Being atheist isn't a religion.
Being generically anti-bigotry isn't a religion.
Being transgender isn't a religion.
You don't get to reclassify things as religions just because you learned that a growing portion of people view religions as negative things and want to drag them down to your level.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
What is a religion then? Like definitionally. I would say anything that believes in "the sacred" - that which must not be questioned, and which to criticize is a great evil which makes you a heretic; and "the divine" - a sense of providence, an idea that Reality itself is behind you (doesn't have to be personified, could be a force like the Dao or Dharma)
A religion is a social establishment of rituals, doctrines, symbols and values. It has mythological/metaphysical narratives to legitimize and explain its tenets, to serve as instruction, to provide the symbols on which religious activity is focused, and to contextualize the workings of the natural and spiritual worlds in ways that relate to humans. Notions of what constitutes religion that don't explicitly involve the spiritual or supernatural are being offered dishonestly, and I think everyone on all sides knows this.
words like "sacred", "heretic" and "divine" can be easily misused to this end, because these words are often used in a colloquial, non-literal sense. Regarding some political plank or program to be a party's "sacred cow" for instance does not literally mean that robed men will symbolically condemn you to cosmic penance for breaking their "taboo".
/thread
why are you afraid of arguing ?
You're making the wrong criticism here.
From any point of view, the vast majority of activists behave like religious zealots regardless of the idea they peddle. You're never going to escape the religious thought accusation because it's 100% true when applied to a category rather than individuals.
As an atheist, you should deride those who call atheism a religion because by calling secular ideas religious they're admitting religion is just man made ideology. They're basically calling themselves larpers.
No one thinks atheism (small-a) is a religion but we do notice that those who identify with the term (big A) do seem to have a common set of beliefs, and they seem to go beyond whatever they happen to like (transcendence). Like take "being generically anti-bigotry" - that transcends their personal likes and dislikes.
Being anti-bigotry with regards to sexual minorities makes sense if you don't believe there is a deity who commands exclusively heterosexual relationships among married couples.
But why is it a moral imperative that homosexuality be treated as equal to heterosexuality? Many pagan cultures tolerated it, but considered those who engaged in it second-class citizens (specifically, those who did so passively/receptively)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamia
Exactly my point.
Atheists get called religious because they show groupthink behaviour just like coreligionists do.
Which is problematic because the implication is that religion engages in groupthink itself.
No, it really doesn't.
Even if homosexuality was the most neutral thing in the world, to be actively against people disliking it (subjective) implies having a specific ideology that forbids it and the willingness to force it unto others.
Being anti-bigotry is not the same as not being a bigot. Just like an atheist is not an anti-theist. Hell, a lot of prominent atheist thinkers were actively pro-theist.
>Even if homosexuality was the most neutral thing in the world, to be actively against people disliking it (subjective) implies having a specific ideology that forbids it
An ideology that forbids bullying people for what you perceive as neutral things? Like the ideology that makes a kid stand up for a classmate who is getting bullied for being a ginger?
>Like the ideology that makes a kid stand up for a classmate who is getting bullied for being a ginger?
Exactly. You think a specific behaviour is bad and act to suppress it. Subjectively and unilaterally. Just like people who hate homosexualry.
Not much of an ideology, people do that in most societies.
Yes indeed, people do suppress homosexualry in most societies.
It's been widely seen as a moral hazard (but likely as a justification for health hazard they couldn't explain) to be suppressed by prosocial individuals, just like arbitrary bullying.
Why reply like this? For what purpose?
To have a debate. What the frick do you expect me to do, pretend to agree so your feefees aren't hurt?
Just deal with the fact that what you consider moral dogmas and taboos are complex subjects you never gave any real thought to and therefore are unable to defend because you never really understood their meaning, aims and implications.
Just to clarify, my point was that people defend those who are getting bullied for things they perceive as neutral in most societies.
Then to clarify I'll restate the two points I was making:
1. defending those who are getting bullied for things they perceive as neutral is a specific and active ideological stance
2. if appeal to the mass (>most societies do it) is a valid argument then being a homophobe is just as valid as standing up against bullying.
