Atheism
Community Guide
Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Statement of Purpose
- This is a support and conversation community for people who don't believe in gods.
- Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
- If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.
Acceptable
- Honest questions or conversations.
- Discussions on parenting or advice.
- Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
- Atheist memes. We can have fun!
- News headlines relevant to atheism.
Unacceptable
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
- Anything against site rules.
- Illegal and/or NSFW material.
- Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
- Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
- Personal attacks or flaming.
Inadvisable
- Self promotion or upvote farming.
- Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
Connect with Atheists
- Matrix: #atheism:envs.net
Help and Support Links
- Freedom From Religion Foundation
- The Secular Therapy Project
- Secular Students Alliance
- Black Nonbelievers
- The Clergy Project
- Atheist Alliance International
- Sunday Assembly
- Atheist Ireland
- Atheism UK
- Atheists United
Streaming Media
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
- Atheist Debates - Matt Dillahunty
- Rationality Rules
- Friendly Atheist
- Making Sense with Sam Harris
- Cosmic Skeptic
- Genetically Modified Skeptic
- Street Epistemology
- Armored Skeptic
- NonStampCollector
Orgs, Blogs, Zines
- Center for Inquiry
- American Atheists
- Humanists International
- Atheist Republic
- The Brights
- The Angry Atheist
- History for Atheists
- Rationalist International
- Atheist Revolution
- Debunking Christianity
- Godless Mom
- Atheist Freethinkers
Mainstream
Bibliography
Start here...
...proceed here.
- God is Not Great (Hitchens)
- The God Delusion (Dawkins)
- The End of Faith (Harris)
- Why I Am Not a Christian (Russell)
- Letter to a Christian Nation (Harris)
Proselytize Religion
From Reddit
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
view the rest of the comments
Justice is not always preferable to laws and institutions. If you deliver justice to one, but weaken an institution that materially helps thousands, is that desirable?
This I strongly disagree with. The community has a right to the use of individuals, according to the needs of the community. If your arm is stuck blocking an essential passage off, even if through no fault of your own, the community does have a right to remove your arm, if need be, to serve the needs of the community.
You're getting caught up in the minutiae of definitions and are missing the big picture. These tenets were put in place to counteract anti-abortion laws under the guise of religion. It's a subversion of religious and conservative tactics with a much better message.
I have no dispute with that as a strategic choice (since lying about one's values is conditionally acceptable), just figured I'd offered a bit of dissent for the OP.
Alright, yeah. Fair enough. Have a good day!
You too!
Snarky response: Human sacrifices were a thing once and served the needs of the community.
Serious response: TST Satanists don't treat the tenets as absolutes. More like guidelines. There are situations where tenets can be in conflict. The individual is supposed to work through that and make the best decision they can.
Observation: No, that would be the Sith
The point is that justice is the end goal. Institutions and laws are solely means. And one should never confuse the means with the goals.
Note that the very tenets are an example of that. In some cases you need to go against them, and that's fine - focus on what the rule is supposed to achieve, not the rule itself.
Contrast it with Christianity and its "BUT IT'S IN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS! You're supposed to follow it even when unjust! The law is the law!"
Exactly! Which is why all women are sent to the breeding farm as soon as they have their first menses, it's for the good of the community! /s
Tenet 3: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
I don't know how you got "Everything every community decides is absolutely correct and should be obeyed without question" from that, but go off, I guess.
So the community has a right to the use of you, but you also have a right to deny the use to of to the community, based on your judgement?
What remains in a conflict between individual autonomy and community need is morality, not rights. The community has a right to make what judgement calls it deems necessary - whether any particular judgement call is right or wrong, or whether it is reasonable to resist it, is another issue entirely.
So you extend that right to the community, but no to the individual.
So even if their morality is wrong, you think a community should have the right to force an individual's actions.
The community has the power, by virtue of majority usually, but not the right. You cannot simply disentangle rights from morality and assign 'immoral rights', that goes against the concept of rights and this sort of scope creep is how we get into present issues in the first place (see the current elephant in the western world - abortion, for instance).
To quote Motorhead -
This is the response of somebody who just wants to argue about religion. Common sense prevails.
I know a bunch of horny dudes that need to bang something. Pull down your pants and services the community.
