Atheism is fine. Antitheism is bigotry.
myslsl @ myslsl @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 150Joined 2 yr. ago
myslsl @ myslsl @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
150
Joined
2 yr. ago
Dogma is something that is “incontrovertibly” true. Science doesn’t work that way, you can’t just believe gravity doesn’t exist and then the Earth stops orbiting the sun. You can’t just decide water only freezes at 0°C regardless of pressure. But you can believe that abortion is a grave sin and murder a doctor for it.
I think I'm just misunderstanding what you mean, but that's not what dogma means at all. Dogma does not have to be true (incontrovertibly or not).
People can believe scientific things dogmatically. Attempts at scientific work can lead you to wrong conclusions in certain senses. Small sample sizes, biased samples etc. Science as a whole is not a foolproof thing. People make mistakes, false conclusions and so on. Ideally we work things out well enough that these issues are rectified over time but mistakes happen.
What you’re saying is when people attempt to twist data to support their preconceived beliefs. For instance Belgians used phrenology to confirm their belief that Tutsis were superior to Hutus and fuel the Rwandan genocide. They already believed their racist dogma and attempted to use “science” to prove it. But science doesn’t have a bias, and it has no dogma.
My issue isn't with the science itself but the people who fail to interpret scientific results in sane ways or that twist and abuse scientific works (like you mention).
And no, it’s not a typo. Darwin purported the idea that offspring of sexual organisms received their traits through gemmules shed by each organ of the body. Another scientist reviewed this theory by analyzing rabbit blood and found no gemmules, because those only exist in asexual reproduction, sponges specifically. The lack of evidence of gemmules essentially proves the theory of pangenesis wrong.
My apologies, my confusion is this: "because one has evidence and peer review to back it up, and one lacks evidence because it was peer reviewed". Peer review doesn't remove evidence. At best it adds confidence or allows people a chance to say "Hey! This work is not correct because ...." Your point is that a work by Darwin was peer reviewed and later found to be lacking right?
What do you think "to them" means? You realize people can have beliefs about the objectivity of different claims right? For example: I believe that it is objectively true that me and you are having this discussion. Just because I believe this says nothing about whether or not it is or isn't objectively true. Please continue working on your reading comprehension.
Seems a lot more to me like you don't understand that we can reason rationally as well as empirically.
Wth are you talking about. The argument is on whether or not it is ok (aka, we should tolerate) to belittle / argue against religion as a whole. You’re taking the position that it is not ok to do so. The supporting argument you gave is that it is functionally equivalent to racism. I explained that it was not functionally equivalent to racism.
The op QuaffPotions is arguing against intolerance against theists.
MrJamesGumb (the person I responded to) is arguing against the OPs point with: "It seems like you’re saying no one is allowed to criticize religion as a whole, but only certain aspects of certain religions that you agree are “harmful”. The problem is that there are a growing number of people who find ALL religions to be harmful, and those people have a right to make their feelings known..."
My point is that I can make this same exact argument using many other examples of people claiming they are justified in doing XYZ things solely because they believe some arbitrary thing is harmful. Claiming you believe something is harmful doesn't really justify you to do whatever you want in all cases. Many Christians actively believe being a homosexual is harmful, but most sane people object to them actively spreading hate propaganda against homosexuals.
Just because somebody fears something is "harmful" doesn't mean everybody has to accept them choosing to be intolerant as their response to that fear.
Now you have no supporting argument but you tell me it doesn’t matter because your position hasn’t changed.
Just because you chose not to respond to my supporting argument that addressed your previous point doesn't mean I have no supporting argument.
Also, I keep seing this paradox of tolerance bullshit on the fediverse. People need to understand: you must tolerate people, but you doesn’t have to tolerate their ideas or their actions. It’s not that complicated.
The whole takeaway from Popper on the paradox of tolerance is that we don't have to tolerate intolerance. What I'm saying is that being intolerant against theists doesn't have to be tolerated either.
This whole not tolerating people who are intolerant is just another way of being intolerant. Pick any person in the world and I’ll find a reason to claim that they’re intolerant. At the end of the day, it’s just an excuse to otherize people who aren’t on your team.
