this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
85 points (86.3% liked)

Religious Cringe

809 readers
2 users here now

About

This is the official Lemmy for the r/ReligiousCringe***** subreddit. This is a community about poking fun at the religious fundamentalist's who take their religion a little bit too far. Here you will find religious content that is so outrageous and so cringeworthy that even someone who is mildly religious will cringe.

Rules

  1. All posts must contain religious cringe. All posts must be made from a religious person or must be showcasing some kind of religious bigotry. The only exception to this is rule 2

  2. Material about religious bigots made by non-bigots is only allowed from Friday-Sunday EST. In an effort to keep this community on the topic of religious cringe and bigotry we have decide to limit stuff like atheist memes to only the weekends.

  3. No direct links to religious cringe. To prevent religious bigots from getting our clicks and views directs links to religious cringe are not allowed. If you must a post a screenshot of the site or use archive.ph. If it is a YouTube video please use a YouTube frontend like Piped or Invidious

  4. No Proselytizing. Proselytizing is defined as trying to convert someone to a particular religion or certain world view. Doing so will get you banned.

  5. Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No exceptions.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Atheists are neutral

Who is saying this?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Literally nobody. This is confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Or, if I'm being charitable, they're confusing the starting position and the conclusion. If you start from a position of neutrality and follow evidence-based reasoning, the conclusion is either atheism or agnosticism.

[–] nehal3m 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. The first refers to belief and the second one refers to knowledge. It's perfectly possible not to believe in the existence a given god (belief) and at the same time not know with certainty whether it exists (knowledge).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've always understood the colloquial meanings in practice today to be that atheism is active disbelief where agnosticism is essentially choosing not to choose (for lack of information).

I understand your point, linguistically and philosophically, but I don't really think that's how most people - even atheists and agnostics - use the terms today.

[–] nehal3m 2 points 1 month ago

Maybe. It’s worth defining terms before you discuss. I always try to make it clear I view myself as an agnostic atheist.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Through not choosing, agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism is just a subcategory of atheism, and since it derives from the binary of knowing or not knowing, the only other alternative is gnostic atheism.

Which itself is pretty irrelevant since it implies knowledge of the nonexistence of divinity, which implies it's possible to empirically disprove divinity, and since it's not possible to actually prove a negative, gnostic atheism is impossible. Therefore all atheists are agnostic (and all agnostics are atheists).

Whether you identify as atheist or agnostic is irrelevant then, since both are shorthands for "agnostic atheist"

[–] weker01 4 points 1 month ago

Nah there are a lot of agnostic theists. It's even relatively mainstream.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

If you start from a position of neutrality and follow evidence-based reasoning, the conclusion is either atheism or agnosticism.

I'm sure you can find some Ontological Arguments to the contrary. Regardless, its weird to suggest atheists - who have clearly staked out a philosophical position - are "neutral" on the subject of religious belief. It reeks of the terminally online conservatives who would scream "Not An Argument" at anyone they disagreed with, to shut them up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It's a theist's articulation of an agnostic atheist's explanation of their view. The real issue here is that they're conflating gnostic atheists with agnostic atheists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Evangelical atheism is a subset of atheism that gives the whole bunch a bad name.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Evangelical atheism is a subset of atheism

Sure, fine, whatever. But what does this have to do with "neutrality"? Is he confusing atheists and agnostics?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not saying you're wrong.

I would interpret neutrality as not being "for or against" anything. I'd say most religious, nonreligious and atheist people are not preaching their religion or opposing others. So actually I would say most people are "neutral".

For any group, there will be a subset of evangelicals who are "for" their stance in actively trying to convert others to their ideology. A further subset of this, is those who are "against" any other ideology and actively campaign others. I would say all in these categories are no longer "neutral".

So every group will have a majority of neutrals and subsets who aren't. I agree, I don't see how anyone can argue that atheism = neutrality. This comic is a deliberate effort to categorise atheists as: all being anti-religion. This strikes me as something a religious anti-atheism aunt would share on Facebook.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’d say most religious, nonreligious and atheist people are not preaching their religion or opposing others

Most successful religious movements are explicitly evangelical. And it isn't as though religious debate is uncommon in society.

The number of hard core missionaries and zealots are in the minority, but their success is predicated on a large financial and political base back home.

So every group will have a majority of neutrals and subsets who aren’t.

For any group, you're going to have a "standard" view which will be the baseline. And you'll have deviation from that baseline by degrees of orthodoxy or heresy.

But standard doesn't mean neutral. You can have a predominantly Catholic or Hindu or Taoist community with very staunch beliefs and taboos. You can also have a very segregated religious environment, where Pakistani Muslims and Chinese Buddhists or Afghan Muslims and Soviet Atheists or Chinese Falun Gong and Chinese Confuscians both hold to their views rigidly, while feuding over public policy as a result.

The majority doesn't have to be neutral. There may not even be a majority, in a significantly pluralist community.

This comic is a deliberate effort to categorise atheists as: all being anti-religion.

A lot of the staumcher atheists I know are people who were raised and then rejected a family/community faith. I don't think that's an unfair conclusion, but it ignores the cause (social structures that produce a hard divide between these cohorts).

We're not all neutral. There's a lot of intense feeling around religion

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Buddhists in SriLanka vs Buddhists in Thailand.

There is a big difference between "neutral". And it varies based on beliefs.