A_Very_Big_Fan @ A_Very_Big_Fan @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

1,079

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

These words exist for a reason they mean different things.

Correct, and you're still misusing them according to the people who actually identify with these labels. Atheism is the answer to what you believe, and agnosticism is the answer to what you know.

I don't believe God exists and I don't know if God exists, so I'm an agnostic atheist. For you to assume atheists are gnostic by default is like me assuming Christians are Mormons by default. It'd be even more ridiculous for me to go on and argue with Christians that "Christian" means "Mormon."

"Female" is a descriptor of sex

Just like "theory" is a rigorously tested hypothesis. We're not all professional biologists and doctors, it's different colloquially.

I haven't seen much of it at all in my 1+ year here, so y'all are doing a great job :3

Sure. And nobody claimed "God doesn't exist." Two people now have told you that you're mistaken, but you insist.

From our perspective it seems like you're imposing a baseless claim onto us so you can feel better about your own baseless claims. Only theists say atheism is a claim.

Weird thing is, for me on Sync, tapping the third spoiler removes the symbols from the first two lines before removing the one I'm tapping on.

This is me tapping the third line three times, and then tapping the first line...

Big baby <3

I don't think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole "just have faith" thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it's true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.

And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me "I got a pet goldfish" the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc..

Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality ...

The majority of people who smoke don't die from it but that doesn't mean cigarettes aren't problematic. I'm not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we'd normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.

I'd also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol

Wouldn't that be long term memory loss

Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn't problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

It may not be universal but you're certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still "problematic" even if the consequences aren't as blatant.

I wasn't even disagreeing with you. But rage on, queen.

Ask literally any atheist here if they claim "god does not exist"

That's true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn't come from the religion.

If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it'd probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it'd have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.

Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that's a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.

No, this was your misunderstanding:

Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"

The language is irrelevant, you're claiming something that's just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish "agnostics" from "atheists" isn't the real issue.

Same. Guess I won't bother looking into it if it's impossible 🤷‍♀️

Useless "nobody".

The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can't be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.

It's not that they're a monolith of bigotry or anything, it's that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don't.

But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There's no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because "that's the old testament." The Bible also doesn't say anything about trans people and it doesn't oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.

Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. Assuming all atheists are gnostic atheists is like assuming all Christians are Catholics.

Gnostic atheists are rare, and if you want evidence look at this thread.

and it seems like you're translating every other instance of that to "GOD ISN'T REAL".

Ah, so I was right

Both. Texts like the Bible tell you how to conduct slavery, endorses violence against men who have gay sex, and in no uncertain terms (and in many different ways) tells you women are worth a fraction of men and shouldn't be trusted to preach.

Yet there are things that aren't endorsed in the Bible are far too commonly preached by Christians. Like being against trans people, opposing abortion rights (in fact the Bible tells you how to induce an abortion and that you should do it if your wife cheats on you)... and like you said, some drum up donations for the express purpose of leveraging control over others, or to buy private jets, in spite of the life Jesus led and in spite of his teachings.