I'll throw you a bone, since you don't seem to have gotten that far yet: you can defend standing up against bullying by making a hundred different non-moral arguments, appealing to self- and social interest.
That's a stance I might even agree with. But it's not an argument you can use to justify anti-bigotry as an atheist, as it just doesn't follow.
I don't agree that it's an ideological stance, I think it gets down to pre-theorerical roots of ethics in babies and animals. Simply put, fair (i.e. deserved) is good, unfair (i.e. undeserved) is bad.
>deserved
>undeserved
Ah yes, the most objective shit ever right there. Brother, you're moving goalposts.
A homophobe doesn't consider homosexuality neutral. A gingerphobe doesn't consider being a ginger neutral. From their point of view, the attack is deserved.
By your reasoning, being against gays and gingers is therefore fair and good. Only that's not what you meant to imply, isn't it?
What you meant is that humans have pre-rational instincts on regards to what's pro and anti social, and preventing unwarranted ingroup aggression is one of the foremost.
Which is an acceptable opinion. That says absolutely nothing about the relation between atheism and homophobia.
You are the one moving goalposts, I am arguing the same thing from the outset - that the atheist stance regarding anti-gay bigotry isn't ideological. Whether it's rational, irrational or arational, warranted or unwarranted is irrelevant.
It's a combination of two things - the fairness principle and not thinking that being gay is bad. Neither of those is ideological.
>not thinking that being gay is bad is not ideological
Yeah this is the issue: you aren't arguing for homosexual neutrality, you are arguing for acting against homophobes.
Basically you're saying that attacking those who disagree with you is not ideological. You better fricking believe it is.
>Yeah this is the issue: you aren't arguing for homosexual neutrality, you are arguing for acting against homophobes.
Which is the result of the fairness principle, same as standing up for the ginger kid. And the fairness principle is already present in pre-theoretical ethics, hence not ideological.
And I am telling you that the fairness principle is exactly what the homophobes are applying: attacking someone who deserves it (by their standards).
The subjective, ideological bit comes in deciding what is deserved and what isn't.
Yes, of course they are. You think you're revealing some hidden truth of the universe to me right now? The point is that when the atheists lost their religion, they also lost the reason why being gay is bad. That in itself is not a religion.
>You think you're revealing some hidden truth of the universe to me right now?
No, I think I'm revealing basic shit you never bothered to think about. Like most people, tbf.
>The point is that when the atheists lost their religion, they also lost the reason why being gay is bad.
And it's a laughable point. Most people are against homosexualry because they find it instinctively disgusting. Everything else is a rationalization.
The idea that religion is the only thing making people hate gays is 100% personal opinion. Attacking people for not sharing your opinion is ideological.
>No, I think I'm revealing basic shit you never bothered to think about. Like most people, tbf.
It's not things I never bothered ti think about, it's things you would've preferred me not to have thought about because then you could feel superior to me. Newsflash: all that shit is completely obvious.
>Most people are against homosexualry because they find it instinctively disgusting.
Not sure about that, but it's irrelevant. Not thinking that people should be bullied for something you feel icky about isn't an ideology either.
>it's irrelevant
It's as relevant as your belief that your ideas are more valid than others: strong enough to justify attacking non-conformers.
>something you feel icky about
See? You keep demeaning others' opinions and disregard them, to the point where it's justified to attack.
If I threw shit at you you better stand up for my right to do so, with violence if required. After all you can't attack people for doing something icky, right?
Also not thinking that people should be bullied for something is not the same as standing up against bullies. One is an opinion, the other is praxis.
>all that shit is completely obvious
And yet you don't consider it when making arguments. Either the obvious flew you by, or you just refuse to acknowledge it because it's inconvenient then.
More likely the second at this point, after all I've already stated the argument enough times you can only miss it by willfully ignoring it.
So you're back to saying that the kid who stood up for his ginger classmate is following an ideology?
