this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
43 points (95.7% liked)

chat

8158 readers
381 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(I have amended the title of this post based on feedback and critique, to more acutely reflect the target of my grievance)

This could be a bad take, but, hear me out.

I was once a subscriber to r/atheism a long time ago. I was absolutely a smug ass fucking atheist. I'm not sure what it was that caused this world view I held to change, but as time marched on I've grown incredibly suspect of anyone who willingly identifies themselves as an "atheist".

I grew up going to church every week. That slowed as I got older. I remember my grandmother telling me I needed to cut my hair at church, and telling her "I have hair like Jesus, you think Jesus should cut his hair?" I learned later we stopped going to church because they started preaching about antiabortion and my mother wanted nothing to do with that.

So I was at least fairly indifferent about religion by the time I was in highschool. I remember Atheism giving me a sense of superiority that was deeply rooted in "facts and logic" despite being a severely under read dipshit in highschool. I'm sure I spent countless amounts of time debating people in comments, being a general idiot on the internet. Probably passively consumed a bunch of Hitchens work/ideas without having read any of his books.

At some point I stopped putting a lot of thought into it, and this smug sensibility was pushed into the back of my brain. Then in 2020, like a lot of people, I was swept up in this rise in socialist thinking, leading me to change my entire perspective on the world.

I think it wasn't until recently, when I was having a conversation with someone I knew and the topic of Islam came up that I realized how much I had distances myself from this smug atheist perspective. They said something about Islam being an "inherently violent religion", and my gut, instinctual reaction was to blurt out "What? What makes you think that's true?" They responded with something being in the Quran, and again, like water from a faucet the words "Listen, maybe that's true, maybe its not, but Islamic people are not a monolith." poured out of me and the conversation kind of died on the vine.

The reason I'm even thinking about this today is because, of all things, I watched the Asmongold "apology" video he published today. He attributes his shit ass takes about Palestinians being an inferior culture and thus worthy of genocide to his "hatred for religious extremism of all kinds". He goes on to say that he was or is a "r/atheist enjoyer" and a self professed "atheist". It really confirmed a lot of assumptions I have about atheism that I guess have been lingering in my skull.

Those assumptions being that Atheism is, on it's face, a religion in and of itself. It's belief is in that of non-belief. It has missionaries like most other religious belief systems, seeking to secularize communities and cultures. It believes it is the one true religion and that all other religions are false religions with false gods. It demonizes all other practitioners of these false religions indiscriminately, believing that they are either upholding their wicked systems of oppression, or are directly complicit in them. Countless books have been written about the its theology and the logic of its faith. It is a fully fledged faith, in that you have to believe in this non-belief, on faith that you will be proven correct when you die.

Not only all this but its clear to me now that Atheism is the western liberal religious belief system. Its fully compatible with western chauvinism, as it demonizes the wests enemies on the grounds of their systems of belief, which are regularly the reason for the wests interventions. Western wars are "secular" wars and as such they are atheist colonial projects as well. The idea that modernizing a backwards 3rd world country would bring about liberal democracy and with it liberal values. Atheism is liberal values.

Now this isn't to say that religious violence doesn't exist or that religious extremism is also a fable, but instead that Atheism and its ideas are a form of religious persecution, it breeds the same phobic believes that other religions develop about the ones they are attempting to conquer. The Atheist believes that through the abolition of religion, via changing hearts and minds, a entire form of violence will be removed as well. It completely denies the material realities and conditions that cause religious extremism to begin with. Because of this, it doesn't recognize that to achieve a secular world, it will only be done so through violence.

Somehow the atheist believes that religion and culture are all somehow disconnected and isolated phenomenon. That somehow you can remove religion from the equation without damaging or altering culture. That some how this secularization will happen quietly and without conflict.

When I'm asked if I'm religious I say no. if asked if I'm an atheist, I say no. The only thing I would identify as in this context is as a materialist. It matters not to me what lays beyond the vale of life, but what does matter to me is what is happening here and now. Pain and suffering exists here in this conscious reality. Happiness can be achieved here in this conscious reality. That happiness can include religious and spiritual belief.