I'm pretty explicitly saying we don't have to otherize people who are religious solely for being religious. If somebody is actually harming other people in the name of religious beliefs, then by all means, stop them. But that doesn't make anybody inherently deserving of harm or mistreatment solely because they are religious. Just because an individual believes all religions are harmful doesn't really justify them to be a bigot. Criticism is fine, but outright hatred and disgust like what the op (QuaffPotions) is talking about isn't justified.
It seems like that’s what you’re saying when you state that religious and scientific beliefs are interchangeable, and that Atheism is more or less a religion because of this. Belief system != religion.
I'm not claiming religion and scientific beliefs are wholly interchangeable and I'm not claiming all belief systems are effectively religious belief systems.
Here is the original comment I'm replying to: "Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s the lack of a religion."
Here is my second point: "If you’re an atheist in the sense of effectively replacing religious ideology/beliefs with scientific ones, then this is also more or less false."
What I do think is that there are inherently religious questions that both theists and (at least some) atheists answer via religious means. In the case of atheists I think they often refuse to admit to themselves that they do it. For example, a theist believes some mysterious god being created the universe, an atheist believes some mysterious force of nature created the universe (though maybe this force is something different from a god). I would call these kinds of beliefs religious whether it's an atheist doing it or a theist.
I'm not saying all atheists do this. I'm not saying it's bad to answer these kinds of questions in this way either. If nobody is hurt and the question is just answerable, then who even cares? But the idea that atheism is just totally a lack of religion seems untrue in some cases. Rejection of theistic deities does not mean rejection of all religion, all religious beliefs and all religious thought whatsoever.
Yes I do. There is willful suspension of disbelief, and belief in absurdities is inherent to religion. Catholics believe the sacrament literally becomes flesh and blood, for example. This is easily disproven yet remains a cornerstone of the religion. Believing absurdities is the price of admission, a litmus test showing that one will uncritically obey those who claim to speak for god(s) without compelling objective evidence. Many religions consider this willful ignorance a virtue, which they call faith.
Claims about the Catholic religion in particular aren't claims that are applicable to all religions. There are many other religions besides western Christianity that have been practiced throughout human history. Christianity does not represent all religious beliefs and one should be careful not to take the shitty things many do in the name of their flavor of Christianity as a rule that ought to apply to all religions or all religious belief systems.
I can’t speak for their intent, but it absolutely is the position of most religions. If I showed up to services and started arguing with the preacher I would likely not be invited back. At very least one must show reverence for their absurd claims to be accepted into the fold, (with a few exceptions like unitarianism, various reform denominations, omnism, atheistic satanism, etc.,) Many/most claim that the supernatural rewards like access to the afterlife are dependent upon belief and behavior.
The original point they made was: "Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded."
This part here: "Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded." is not a correct interpretation of the intent of religious people. You can believe their views are absurd, but they don't believe that, and arguing that their views are absurd just because you think so just begs the question.
As these claims have no proof they can immediately be dismissed.
There are plenty of claims without proof that shouldn't be dismissed. The majority of scientific inquiry investigates claims we can't currently prove or disprove.
There really isn't any objective proof there isn't a god either. If we can dismiss claims that a god exists based on lack of proof, then it seems like logically we also can dismiss claims that no god exists based on lack of proof too?
No worries, I see the logic in your point of view too. Thanks for hearing me out. I appreciated getting to see your view point too.
I see reading comprehension is hard for you. Let me help you. Please note the part I put in bold for you: "Like, things are just so objectively true to them..."
I can understand if this is how it feels to you, but I'm not sure everybody has this experience. I'd imagine a hardcore true believer in some christian sect probably feels more like they have to believe. Like, things are just so objectively true to them about their own religion that they can't not believe. Or something along those lines. I can't exactly vouch for the experience of all theists.
Proof, belief and fact are all different things. I'm talking about belief. You're trying to make a point about facts that is irrelevant to my point. Yes, I get that you can believe true, untrue, provable and unprovable things. This is beside my point.
beliefs can not be proven (they don’t need to be, you have faith).
This is objectively untrue. Some beliefs are provable. You can believe the sun will rise tomorrow. You can prove whether or not it actually does by checking tomorrow if the sun did or did not rise.
Your second point. I’m guessing you’re equating science and religion? Which is a terrible argument. We can see and do science using our own brains and so, I’m just going to leave this one alone.
I'm not so much trying to equate science and religion but to argue against the claim that religion specifically is the issue, as far as your comment about certain religions taking credit for your own work. All sorts of institutions besides religion and science can and will attempt to do this.