I don’t think being gay is bad because I grew up with gay kids and it’s very clear they were going to be gay from the start. They didn’t choose it and I don’t hate them for who they are, it’s not fair to them. The only people who deserve hate for who they were born as are the psychos and weirdos who harm others for their own personal benefit or enjoyment
Those things can still be a part of a religion though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
They say such things because deep down they consider religion something that only a moron would believe so they project it on their progressive rivals
Licking other people'e tongues is filthy, nasty and repulsive and only benefits the harmaceutical industry.
Atheism is an ABRAHAMIC religion, founded in the same worldview as abrahamic religion.
I have never seen, outside of asia, a reincarnation believing atheist.
Do you believe the ultracalvinism (should be ultra-Puritanism) hypothesis?
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/06/ultracalvinist-hypothesis-in/
Yes, atheist thought is merely Christian religion without a Christian god.
If we go by my religion, or the religion of luciferians, who have same outlook, it is absolutely alien to you. You cannot be atheist of what you don't even understand.
moron alert.
atheism is a religion, just like any other one: it has symbols, priests, oppressions, lies, dogmas, creation myth, hierarchies, social rules and so on. It has also a theology, but it's atomized (ie the rats believe in self determination in order to be compatible with the propaganda of the human rights). The only novelty by atheist rats is that they say ''atheism is not religion, it's an ideology'', because those dimwits deeply believe that if they change the words they use, reality will change.
reminder that contrary to the atheist propaganda, there is no several flavors of atheism. The truth is that there is only one atheism but atheists keep making up various flavors, like social liberalism, nationalism, communism, to keep people running in circle among all the atheist religions. In other words, atheists use their fantasy of market to balkanize their own religion in order to keep people trapped in it while thinking they become free thinkers when they explore the various flavors of atheism.
the bourgeois created atheism and their revolutions precisely to remove any theology bigger than society, so that the wageslaves can ''create their own goals'' , ie self determination, and be an active ''citizen''. This was at the time of the bourgeois invention of ''nationalism''. Nowadays the bourgeois manages the other side of its self-made individualism with the exact opposite (equally controlled by the same bourgeois), ie perennialism, internationalism , interdependence ie ''being a citizen of the world''.
You have to understand that in a balkanized atheist supermarket of political sides, the bourgeois control all sides, all the narratives. It's the bourgeois who choose what narrative is trendy and what narrative will be frowned upon through the bourgeois means, ie mercantilism and legalism.
Sorry I just don't believe some desert warlord rode a flying donkey or whatever.
in your schizoid world where any of this is true, what makes the bourgeois a worse or even different set of masters than the priest class that came before it?
yes atheism is judaism where your replace ''yahweh'' and the ''torah'' by ''the republic'' (or even better ''the parliament'') and ''the federal register'' (or ''the constitution'')
Is it god, divinity, primary moving force involved?
>Being transgender isn't a religion.
Yeah it was pretty insane having Christian people try and win an argument by insisting I have a religion, why would that help their cause in the first place?
The entire world throughout most of human history, has understood the world as inherently spiritual. It's not merely because the enlightenment opened us to an age of reason, it's how pepole are. We are creatures of worship. It's in the bible, it's in the old testament, it's reflected clearly in the external world. Sports, videogames, even exercise can be made an idol of.
When you have dogma and when you have ritual, there you have what you worship. You have the misapprehension that there needs to be a cut and paste distinction doesn't make it not a religion. If you don't like the word itself because you disagree that you don't have fixed dogma; you worship these things.
Also, I pray you see the errors of transgenderism. The popularization of gender theory was brought about by John Money, a man who made children rape each other. Gender itself is merely perception. You can never change what is your essence. Not to mention it doesn't shake out that for all of human history most peoples and nations did not have such a prevalence of transgenderism. People did not all of a sudden awaken and realize they were really born in the wrong body. You can even trace its root back to certain money interests, the HRC, and medical institutions such as Britain's Tavistock institute.
I assume you will hand wave this away as right wing schizo posting but if you care at all for your friends who suffer from gender dysphoria, you would care to investigate the things I mentioned.