, and on top of that it led to me hurting family and friends.
I don't think I could've ever left my self-loathing and selfishness behind if I didn't let go of my religion.
Who am I to question someone’s spirituality if it makes them happpy and they practice in a healthy way and it doesn’t negatively affect the people around them?
The woman crying in this comic isn't the religion that's "burning down your house"
She's just some schmoe that had her light in the dark removed and now she's scared.
I agree, there are better ways to light the darkness than religion. Candle in the Dark is a book by Carol Sagan about how science is a candle in the dark.
It's a pretty mean angle to take, but why deconvert people by pushing them into a nihilistic crisis?
It's not like atheists think life is meaningless, kindness to be pointless, or the afterlife something to be anxious about.
I've found far less mean-spirited success by explaining how belief isn't necessary for existence to be worthwhile for us. If they can come to understand how happiness is possible for someone who doesn't believe, their own belief suddenly become a lot more optional.
I have friends who are full on religious while I'm an atheist, they know I'm not a fan of their religion but they also know that I only care if it's making them happier and helping them, which to be fair has helped them become better people, but they were always the ones that needed some external guidance so I suppose gods a better guide than a meth dealer.
They don't try to convert me and I don't try to convert them and we still have fun, plus I enjoy hearing the weird AF stories from the bible, like the time Jesus got pissed at an out of season fig tree for not having figs when he wanted, so he cursed to for life, hungover entitled shit Jesus has some funny stories.
I’d like to think religious people don’t necessarily believe or remember word-for-word what happened to Jesus or Muhammad or whoever but they do learn lessons from the readings that they apply in their lives in a positive way. Or at least their intentions are positive.
It’s a routine group-based literary text analysis that gives people a reason to be together, not unlike a high school first language class.
If you wanna get old school sociological about it, you could say it fulfills a social need for cohesion that non practicing people replace by placing increased importance to other routine activities such as sports watching or working.
and it doesn’t negatively affect the people around them?
The problem is that most of the time this isn't true.
I found out not too long ago that my best friend is perfectly willing to vote against my right to love who I want and embrace the identity that I want, and will openly (albeit only when I ask) tell me I deserve to go to hell for it. My family is even worse.
You are right that they are no longer a friend, but that's because they were brainwashed into thinking their friends perfectly normal identity is a result of Satan controlling them, or whatever. Christianity, and most other religions, cause more harm than good in our modern times.
We have outgrown religion's usefulness as a species, but people are so afraid of death, and the meaningless of life, that they will deny reality to hold on to the hope of a better life after this one. Then, others will use this desperation to their own advantage, and convince their followers that being gay, trans, or just a little different, is an automatic heaven ban.
"Hey, you know that belief system that attempts to answer the great unanswerable questions and gives you some shred of comfort? Nah, you live in an unfeeling, uncaring world. There is nothing, no great answer. Just living until you die.
Why are you crying?"
If you call yourself an atheist vs agnostic, I immediately just see an edgy teenager who wants to be confrontational. Not someone seeking actual answers or discussion. Most of the greatest scientific thinkers acknowledge that science is the answer to "how?", but not "why?". We simply don't have that answer. Anyone claiming to is arrogant at best.
Just like nobody knows for certain if centaurs or the Tooth Fairy actually exist or not. Right.
...I can certainly relate to the idea that we cannot fully comprehend reality. No, seriously, I do; and I'm often ranting against assumers claiming to know shit that they cannot reliably know*.
But, at the end of the day, this shit is supposed to be practical, not some mental masturbation over the metaphysical fabric of the reality. You need to draw the line somewhere and say "nah, this is likely enough to be bullshit that we can safely say «it's bullshit»". Otherwise your "agnosticism" is simply a fancy name for solipsism.
*for example, implying that they know who says it (edgy teenager) and "intention" (to be confrontational), based on the label that one might use (atheist). That stinks assumption from a distance, like it or not.
I mean if lying to yourself and others gives you comfort, then my point stands that you need help
unfeeling, uncaring world
Absolutely not, otherwise i would have written "she can go fuck herself", but i didnt because people deserve better than being forced to believe in some century old mental mindgame of bullshit.
Just living until you die.
Thats correct, but life is amazing and full of cool stuff already. There is no need to limit your happiness with some archaic system of self oppression.
People who have grown up in a culture of religion assume that there’s nothing but pain in atheism, when actually it’s quite liberating. The intellectual honesty of atheism is simple, refreshing, and empowering. I for one have never been more at peace with myself.
It turns out that fearmongering about death (eg. most religious teachings of an afterlife) perpetuates the fear of death. Atheists must make peace with the reality of the universe and when they do the fear simply goes away.
You lack the charisma of a televangelist and the backing of a wealthy group to lobby against taxing your gains.