The theists that would say I don’t deserve credit for my accomplishments are the self hating humans I was referring to. They think we are too weak to do anything for ourselves. It also gives them plausible deniability when they do something fucked up. The good and the bad. It was all me baby.
I still think this is an overgeneralization of theistic positions. I get that some theists would do this. They are shitty for that. But plenty of non-theists would do the same. There have been millions of theists throughout all of human history. It just doesn't make sense to me to chalk this kind of thing up to being uniquely a theist thing.
Failing to think critically is something that happens to all of us from time to time. The difference is that religion is used to cause a mass directed lapse in critical thinking. As an example “god doesn’t like gay people because it says so in the bible. so all gay people bad”. When someone thinking critically would just judge individuals based on their own merit. Regardless of who they decide makes them happy.
I understand your point here, but this seems more like a point against abuses by religious institutions specifically. There's a difference between some extremist christian cult telling people they ought to murder gay people and some random innocent person believing the earth was created by a small women on mars who dispenses cotton candy from her hair. Condemnation of religion by many people often includes the latter case I mentioned despite it being pretty harmless.
So, you aren’t wrong. Boy Scouts comes to mind. But I feel like there is something especially egregious about someone telling you they’re going to save your soul, but the whole time they’re fucking your kid. Ya know what I mean? Not very holy of them.
I totally agree with you on this.
I agree. It is very frustrating that many major religions are like this.
Nope, this is wrong, because science doesn’t have “beliefs” it has theories...
My point is not about science. Science is great. My point is about the people and their beliefs.
How often do you see atheists congregate in a laboratory, with a scientist leading a sermon from “On the Origin of Species”?
You absolutely see atheists circlejerk online propagating the same stupid antitheistic arguments repeatedly online.
Darwin got things wrong too, but you don’t see different sects of atheism who argue over whether individual traits are passed down to Offspring via genes or gemmules.
Argument, interpretation, disagreement and so on are all essential parts of doing science. People across all sciences argue about all sorts of different topics within their respective fields. There's plenty of topics where scientific thought hasn't actually reached a consensus. The scientific method itself isn't really intended to confirm beliefs but to falsify.
My actual issue here isn't with the scientific method or doing science. My issue here is replacing blind faith in one dogma for another and pretending like that is preferable when it really isn't.
Because one has evidence and peer review to back it up, and one lacks evidence because it was peer reviewed.
Is this a typo? Peer review does not make a thing lack evidence?
If you have no convincing argument against my points that is fine, but you don't need to post and tell me.
Religion is when people believe things?
Are you claiming that this is what I'm saying? It's definitely not what I'm saying.
Beliefs that are founded in non-falsifiable reproducible objective evidence are not generally religious beliefs, they are scientific ones.
I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between religious and scientific beliefs in this specific way. To me this comes across as you choosing to define scientific beliefs in the usual way, and then to explicitly exclude scientific beliefs from your definition to further your own point. Do you think religions can't be willing to accept evidence about certain facts or to consider the possible falsifiability of certain propositions? If so then you are wrong. There's no shortage of backpedaling, twisting and turning in the history of apologetics.
Science seeks to accurately describe our world and beliefs that don’t are discarded. Religion seeks to make people believe absurdities and people who don’t are discarded.
This is absolutely a mischaracterization of the position/intent of religious people/religions. If you want to have good arguments against them you should argue against what they actually say and not things you make up in your head.
Okay, my point is modular enough that this is not a real problem:
Some people also feel --atheist ways of thinking-- are harmful. There isn't an obligation to tolerate that any more than tolerating antitheistic positions.
Replace the text between the double -- with whatever you like I guess. This is just a particular case of the paradox of tolerance (or very similar to it). Quibbling because you dislike my particular example doesn't change the actual point.
technically, yeah, you’re choosing based on evidence.
I'm questioning whether or not this is really choice?
Can you explain how it is voluntary? I don't see why beliefs about things are choices?
Your original statement was about beliefs and whether they are voluntary not facts. I'm talking about your belief about the sky being blue and your belief about the fact that you need to drink water to survive. Facts and beliefs about what things are facts are two separate things and whether or not these things actually are facts is irrelevant to my point.
Gosh golly! It's almost like somebody can believe something is objectively true whether it is or not.