No one is free from criticism. Harmful ideas should be condemned, when they are demonstrably harmful. But theist beliefs are such a vast range and diversity of ideas, some harmful, some useful, some healing, some vivifying, and still others having served as potent drivers of movements for justice; that to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.

By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the “Pyramid of Hate”, as well as the first of the “10 Stages of Genocide.”

If your religion is atheism, that’s perfectly valid. If someone is doing something harmful with a religious belief as justification, that specific belief should be challenged. But if you’re crossing the line into bigotry, you’re as bad as the very people you’re condemning.

Antitheism is a form of supremacy in and of itself.

"In other words, it is quite clear from the writings of the “four horsemen” that “new atheism” has little to do with atheism or any serious intellectual examination of the belief in God and everything to do with hatred and power.

Indeed, “new atheism” is the ideological foregrounding of liberal imperialism whose fanatical secularism extends the racist logic of white supremacy. It purports to be areligious, but it is not. It is, in fact, the twin brother of the rabid Christian conservatism which currently feeds the Trump administration’s destructive policies at home and abroad – minus all the biblical references."

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/5/4/the-resurrection-of-new-atheism/

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/2/21/can-atheists-make-their-case-without-devolving-into-bigotry/

  • myslsl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are beliefs voluntary? Do you choose to believe that the sky is blue or that you need to drink water to survive? You certainly choose whether you support certain religious institutions and practices or not. But I’m not sure how much I buy the idea that beliefs (or religious ones specifically) are voluntary.

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you explain how it is voluntary? I don’t see why beliefs about things are choices?

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s voluntary because people choose to believe it.

          In fact, for many religions that conscious decision is a necessary step. Christians, for example, teach that only those who accept Jesus Christ can be saved.

          • myslsl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s voluntary because people choose to believe it.

            You are arguing this: “It’s a choice (i.e. voluntary) because it’s a choice.” This is circular reasoning.

            What we’re arguing about is called doxastic voluntarism. My whole point here is that there isn’t some single consensus on this topic. There are arguments for and against doxastic voluntarism.

            I don’t care about your personal beliefs regarding this topic. I’m pointing out the fact that “A chooses to believe B, therefore …” is a form of argument that doesn’t guarantee its conclusions if the premise “A chooses to believe B” isn’t true. For this kind of argument to work you need to address whether or not “A chooses to believe B” really is true beyond just begging the question.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      technically, yeah, you’re choosing based on evidence. just a lot of very consistent evidence.

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        technically, yeah, you’re choosing based on evidence.

        I’m questioning whether or not this is really choice?

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Think of it as a sliding scale based on amount and consistency of evidence. You picked some on the extreme end of happening everyday and always consistent.

          Like, i have a less firm belief that we’ll have a snowstorm this winter. Much less amount of evidence, and less consistent, but it does usually happen so id probably plan for it to.

          • myslsl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • myslsl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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…”

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  wow you even bolded the problem part yourself. What do you think subjective means? “to them” means it’s subjective. Objective isnt “to” anybody, you dont exist as far as objective truths go. You could say you think it’s hot standing in a room with a thermometer, and suddenly disappear. That thermometer’s gonna be showing the same temp without you there, but the room’s not gonna be anything to you if you’re not there. It’s objectively whatever temperature the thermometer shows, and subjectively hot to you.

                  • myslsl@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • Superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The sky being blue or my need to drink water aren’t beliefs, they’re facts. I don’t need faith to know that they are true

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Facts can be proven (if you stop drinking water you die), beliefs can not be proven (they don’t need to be, you have faith).

          • myslsl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.