Or, you know, none of that bullshit? We could just let it slip back into the primordial muck with superstition and shitting into our bare hands… But, no. We like our invisible sky daddies and not being collectively intelligent. 🫥
It’s what monkeys do, jackass, and even they know better than to believe some kid-diddlin’ geezer in a frock who says his dad is watching you breathe. Jog on.
Unless the country’s primary religion is on the line, you are not going against all religion - you are going against the specific religion in question (or religions). Systems resit change, so if you advocate for “let’s not give this minority’s religion equal rights, and instead take away the rights of the primary religion” only the first part will get implemented.
Analogy: Whenever there is a talk about legalizing same sex marriage, someone will always argue that the state should not get involved in any kind of marriage. Does this position have merit on on its own? Yes. But when presented in the contest of same sex marriage legalization, is it anything but pure support of continuing the oppression of same sex couples?
Your logic is flawed insofar as “tolerance for intolerance” as well as propped up by complete conjecture & hyperbole. (Eg. “only the first part will get implemented”, “Whenever there is a talk about”, “But when presented”, etc. [citations needed])
Got any more general purpose fit-all objections? The only thing here that is at least a bit specific is the “tolerance for intolerance” thing, but even that is completely unrelated - while many religions have their share of intolerances, celebration holidays is not one of them.
How is a common rest day bullshit? Don’t take the weekends away. You could even prohibit supermarkets from opening on sunday/Saturday to encourage it.
In Germany this is rather common.
(But with too many exceptions and little flexibilty)
Or, like, we could maybe recognize that humankind has always had diversity of beliefs, and just go ahead and respect that fact within reason.
That’s the problem with anti-theists pretending their beliefs aren’t a religion. By acting like it’s something different, you think it gives you permission to call for taking away other’s rights. I respect atheism, but people like you can keep your bigoted hypocritical fundamentalist Atheism to yourselves.
There are plenty of reasonable definitions of religion that would apply to atheism, but even that aside, it’s a-theism, not a-religionism, it’s a rejection of theism, and while many atheists do come at the topic from a generic anti-religion angle, there are many atheistic religions, like The Satanic Temple, who are doing fantastic legal work as a officially recognized religion to fight the current right wing legal nastiness like the abortion ban in Texas by arguing they have religious freedom to preform abortions.
So you’re right in the strictest sense that the philosophy of atheism is not de-facto a religion, but next tmme I would recommend making an actual argument rather than incoherent swearing at someone with a mildly spicy take, you’re making us all look bad.
Depends on context. In regards to a lot of Federal discrimination legislation like that in Canada, atheism is actively protected under the subheading of “religious belief”.
In some Provincial discrimination legislation it is covered by the term “creed” rather than religion but if something goes to the level of the Federal Supreme Court then for purposes of protection against discrimination or for matters of hate speech atheism is considered for all purposes legally a religious belief.
Linguistically laws often term Atheism more broadly as a set of spiritual beliefs. Believing entirely in the absence of the supernatural is still describing what you believe about spiritual matters. Atheism is not a complete absence of belief. You still have things you believe about spirits - you believe they do not exist. If you truly had no spiritual beliefs you would have to be completely unaware that the concept of the belief of the spiritual exists at all including disbelief in the spiritual.
Fundamentally law that applies atheism as a religion employs this logic despite religion having connotation of an internal dogma - something absent in atheism.
Or, you know, none of that bullshit? We could just let it slip back into the primordial muck with superstition and shitting into our bare hands… But, no. We like our invisible sky daddies and not being collectively intelligent. 🫥
That might have been just you, no one else was doing that
It’s what monkeys do, jackass, and even they know better than to believe some kid-diddlin’ geezer in a frock who says his dad is watching you breathe. Jog on.
Are you okay it feels like you might need to take more of your pills
So, how’s not trolling Reddit anymore working out for you, cupcake?
Say this when it’s a country’s primary religion on the line, not when some minorities want equal rights for their religions.
No. Say it always for all religion. Fuck the entire system of mind control. Don’t cherry pick your oppressors, citizen.
Unless the country’s primary religion is on the line, you are not going against all religion - you are going against the specific religion in question (or religions). Systems resit change, so if you advocate for “let’s not give this minority’s religion equal rights, and instead take away the rights of the primary religion” only the first part will get implemented.
Analogy: Whenever there is a talk about legalizing same sex marriage, someone will always argue that the state should not get involved in any kind of marriage. Does this position have merit on on its own? Yes. But when presented in the contest of same sex marriage legalization, is it anything but pure support of continuing the oppression of same sex couples?
Swing and a miss.
Your logic is flawed insofar as “tolerance for intolerance” as well as propped up by complete conjecture & hyperbole. (Eg. “only the first part will get implemented”, “Whenever there is a talk about”, “But when presented”, etc. [citations needed])
Got any more general purpose fit-all objections? The only thing here that is at least a bit specific is the “tolerance for intolerance” thing, but even that is completely unrelated - while many religions have their share of intolerances, celebration holidays is not one of them.
Try reading for comprehension instead of reflexive defense, but hey. Thanks for playing?
Oh I am definitely using this phrase from now on. I’ve been using “imaginary friends” until now, but this is SO much better :)
My go to is “invisible sky pixie” because it replaces the image of a caring parental figure with a diminutive and capricious sprite.
Then play them a clip of Cotton Candy Randy saying “Heeeeeyyyyyy Daddies”
Hey, don’t lump Cotton Candy Randy in with those CP-craving fucknuts. 🤬🤢
Oh Skycake…
How is a common rest day bullshit? Don’t take the weekends away. You could even prohibit supermarkets from opening on sunday/Saturday to encourage it. In Germany this is rather common. (But with too many exceptions and little flexibilty)
Or, like, we could maybe recognize that humankind has always had diversity of beliefs, and just go ahead and respect that fact within reason.
That’s the problem with anti-theists pretending their beliefs aren’t a religion. By acting like it’s something different, you think it gives you permission to call for taking away other’s rights. I respect atheism, but people like you can keep your bigoted hypocritical fundamentalist Atheism to yourselves.
No, it hasn’t, and atheism is not a fucking religion, you knob.
There are plenty of reasonable definitions of religion that would apply to atheism, but even that aside, it’s a-theism, not a-religionism, it’s a rejection of theism, and while many atheists do come at the topic from a generic anti-religion angle, there are many atheistic religions, like The Satanic Temple, who are doing fantastic legal work as a officially recognized religion to fight the current right wing legal nastiness like the abortion ban in Texas by arguing they have religious freedom to preform abortions.
So you’re right in the strictest sense that the philosophy of atheism is not de-facto a religion, but next tmme I would recommend making an actual argument rather than incoherent swearing at someone with a mildly spicy take, you’re making us all look bad.
Depends on context. In regards to a lot of Federal discrimination legislation like that in Canada, atheism is actively protected under the subheading of “religious belief”.
In some Provincial discrimination legislation it is covered by the term “creed” rather than religion but if something goes to the level of the Federal Supreme Court then for purposes of protection against discrimination or for matters of hate speech atheism is considered for all purposes legally a religious belief.
Linguistically laws often term Atheism more broadly as a set of spiritual beliefs. Believing entirely in the absence of the supernatural is still describing what you believe about spiritual matters. Atheism is not a complete absence of belief. You still have things you believe about spirits - you believe they do not exist. If you truly had no spiritual beliefs you would have to be completely unaware that the concept of the belief of the spiritual exists at all including disbelief in the spiritual.
Fundamentally law that applies atheism as a religion employs this logic despite religion having connotation of an internal dogma - something absent in atheism.