I have no conclusions here. This is just the ramblings of an old wizard. If I'm off base here please tell me. Interested in your perspectives as always comrades.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cethin 1 points 39 minutes ago

I agree with the complaints, but just as Muslims are not a monolith, neither are atheists. I call myself an atheist because it's the most accurate word for me. I would call myself an anti-theist in the past when I was like you were. Anti-theism is a belief structure. Atheism is not. Many anti-theists just call themselves atheist, because it's more acceptable, but they aren't only that. There are a ton of humanist atheists, for example, who want people to be able to live happy healthy lives of their choice. Atheism is broad and not particularly descriptive of actions.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with almost everything you said but feel the need to point out "Athiesm is a religion too" is a christian young earth creationist framing/argument/propaganda/whatever you wanna call it. It is an interesting perspective and certainly close enough to true for some athiests, but it isn't ultimately a productive argument to make for anyone who isn't trying to convert people, IMO.

Another one that is a pet peeve of mine is when they call people "Evolutionists" to try and argue believing in evolution is a religion and not based on evidence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

point out "Athiesm is a religion too" is a christian young earth creationist framing/argument/propaganda/whatever you wanna call it

That's interesting, I've never encountered that framing before. My position stems from the same kind of hegemonic ideology that is so insidious in the west. I think New-Atheism (which, it turns out, is what my specific grievance is actually about) hitches a ride onto western, imperialist, hegemonic thinking and becomes a kind of collective belief that holds all the same tenets as a colonial, imperial, Christianity would have. Because so much of this New-Atheist ideology is intertwined with post 9/11 bloodlust (which is where its rise and mutation really begins), it takes on this kind of expansionist character. There is so much at stake with that belief, that we should be secularizing eastern countries through US armed intervention for the betterment of humankind, that you HAVE to be a BELIEVER because to be wrong in this situation means you have committed yourself to the same kind of brutal and violent crusade that your belief system rails against. So, in that way, it is this self-reinforcing system of non-belief. Becoming a nonbeliever (in the tenets of New-Atheism) casts you out of this group, in the same way becoming a nonbeliever would cast you out of some religious circles as well.

I'd be curious to know more about this "Young Earth Creationist" framing, that's really interesting.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

It's not just a YEC thing, and I wouldn't even call it an invalid/bad faith framing. I've heard it from Catholic priests a billion times, some variation of the argument that secular society shifts man's dependence on God to dependence on Mammon; secularism inherently leads to people finding other means to explain their existence and give it value, modern capitalist society programs people to find that value in material wealth and success.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

tbh I've never really engaged in atheist spaces. once I formed my opinion, I didn't feel the need to go to spaces just to talk about atheism. I've heard the spaces you're describing are incredibly frustrating and often miss the point of atheism, but I don't let it stop me from identifying that way. they're just one (western) rendition of it

I'm absolutely anti-religious and see it as harmful to the world, but it doesn't do any good to be combative against it imo. material conditions first and, hopefully, it starts to fall after

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

"There's such a definitive lack of evidence for god that one can and should reasonably conclude he doesn't exist." My belief in that statement is why I call myself an atheist to friends and family.

I don't use the label publically in spaces like these because most people have the take that you have. My honest impression is 1) Some famous "athiests" (whose past debates I still enjoy) have unrelated, shitty views, and 2) just that right-wing dinguses have somewhat hijacked the perception of the label (eg Peterson).

I really don't engage with the terminally online drama culture about atheism, so maybe I underestimate the scale. But in my mind, I am atheist, and I think that label has value because religious dogma is still so all-present, pervasive and generally negative.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 hours ago

Those assumptions being that Atheism is, on it's face, a religion in and of itself. It's belief is in that of non-belief. It has missionaries like most other religious belief systems, seeking to secularize communities and cultures. It believes it is the one true religion and that all other religions are false religions with false gods. It demonizes all other practitioners of these false religions indiscriminately, believing that they are either upholding their wicked systems of oppression, or are directly complicit in them. Countless books have been written about the its theology and the logic of its faith. [and they're universally poorly reasoned sophistry -ed]. It is a fully fledged faith, in that you have to believe in this non-belief, on faith that you will be proven correct when you die.