I mean if lying to yourself and others gives you comfort, then my point stands that you need help
Truth hurts and most people don't like being in pain most of the time.
Absolutely not, otherwise i would have written “she can go fuck herself”, but i didnt because people deserve better than being forced to believe in some century old mental mindgame of bullshit.
You assume they are being forced and not do so willingly. Those looking for stability tend to cling to ideas that don't change multiple times over the course of their life. An ancient religion is considerably more stable than the ever-changing discoveries of science.
Thats correct, but life is amazing and full of cool stuff already. There is no need to limit your happiness with some archaic system of self oppression.
Most people don't get to see those. Each individual has a limited experience through life and we all tend to take for granted the idea that we all experience the same things in the same way. We don't.
If you can't understand why someone would cling to religion, at least try to understand that the same can be said about them regarding you.
There are lots of ways to approach meaning, and more broadly spirituality and community, without theism.
This is a weird take on atheism that reads like you've only seen atheists online creeping out of /r/atheism or some similar place. There's no more reason that "why" should be answered by Christianity than by any number of philosophies that don't require a god, and pegging someone as arrogant for ascribing to those beliefs is silly.
The first part is a response to "why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false", which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you're really earning that "edgy teenager" label.
The second is saying that there's literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of "is there a god?", science included
Philosophy asks some "why?" questions, but if you think it's equipped to definitively answer all of them you don't know much about philosophy.
neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question "is there a god?"
That's a loaded question. What type of god? You wanna define it before you ask if it exists.
And after you define it, you can also gather all the proof that it exists and you can present it to science and to philosophy. And they will look at all that proof and say "X". Because they doubt.
But it's still on you to prove your claim that there is a god, if you believe it. If you're just on the sidelines asking because you're not sure - there's a simpler answer: yes, there is a god. It is me. And I need about 10% of your monthly income. Get in touch, I'll send you some details where you can donate your share. In return, I will of course love you unconditionally until you slightly annoy me with your lifestyle (which I already know you will, I am omniscient and I literally made you this way, you have no choice in the matter), at which point you will know my vengeance, for I am the Lord. Throughout this period where I exact my retribution, the expectation is that you'll shut up and take it, and never forget about that 10% you owe me. Otherwise I will literally put you through hell.
If you somehow doubt ANY of these claims, for reasons like "why would God contact me on the internet, or need my money, or hate me for how he made me", or any of these silly questions, just remember - neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question "is there a god?". Just like they can't provide objective truth to "is god that dude on lemmy?"
My dude there's a few billion of you that I'm looking into, I don't have all day to listen to your half-assed "logic", I am eternal, I'm beyond your comprehension. Enjoy the rusted-spear-devil-dick, I'm Audi.
Neither can science nor philosophy prove that unicorn's don't exist. Proving negatives isn't a thing, you have to substantiate whatever claim it is you're making.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's ignorant or plain wishful thinking to claim otherwise
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system. There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it's on them to prove it. Atheism simply says "no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don't believe you".
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system.
Y'all are arguing the same thing with these two sentences.
There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it's on them to prove it. Atheism simply says "no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don't believe you".
That sounds like trying to disprove a negative to me. Just because it's an absurd negative doesn't mean it's not impossible to disprove it.
I don't want to get into all the nitty gritty, but the weight against the big sky person is "we definitely don't see it." and the argument for the big sky person is "we definitely feel it."
Y'all are both spending a lot of time arguing about the big sky person regardless of your stance.
*edit
actually, i just saw this comment, and i'm not gonna argue with that.
That’s not what agnostic means. Agnostics believe “there is no way to know”, so you can have Agnostic Theists (we can’t know for sure, but I believe God exists) as well as Agnostic Atheists (we can’t know for sure, but I don’t believe God exists).
The opposite is gnosticism, and you can similarly have Gnostic Theists (God exists and I can prove it) and Gnostic Atheists (God doesn’t exist, and I can prove it).
Looks like I made a small mistake, but it just takes agnostic closer to atheist
The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe
No, they are agnostic theists, which means that they believe there is no way to know if god exists or not, but they believe in god anyway.
Agnosticism is about believing whether the existence of god is testable, not about whether god actually exists or not.
Obviously the vast majority of agnostics are also atheists, because it’s silly to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But there are some few who feel that god is out there even if we cannot know for sure.
Simpler: he's saying that there are people who believe in something, but they don't claim to know it.
For example. I brew some coffee at 14:00. Now it's 18:00. I believe that my coffee is still warm, but I don't know it - because I have no data to back up that knowledge. I can however generate said knowledge by grabbing a cup of coffee. (I just did it. It's warm.)
What the agnostic theists do is like that. With a key difference: they cannot generate said knowledge, and they know it. They cannot grab that cup of coffee.
