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

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

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

259

Atheists are gay and depressed (midwest.social)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Deism is without theism, that doesn't make it atheism. The article is quite clear. Being a position of belief is indicated by the ism. The part before it defines the position of belief. Whether disbelief/lack of belief of the gods, or belief in no gods. It is not being without the belief of the belief in gods.

Now please clearly explain the difference between the position "no belief in gods" and "no belief in gods because the concept doesn't yet exist". That's what your entire position hinges on, and you haven't given any arguments for it.

Also, the article is quite clear in not supporting your position. It says:

-ism (/-ˌɪzəm/) is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from the Ancient Greek suffix -ισμός (-ismós), and reached English through the Latin -ismus, and the French -isme.[1] It means "taking side with" or "imitation of", and is often used to describe philosophies, theories, religions, social movements, artistic movements, lifestyles,[2] and behaviors.[3] It is typically added to nouns.

No mention of requirements regarding pre-existing concepts or anything similar.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Now please clearly explain the difference between the position "no belief in gods" and "no belief in gods because the concept doesn't yet exist".

You can't form a position of belief on something you don't know exists. You must first know what something is in order to establish a position of how much you believe it to be so or not so.

I'm just repeating myself more and more now. Refer back to Tinklipism.

As for what you've somehow understood of isms from that article—genuinely mindblown. You literally just quoted the whole job and point of the ism suffix and...whoosh. It's staring you in the face; I'm not somehow simplifying it further. I don't even know what else to give you if your brain glazed over that very efficient, simple, and clear, explanation then landed here...

No mention of requirements regarding pre-existing concepts or anything similar.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You can't form a position of belief on something you don't know exists. You must first know what something is in order to establish a position of how much you believe it to be so or not so.

Yes, I understood your point the first time you made it. Do you finally have any arguments for this position? Supporting evidence? Anything? Because I can trivially say "no", and I've thus made just as strong an argument as you've made.

As for what you've somehow understood of isms from that article—genuinely mindblown. You literally just quoted the whole job and point of the ism suffix and...whoosh. It's staring you in the face; I'm not somehow simplifying it further.

Since you appear to literally be incapable of describing your position beyond "it is this way because I understand it to be this way", I won't waste more time on you. Have a good day.