Bad take imo. Atheism isn't a religion; unbelief is not a belief, and this tired chestnut that "Atheism requires just as much faith as a belief system that posits a supernatural omnipotent creator, physics-defying miracles, and an afterlife for which there is neither plausible physical justification nor any hard evidence" has its source in Christian apologetics.

Atheism does have one element in common with religion, and that is that it is an identity, one that often immediately cuts you off from participation in your local community, which still revolves around the church in a lot of the world. And choosing to take on that identity knowing you might end up a local pariah can be more appealing to the already privileged or the socially incorrigible, among which groups I think we find most of movement atheism's bad actors.

Ideally we live in a world where atheism is unremarkable because it's the default. I used to be a live-and-let-live religious pluralist but I'm now more convinced by Engels' argument that atheism is a precondition to communism because you can't dismantle hierarchies when a bunch of people believe in a unaccountable ruler who only issues judgments after death and whose laws are so up for interpretation people have fought wars over theological disagreements. Yeah, you can be religious and keep it to yourself but it's still a gateway to bad thinking and social factionalism.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You're mad about settler colonialism and patriarchy, and rightfully so. Reddit atheism is one of the many faces of the white patriarchy and a particularly annoying one. It does not represent the vast majority of atheists who mostly just say "oh yeah I don't do that stuff" and live the rest of their lives as normal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

As someone who was raised religiously I completely disagree with you here. Stripping away people's religion may be difficult or an untenable position for building a worker's movement, as such it needs to be handled delicately. However, because of religion and religious activities related to I have deeply onset psychological issues related to seeing myself and engaging with others.

I didn't engage with natural exploration in adolescence due to my Christianity, and natural desires and impulses caused extreme psychological distress for me. Furthermore, the conception of original sin being passed down into every child from birth can be and was damaging to young children's self esteem.

The idea that you have something fundamentally wrong with you that you can only get rid through unresponsive prayers is psychologically traumatizing.

Live and let live is not the answer and if you talk to the apostates who leave these religions you'd find many similar attitudes.

That being said, the chauvinistic tendencies listed above that spawn from many reactionary atheist in the West is additionally harmful, if not more so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

See, I grew up amongst normal atheists. I spent half my time with retired revolutionaries in a communist retirement community in Wuhan, China. The last of the elves to see the Light of the Two Trees of Valinor. So a lot more Maoist than the general Chinese population. Some comrades who were stationed in Shaanxi throughout the war(s), even some who participated in the long march.

After all, as l'internationale goes, 从来就没有什么救世主,也不靠神仙皇帝/Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun.

Some still held cultural beliefs that could be seen as a religious practice but it was not to serve any religion. Some who had seen the worst of the second war were more adamant that there are no powers above. I suppose if you witnessed Nanking during/immediately after WWII, you'd be angry at the gods for standing by and doing nothing. How good can the gods be if they stood by and watched when even the literal Nazi John Rabe had enough humanity to try and stop the slaughter? But understanding that the people have their beliefs was also a part of it. The most toxic and harmful parts were purged in the Cultural Revolution, who's to stop someone from joining the monks or having a statue of 观音 and lighting incense? The very people we fight for, the people who sheltered us during the Long March, the people who took up arms with us in the name of liberation. If the anti science, anti feminist and counter revolutionary aspects were purged, what harm is there in people observing holidays, praying and restricting their diets? To fast during Ramadan, to walk the path of the Buddha, to honour ones ancestors, to light fireworks to scare off the Nian, etc. Those things don't have to be toxic.