If for example we didn't know how much time has passed, it would be impossible to estimate with any calculations the temperature - thus agnostic person would conclude there's no way of knowing, thus believing the coffee is warm or cold is useless.
Read again that quote I posted earlier
The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe
The very basis of agnosticism is basing your belief or opinion in verified data. Faith lays on believing without a proof. Those 2 things are the polar opposites, and agnostic theist an oxymoron
Those 2 things are the polar opposites, and agnostic theist an oxymoron
Expecting people to operate in a purely logic driven manner is a great road to disappointment, and one could argue that it also reveals a deep lack in understanding of your own self. People are not logical beings.
Life is not debate club. You can insist all you want that it's not a logically compatible "belief system" (or however you want to label it). You can argue that there should be a different, more etymologically sound name for it.
But regardless of your objections, agnostic theists do exist, and "correct" or not that is what they are called.
Edit: I'm not even one of them, I just absolutely loathe this sort of behavior online, especially when discussions of theism and belief systems come up.
The belief is still there, even if you don't know it nor claim knowledge. You believe that the coffee is cold or warm, inferring it from tiny scraps of info, or... even based on stupid grounds, like wishful belief. Because the belief is not necessarily grounded on rationality; some Christians even highlight this, with their idiotic credo quoniam sum stultus "credo quia absurdum" ("I believe because [it is] absurd").
Read again that quote I posted earlier
That's a fallacy known as "the etymological fallacy" - you're trying to define a word based on its etymological origin (in this case, Huxley's usage when coining it), instead of its usage.
And even if the reasoning wasn't fallacious, look at the very Wikipedia page that you took this quote from, and you'll also get the following:
Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
He's saying that lack of belief + claim of knowledge is more offensive for him than belief + lack of claim of knowledge. Effectively splitting both things (belief and knowledge), and acknowledging that they do not necessarily follow each other.
The very basis of agnosticism is basing your belief or opinion in verified data.
Your *knowledge. Or rather, what you claim to know. ("Opinions" are third can of worms by the way, as they are not epistemic in nature.)
Those 2 things are the polar opposites, and agnostic theist an oxymoron
Personally I opine agnostic theism to be ridiculous, as any sort of theism; as a rationalist I'd rather tweak my beliefs to be in conformity with my knowledge. And as I implied in another comment, I don't see any good reason to put gods in a higher standard than the Tooth Fairy or centaurs, when it comes to claiming knowledge of absence, for practical purposes.
However that does not mean that agnostic theist is an oxymoron. It boils down to someone who believes in that superstition without claiming knowledge over it.
You messaged me directly rather than responding in the thread, but messaging back is failing, so I will respond here.
There is no theory involving deities that fits the models of the universe we have based on observable evidence, and there is no evidence in support of any theory involving deities.
For anything else we would say that this thing doesn't exist and leave it at that.
Agnosticism gets lost in the fallacy that since it's logically impossible to prove non-existence we must hold open the possibility of existence without evidence.
So I'm an atheist because it is the default state to be, it makes no statement requiring evidence, and it doesn't require fallacy.
You live in a universe whose only source of joy, hope, inspiration, and meaning is sapient minds like yours. The entire observable cosmos has so far turned out to be nothing but dead rocks, dead dust, and dead gas, except for beings like you. Your very existence is an act of defiance worthy of pride. Stand tall, sophont. Create the future you wish to see, for YOUR KIND are the only ones who you've met who are capable of bringing it about!
Nah, you live in an unfeeling, uncaring world. There is nothing, no great answer. Just living until you die.
I don't agree with that other guy, but now you're just wrestling with a straw man. Nobody says these things.
Nature and physics may not have the capacity to care about you, but you have friends, family, and pets that do whether God exists or not. And there's plenty of questions that seem like we won't get an answer for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean you can't find any meaning or joy in trying, or that you can't tackle smaller questions that could build up to answering a greater one.
Just living until you die.
This part is particularly cartoonish. Nobody says life is just living until you die. That's a debatably bigoted caricature that Christians invented.
We live the same lives theists do, and we have just as many meaningful experiences and relationships. We just don't sacrifice enormous amounts of our time worshiping or thinking about something that can't be shown to exist unless you take someone's word for it.
I'm certainly not religious, but I understand that a lot of people use religion to supplement a lacking support network. Yes, they should find healthier ways to receive the support they need, but if you force them to abandon their religion without having another source of support to replace it, they're going to feel very isolated and scared, possibly leading to tears. Especially if their son forced them into that situation and then immediately left, showing complete disregard for their feelings.
![Victory? [elder cactus]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/244d43ec-eeec-4e9c-a97a-a7e978cc47a5.jpeg){kind=link}
