New ATHEIST community.
-
Yeah, enjoy it now before the atheists destroy it with their atheism.
You mean with their antitheism?
-
You mean with their antitheism?
Isn't that like negative zero?
-
#Lemmy has a new (and only) #Atheist #community
#Atheism #SocialMediaAs an atheist I never got the point of evangelizing atheism. Isn't that half the problem with religions?
-
As an atheist I never got the point of evangelizing atheism. Isn't that half the problem with religions?
I do find it a bit distasteful sometimes but I'd disagree with you here. It's a support group and the only way to wake up society to absurd flaws of religion is through community conciousness.
-
#Lemmy has a new (and only) #Atheist #community
#Atheism #SocialMediaI'm number one!
-
I do find it a bit distasteful sometimes but I'd disagree with you here. It's a support group and the only way to wake up society to absurd flaws of religion is through community conciousness.
True. I never got the point of it.
But I’m atheist/agnostic in a place where nearly everyone else is. I guess it feels a bit different when you live somewhere where literally everyone else is religious.
-
I do find it a bit distasteful sometimes but I'd disagree with you here. It's a support group and the only way to wake up society to absurd flaws of religion is through community conciousness.
In my experience most of these online groups are just memes and stories about being superior to religious people. I had to bail on them because it was gross.
-
In my experience most of these online groups are just memes and stories about being superior to religious people. I had to bail on them because it was gross.
You're saying that from a privilege of living where atheism is acceptable. For many its not and its a powerful tool for resisting religion.
-
True. I never got the point of it.
But I’m atheist/agnostic in a place where nearly everyone else is. I guess it feels a bit different when you live somewhere where literally everyone else is religious.
Exactly. It's clearly net positive for our society even if it can be cringe just by the sheer scale of religious oppression in the world.
If atheism forum ate a baby every day it would still be a net positive because people on Lemmy forgot that religious freedom and freedom to be an atheist is not viable in big chunk of the world.
Thats why so many atheist converts become such zealots. Imagine growing up in what essentially is spiritual North Korea and discovering freedom for the first time. That's where many of these cringe atheist memes come from.
-
As an atheist I never got the point of evangelizing atheism. Isn't that half the problem with religions?
When a person believes in a religion, they have trained their brains to ignore part of reality. Once you've trained your brain to do that, manipulative people can more easily abuse your brain into thinking other incorrect things.
And that's how you get MAGA
So the purpose is less about evangelizing atheism, and more about fixing other people's brains for the betterment of society.
-
When a person believes in a religion, they have trained their brains to ignore part of reality. Once you've trained your brain to do that, manipulative people can more easily abuse your brain into thinking other incorrect things.
And that's how you get MAGA
So the purpose is less about evangelizing atheism, and more about fixing other people's brains for the betterment of society.
Every religion thinks they're "fixing" people by evangelizing
-
In my experience most of these online groups are just memes and stories about being superior to religious people. I had to bail on them because it was gross.
The atheism subreddit in particular is more toxic than any religious people I've encountered on the internet. I identify as discordian now specifically to distance myself from that kind of atheist.
-
Every religion thinks they're "fixing" people by evangelizing
Maybe. But the scientific method and logic are provably functional. You see a thing, you replicate the thing, you can then do more things.
So it's not a huge stretch to say that getting people to follow those methods is an improvement.
-
Maybe. But the scientific method and logic are provably functional. You see a thing, you replicate the thing, you can then do more things.
So it's not a huge stretch to say that getting people to follow those methods is an improvement.
That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It's morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn't account for ethics.
-
That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It's morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn't account for ethics.
Is it though? Time and again it's been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Now if you're talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
-
(and only)
There seem to be quite a few already
Ours is the only True
GodAtheism! -
Is it though? Time and again it's been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Now if you're talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Now if you're talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
Through gene therapy, yes. Eugenics implies selective breeding. It clearly works, look at any domestic animal. It's an ethical nightmare though.
-
As an atheist I never got the point of evangelizing atheism. Isn't that half the problem with religions?
we live in a society that denigrates atheism because it's a threat to their dogma driven belief systems.
advocating for logic over proselytism isn't evangelizing, grow up. you sound like Kirk Cameron lol
-
Now if you're talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
Through gene therapy, yes. Eugenics implies selective breeding. It clearly works, look at any domestic animal. It's an ethical nightmare though.
I'm looking at a pug right now. Uhhhhh.....
It works if you know the traits you're trying to optimize for and don't care about the mistakes. We don't know that for humans, and we do care.
I think you're mistaking science for psychopathy. Proper science would recognize that humans are social creatures and therefore our actions have impact across society, and we need to take that into account.
Also, try and breed two very smart people. You rarely get a stable smarter person.
-
we live in a society that denigrates atheism because it's a threat to their dogma driven belief systems.
advocating for logic over proselytism isn't evangelizing, grow up. you sound like Kirk Cameron lol
Idk, I haven't been denigrated in a hot second.