Did you even read the original comment?
Laws and institutions generally follow public opinion. If the public finds something unjust that laws and institutions cannot address, it can affect change and make those laws and institutions stronger.
Generally, but not always - and that presumes that the public interpretation of justice is the correct one. If you're in early 19th century Britain and the public is 95% in support of executing homosexuals, then obviously no amount of institutional responsiveness to public opinion will fix this unjust situation. So what is the answer? To preserve the institutions in the hope that someday, they may be used to defend the lives of LGBT folk, or to oppose the institutions and tear them down even at the cost of the welfare of millions and against the will of those same millions?
Of course, most of us will never be in such a position, and early 19th century Britain had fairly robust institutions that most individuals would struggle to damage. But again, these are questions of principle.
You are assuming there is such a thing as a "correct interpretation of justice", but there really isn't
So this applies to all institutions?
Does... weighing the pros and cons of an action with regards to justice vs. utilitarianism apply to all institutions?
Uh. Yes. I suppose it does.
Vll
I think I would ask, if you deliver justice to one, but weaken an institution that materially helps thousands, is that actually justice?
I mean, probably, right? Justice is generally transactional (he stole my cow, he gets me a new one), while institutions are more generally following overall utilitarian policies.
I can't really think of any real overlap scenarios here where literally just one person could meaningfully damage the system other than "you are the only one immune to the zombie plague, we have to remove your brain to become immune because science"
I would say that it could be. Justice and utilitarian results are not necessarily synonyms. It is intuitively unjust to allow a ruler to get away with literal murder, yet the dissolution of their rule could mean the deaths of many thousands. An institution may lead to the death of an individual through negligence, but the resulting dissolution of the institution, should it be revealed, could lead to the deaths of many more, ironically, through further negligence.
Obviously, in functioning modern societies, these are less concerning, as there is a much greater capacity for reforming or remaking institutions, or diverting resources until an alternative can be found; institutions and their effects are generally robust and can handle whatever scandals are revealed, and thus it is a duty, rather than a question, to reveal abuses as openly and loudly as one can.
But in principle, in the abstract, they're valid questions to be asked.
Definitely valid questions, good things to think about
So you agree with the legality and the morality of abortion bans then?
Tenet 3: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
Yup, I agree.
PugJesus doesn't. As I found out, he also has some more... unfortunate opinions.
Don't know where you got that from.
So if you want to abort the fetus, but the community decides the birth of it serves the needs of the community, it was a right to the use of you.
The community would have the right to make that call and attempt to enforce it. Bodily autonomy is not an inviolable defense against a decision by the community to violate it.
Whether that particular call would be morally correct is dubious.
So for example, if china wants to genocide all uygurs, you argue they should have the right to do it.
My argument there would be that genocide is wrong, not that every violation of bodily autonomy is wrong.
Answer the question:
According to you, should china have the right to genocide uyghurs?
Yes or no.
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
Answer the question:
According to you, should china have the right to genocide uyghurs?
Yes or no.
(Altough, the fact you can't answer the question is answer enough.)
I already answered the question. Would you be a Dogwood? Yes or no.
And your answer is yes, that you support the right of countries to genocide.
So china shoudln't have the right to genocide then?
When you're so enlightened, you can't even answer if states should have the right to genocide, maybe it's time to get off the "i'm-a-very-smart-internet-phisosopher" train 🤣
Yes, China doesn't have the right to commit genocide.
As a home owner (well, I'm not, because I'm a broke millennial, but let's pretend), I have the right to control who comes into my house. That doesn't mean I can deny the FBI knocking on my door with a warrant. Having the right to make decisions regarding something does not mean those decisions are inviolable, which is the whole point of disputing the idea of inviolable bodily autonomy.
The community having a right to violate bodily autonomy for the needs of the community does not equate to the community always being right in doing so. A community mandating vaccinations in violation of bodily autonomy is probably right. A community committing genocide is pretty universally wrong.
Congratulations, you managed to completely contradict yourself is just a few comments.
I don't know how much simpler I can make it, guy. You must be a Dogwood.
Never said it was.
But I did say the community shouldn't have a right to do anything, which you disagree with.
I'm a type that doesn't support the right to genocide. Probably not a lot of us where you fester.