spaceghoti

10

That's because we're conditioned to turn to religious explanations when we don't understand, and that's fallacious thinking. It's called the argument from ignorance.

At no point at any time in all of history has a religious answer to physical phenomenon been validated as the correct answer. It has been accepted as the default assumption because of the dominance of religion in society, but that doesn't make the answer true. No answer is true just because it's popular or traditional.

12

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 1y ago

I don't have an account. I simply don't believe theirs. You can't use "I don't know" to then say "therefore this is the answer."

14

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 1y ago

What miracles? What supernatural?

These are all things we don't understand. They literally mean we don't know how or why things happened the way they did. You can't use "I don't know" to claim you therefore know the answer.

When someone claims a god is responsible, the only appropriate response is "how do you know that?" When the answer comes back "what else could it be?" I respond with "literally anything else." They must still meet their burden of proof before they can claim victory for their answer.

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 1y ago

I was fortunate that my father was still agnostic at the time and wouldn't allow my mother to force me to church after I decided I wasn't going. He later converted after he was diagnosed with cancer, so had that happened earlier, I probably would have been shit out of luck.

As it was, my mother still harassed me for years after, until I finally cut contact.

2

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 1y ago

They know. I stopped attending church in my teens, and my mother never stopped looking for opportunities to re-convert me. I no longer take her calls.

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 1y ago

We ultimately have two choices: we can act, or we can react.

Online atheism has largely been about reaction. We react to events and discuss it with great fervor, building ourselves up as the only sober people in the car full of drunkards but nobody will let us drive. There's been very little action to defend secularism and challenge the religious dominance of society. We seemed to think that words were enough to convince people that we were right, and the truth would set us free.

It turns out, we need more than that. So we left it to other people to create a better world, to implement public policies that would make people less dependent on the false hope religion offers. That turned out to be a mistake, because leadership in the US today is more interested in established norms and protecting the status quo. I can't speak for other countries, but given how much of the Western world is threatened by the rise of the far-right, it doesn't look like they're doing much better. In fact, the US came closest to bucking the trend of punishing incumbents in recent elections, but almost avoided fascism doesn't mean much.

If we want to see change in the world, we need to accept responsibility for creating it. We can't leave it to others. We need to get involved and get new policies put in place that make religion less appealing, namely by raising the standard of living for everyone instead of our own insular tribal interests. We need to get involved in picking leaders who will serve those interests rather than the status quo, or we need to become those leaders ourselves.

That's a lofty goal, and it's not going to happen all at once. But then again, neither did the authoritarian coup we're seeing right now in the US. What's happening in our government is the product of a generation's work beginning in the 1950s, and we're seeing the rotten fruits of it today. If we're going to fix it, we need to start working locally and building a foundation for the next generation to build on.

Assuming, of course, it isn't already too late. If it is, then the solution will take other forms, and hopefully we don't end up repeating the mistakes of France's Reign of Terror. But at this point, I don't have much faith in the ability of humanity to learn from history.

1

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

What a bizarre thing to say.

1

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

Your trolling is tiresome. I'm done pretending you're discussing anything with any integrity.

1

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.

Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?

When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.

4

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

No, your second point doesn't make your case. Biden isn't running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn't change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.

I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.

3

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

Nevermind that. He said he wanted to call out the military on anyone who didn't vote for him on live television. Why isn't the NYT reporting on that?

Oh, it's just Trump!

At this point, I'm fairly convinced that the people trying to argue that we shouldn't support Democrats because of a single issue, no matter how important that issue, are Russian assets.

6

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

You still haven't explained how the author is wrong here. All you've told me is why you think the author is icky.

My point stands.

8

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

...I'm not seeing anything explaining how the author is wrong. Ad hominem is not an argument.

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

Okay, but what about the not-kind things Jesus said? How are the people following those words somehow not Christian?

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

So please answer the question: what evidence do you have that these people aren't "Christian?"

spaceghoti @lemmy.one 2y ago

He said more than that, though. They're probably following the other Jesus who called a foreign woman a dog, along other things. Let's take a closer look.

Jesus fails to "turn the other cheek" and instead gets violent: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21:12-13
He threatens eternal torture in fire to anyone who doesn't accept his teaching:https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-28.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-19.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-41.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-42.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-49.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-50.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/25-46.htm https://biblehub.com/mark/16-16.htm https://biblehub.com/luke/12-5.htm https://biblehub.com/john/3-18.htm, etc.
He kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit that he knew was out of season: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-25
He endorses racism: https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm
When a gentile woman begs for his help he calls her a dog: https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-25.htm and https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-26.htm
He plays favorites: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+4%3A10-12
He destroys a village's livelihood: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8
He teaches Christians to have a persecution complex: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-11.htm
He teaches thought crime: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm
He disputes the concept of personal responsibility: https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-25.htm
He condemns skepticism: https://biblehub.com/matthew/14-31.htm and https://biblehub.com/john/20-27.htm
He teaches self-harm in the cause of religious purity: https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-8.htm
He sends his disciples to steal a man’s donkey: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A29-34
He was not a peacemaker: https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm
He was divisive: https://biblehub.com/luke/14-26.htm and https://biblehub.com/luke/14-33.htm
He was a liar: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7%3A8-10