spaceghoti

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope you checked again and made sure you're still registered this weekend.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month ago

Right. I don't believe is my position as an atheist. I don't know is why.

How is this so difficult for you?

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's pretty weak tea, especially considering how so many Christians (but not all, I know) insist that Jesus and Yahweh are the same person, just different aspects.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 1 points 1 month ago

Sure, but the text claims he was already dead by that point. So we're back to my original claim.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You're using the modified definition of "agnostic" that believers favor. We have no reason to accept that.

"Agnostic" literally means "I don't know." "Atheist" means "I don't believe." I don't know that gods are real, and I have no reason to believe they do.

No faith required.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

When it comes to the Christian God, that's easy.

https://biblehub.com/judges/1-19.htm

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.

https://biblehub.com/1_kings/6-7.htm

In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built.

While the Bible never says what was used to fix Jesus to the cross, tradition says it was three iron nails. There are two reasons why the account of the crucifixion is atypical of normal Roman executions: first of all, they didn't usually waste good iron nailing victims to their crosses. They tied them to the posts. Secondly, crucifixion victims normally took days to die of dehydration and suffocation, which is why the Romans did it that way. But Jesus allegedly died in hours, not days.

So clearly, Yahweh has a weakness to iron. I fear no gods I know how to kill.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you think they’ll go away if Trump fails to take the White House?

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're using this to provoke challenges against the wall of separation between church and state. They feel confident, with good reason, that the christofascist majority on the Supreme Court will reinterpret our Constitution to eliminate that law.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 5 points 1 month ago

Religious indoctrination doesn’t promote progress:

This paper studies when religion can hamper diffusion of knowledge and economic development, and through which mechanism. I examine Catholicism in France during the Second Industrial Revolution (1870–1914). In this period, technology became skill-intensive, leading to the introduction of technical education in primary schools. I find that more religious locations had lower economic development after 1870. Schooling appears to be the key mechanism: more religious areas saw a slower adoption of the technical curriculum and a push for religious education. In turn, religious education was negatively associated with industrial development 10 to 15 years later, when schoolchildren entered the labor market.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 2 months ago

Atheism doesn't mean I know there are no gods. I suspect there aren't, because religious claims about gods and reality don't stand up to scrutiny. The more excuses you have to make for why reality doesn't work the way you insist it should, the less inclined I am to believe you know what you're talking about. Arguing for a prime mover or appealing to consequences doesn't convince me either. I'm intellectually honest enough to say that I don't have concrete knowledge that there are no gods the way I know there's no money in my wallet, but not being able to prove there are no gods isn't enough for me to believe that there are. Wanting to believe there are gods is no more useful than wanting there to be money in my wallet. It's still a claim that requires validation, not a default assumption.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 2 months ago

No it doesn't. The only reason I bother calling myself an atheist is because believers keep insisting I have to share their beliefs. If they didn't, I wouldn't need the label.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 3 points 2 months ago

None. Atheism isn't a religion or philosophy. It's an answer to one question, and only one: do you believe in gods? The answer is "no."

Where we go from there is up to us.

 

It should surprise no one that Dominionist Mike Johnson's change of heart on Ukraine was bought by suggesting to him that it could serve his religious agenda.

 

Daniel Dennett, philosopher, atheist, and one of the tongue-in-cheek "Horsemen" of atheism, died today. He was 82.

 

Surveillance cameras showed a man walk up to the building soon after 4 a.m. on April 8 wearing a face covering, tactical vest and gloves, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. The man then ignited an improvised explosive device, threw it at the main entrance then ran away. The bomb partially detonated, resulting in some minor fire damage, authorities said.

 

FTA:

The bottom line is that Christian nationalism takes on different forms, and despite organizational or even ideological differences, ideas can penetrate the often porous borders between different camps. Someone who receives the daily email blast from the Family Research Council might also be drawn to Wolfe’s book, for example. On a more unnerving, macro level, major right-wing and GOP figures, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and the CEO of the Daily Wire, the podcast consortium run by conservative influencer Ben Shapiro, have embraced the rabidly antisemitic, Hitler-admiring antagonist Nick Fuentes, who is Catholic but also is accurately described as a Christian nationalist. The increasingly influential Catholic integralist movement, which seeks a Catholic-inflected replacement for the “liberal order,” is yet another unique form of Christian nationalism.

 

...In 2022, Stephen Wolfe (no relation to William) published a book called “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” The book was published by Canon Press, a publishing house that began as a ministry of Wilson’s church. Stephen K. Bannon, the Trump adviser, reportedly had a copy of the book stacked on his table.

In the book, Wolfe lays out a vision that veers very far into the fantastic — he rails against the advancement of women over the past several decades by using the term “gynocracy,” and describes both the Obergefell decision and the 1965 immigration reform which abolished quotas on national origin as an “imperial imposition.” One chapter, called “The Christian Prince,” advocates for a “measured and theocratic caesarism.” Wolfe has suggested that he’s playing a somewhat coy game here, using “prince” to refer not necessarily to a monarch, but possibly to the aggregate form of American governmental power. Whatever it is, in his version of Christian nationalism the prince would promote “national self-love and a manly, moral liberty.”

 

Pity the poor unseen majority who shove their religion in our faces every day. Won't someone think of them?

 

It's easy to roll one's eyes as the self-serving dramatics of MAGA voters using false claims of victimhood as cover for their ugly views. But, as the threatening language in Greene's tweet shows, this "woe is us" act is deeply dangerous. The hyperbolic conspiracy theories and dehumanizing language serve to convince Republican voters that religious liberty and democracy are simply values they can no longer afford to hold. The message is Christians are so "under siege" that the only way to fight back is by stripping everyone else of basic rights.

 

They have money, they have influence, they have charisma, and they have technical expertise. And they're using to pursue a theocratic America, even if they have to kill anyone who gets in their way.

 

Could Trump's attempt to pander to evangelicals backfire? We can only hope.

 

Minor nitpick: it was time to start worrying about Christian nationalism over twenty years ago. They've been trying to legitimize Christian nationalism since at least the founding of the "Moral Majority" when I was a boy. I've been trying to sound the alarm about Dominionism and Christian nationalism since the second Bush administration.

But if you're late to the game, fine. The second best time to start worrying about Christian nationalism is now.

 

A deep dive into the policies proposed in Project 2025 reveal the theocratic intent of its framers. Using language that evangelicals will recognize to hide its authoritarian intent demonstrates they recognize how unpopular these policies will be once implemented. But then it'll be too late.

view more: ‹ prev next ›