Because atheists never, ever, do terrible things. They are too enlightened by their intelligence, which is why the ruling class in Silicon Valley are so busy improving society somewhat and not being war profiteers naming their war profiteering corporations after fantasy fiction concepts.
They have a point when the question is, as it was, religions and not religious people. Their holy texts both present particular genocides as good things and include directions to commit genocide against apostates. Whatever we might say of the historic position of Jews as social minorities, the content of the Tenakh, etc. is well-suited to justifying an ethnostate.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard, since the Abrahamic religions are all especially bad in this regard compared to the others that have made it to the modern day, with the possible exception of Hinduism (I don’t know enough about it). Edit: I think Islam is the least bad of the three, but it’s also the one I’m the least familiar with.
I’m not really interested in arguing for some particular prescription based on this, I just don’t think we should close our eyes to obvious truths in the name of pushing some silly idea about religion being benign as a rule. I’m also not saying the Crusades are Christ’s fault or any of that bullshit (nor that the Nakba is the fault of Moses, to be on topic), I’m just saying that when a text says “The appropriate response to someone preaching heresy in a town is to slaughter the villagers, raze the buildings, and salt the earth,” that’s what it says.
Edit 2: I probably didn’t do enough to distinguish religion as a historical force from religion as a set of doctrines, but it should be obvious that I’m talking about the latter. Again, Christ did not order the Crusades.
Edit 3: Obviously, even without the convenient doctrine, Israel would be Israel, I’m merely saying the doctrine is convenient.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard
That’s exactly my point. Saying “religions bad” does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole, especially in the context of people currently in dangerous living conditions that may very well be killed in part because of their religious identity.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say “hah, well you’re wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!” during WW2 Germany.
That’s an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don’t think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say “hah, well you’re wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!” during WW2 Germany.
Well, the Nazis were really attacking the Jewish ethnicity, it’s not like Jews could survive by deconverting or even by having never practiced, but that’s maybe less important than the fact that it’s an equivocation beyond absurd to say that criticizing the moral/political doctrines in Jewish texts “may as well” be saying that Jews deserved Nazi persecution.
idk, people are all for “ruthless criticism of all that exists” when it comes to things they dislike, but then when they either have a sentimental attachment to something or just a strong contrarian streak because they know assholes who also criticize it, suddenly popularity is a perfect justification and saying bad things about something popular is “setting yourself apart from the global proletariat.” Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
That’s an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don’t think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
You’re not here for that. You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
I’m not religious myself, but I stopped saying “atheist” as a self-descriptor because it has been lately tarnished by sanctimoniously secular people that bloviate over others about their default state of superiority.
To put it in a less “amusing decontextualization” way, that’s you.
idk, people are all for “ruthless criticism of all that exists” when it comes to things they dislike
Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
“Agree with me or you’re not an intellectual.”
Do you have any self awareness at all or are you still stuck years back in Reddit’s Faces of Atheism mode?
atheists generally don’t do horrible things in the ideological name of not believing in god. it would be nice if discarding religion also made you discard capitalism, white supremacy, chauvinism, or believing in bigfoot and psychics; but there’s nothing forcing atheists to be humanists or skeptics or to become comrades.
ditching religion only takes away one lever western culture uses to propagate evil, but it does take away one lever.
Since when was nonreligious people doing horrible things in the name of atheism ever even a thing? They can do it for other reasons, and religious people did too. You’re mistaking the cover for the motivation.
Because atheists never, ever, do terrible things. They are too enlightened by their intelligence, which is why the ruling class in Silicon Valley are so busy improving society somewhat and not being war profiteers naming their war profiteering corporations after fantasy fiction concepts.
They have a point when the question is, as it was, religions and not religious people. Their holy texts both present particular genocides as good things and include directions to commit genocide against apostates. Whatever we might say of the historic position of Jews as social minorities, the content of the Tenakh, etc. is well-suited to justifying an ethnostate.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard, since the Abrahamic religions are all especially bad in this regard compared to the others that have made it to the modern day, with the possible exception of Hinduism (I don’t know enough about it). Edit: I think Islam is the least bad of the three, but it’s also the one I’m the least familiar with.
I’m not really interested in arguing for some particular prescription based on this, I just don’t think we should close our eyes to obvious truths in the name of pushing some silly idea about religion being benign as a rule. I’m also not saying the Crusades are Christ’s fault or any of that bullshit (nor that the Nakba is the fault of Moses, to be on topic), I’m just saying that when a text says “The appropriate response to someone preaching heresy in a town is to slaughter the villagers, raze the buildings, and salt the earth,” that’s what it says.
Edit 2: I probably didn’t do enough to distinguish religion as a historical force from religion as a set of doctrines, but it should be obvious that I’m talking about the latter. Again, Christ did not order the Crusades.
Edit 3: Obviously, even without the convenient doctrine, Israel would be Israel, I’m merely saying the doctrine is convenient.
That’s exactly my point. Saying “religions bad” does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole, especially in the context of people currently in dangerous living conditions that may very well be killed in part because of their religious identity.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say “hah, well you’re wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!” during WW2 Germany.
That’s an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don’t think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
Well, the Nazis were really attacking the Jewish ethnicity, it’s not like Jews could survive by deconverting or even by having never practiced, but that’s maybe less important than the fact that it’s an equivocation beyond absurd to say that criticizing the moral/political doctrines in Jewish texts “may as well” be saying that Jews deserved Nazi persecution.
idk, people are all for “ruthless criticism of all that exists” when it comes to things they dislike, but then when they either have a sentimental attachment to something or just a strong contrarian streak because they know assholes who also criticize it, suddenly popularity is a perfect justification and saying bad things about something popular is “setting yourself apart from the global proletariat.” Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
You’re not here for that. You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
I’m not religious myself, but I stopped saying “atheist” as a self-descriptor because it has been lately tarnished by sanctimoniously secular people that bloviate over others about their default state of superiority.
To put it in a less “amusing decontextualization” way, that’s you.
“Agree with me or you’re not an intellectual.”
Do you have any self awareness at all or are you still stuck years back in Reddit’s Faces of Atheism mode?
atheists generally don’t do horrible things in the ideological name of not believing in god. it would be nice if discarding religion also made you discard capitalism, white supremacy, chauvinism, or believing in bigfoot and psychics; but there’s nothing forcing atheists to be humanists or skeptics or to become comrades.
ditching religion only takes away one lever western culture uses to propagate evil, but it does take away one lever.
Since when was nonreligious people doing horrible things in the name of atheism ever even a thing? They can do it for other reasons, and religious people did too. You’re mistaking the cover for the motivation.