But upon moving to the west, atheism became Atheism, it was an identity. It was commodified and used to sell laptop stickers and books. It was a brand. To be Atheist is to debate Christians and buy Richard Dawkins books and share Hitchens' quotes and feel holier than thou. "In this moment, I am euphoric" sort of thing. To be Atheist is to be insufferable. Worse, they seem to just abandon the Christian part of Christian Chauvinism and just become Chauvinists. In some aspects, it's not only feeling smugly superior to the brown people believing in primitive gods or the "Moslems", it's to also feel smugly superior to Evangelicals, too. It's the next evolution of being a chauvinist. Critical support for their opposition of Young Earth Creationists and anti abortion dickheads, yes, but you cannot excuse their support for Western imperialism, literal and cultural, in the global south.

I guess in the end, atheism is a land of contrasts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It was always sus that the disbelief in something was its own identity. "Atheist" should've just stuck as an adjective like "irreligious." Imagine going around calling yourself an irreligionist. Hell, irreligionist makes more sense since an irreligionist would hypothetically be someone who neither practices nor believes while an atheist could always practice a religion without necessarily believing in the metaphysical trappings of the religion. The whole "atheism is just another religion" spiel is people correctly observing that Western atheists still practice and navigate the world like Western Protestants even if they no longer profess belief in the God of Abraham and no longer believe in the infallibility of the Bible.

It's a thoroughly undialectical and idealist understanding of a social phenomenon, in this case religion, that I think dialectical materialists should be above.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

This is why I generally identify as agnostic

I'm not out to prove anybody wrong, I just have other things I think are way more important

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 hours ago

I will always call myself an atheist, even if new atheists suck a shit ton.

I'm an atheist, an antitheist even, as a black Marxist and a materialist, not an atheist as a white, American/British chud who thinks that transphobia and Zionism are an extension of my bubble of "rational" thoughts I've conjured up using FACTS and LOGIC.

In essence, I agree with a ton of what you said, and I'm glad comrades were able to get you to realize that generalizing atheists because of terminally online Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens fans on Reddit is a bit myopic.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The growing religious sentiment in the US really concerns me, I wish we had an atheist movement that was actually good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 54 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Seems like you just hate redditors,

[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 hours ago

Don't we all?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I think you just have a problem with new atheists. If I remember things correctly, the original meaning of the prefix of "new" came from not being socialist and left-wing, but still being atheists. Since, traditionally atheism was associated with the left-wing (e.g. godless communists, godless socialists, etc.).

I do identify as an atheist, but always found myself hating the reddit/new atheists very highly. Obviously due to Islamophobia, but also because I had a lot of experience with what in my opinion were "good Christians" even if I still didn't believe in God. The most devout people I knew were my grandparents and a high school teacher. The grandparents were Lutherans and despite otherwise being white liberals, they did actually take their beliefs seriously enough that their reaction to MLK was "this guy is correct, all people are created equal and segregation and racism is wrong", and the activists that they met in the Civil Rights marches led them to follow it up by being in favor of activism for LGBTQ rights and for AIDs support during the 80s. And my high school Chemistry teacher became a teacher after being fired for heresy as a pastor. If I remember correctly, the last straw was officiating a gay marriage right after California started allowing gay marriage in the early 2000s. He believed that God giving humans sovereignty over the earth still meant that we had to take care of God's creation, so all true Christians should be radical environmentalists and firmly in favor of animal rights. He also believed that Christianity is anti-capitalist since they shouldn't strive for wealth, should make sure that everyone is looked after, and several parts of the New Testament call for a form of asceticism instead of indulging in luxury.

This doesn't in any way prove God exists and again, there are material reasons for religious belief and expression. Just that I do think that the "Reddit Atheist" deeply misunderstands religion and gives atheism a bad name.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're tilting at a specific brand of Atheism, and that one of the problems here is that Atheism isn't cleanly divided into cults and offshoots the way that religions tend to be. For the specific brand of western chauvinist Atheism you're talking about, I propose the name "Hitchensism," after one of its founding thinkers in the modern world.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 hours ago

Yeah that's fair actually. Its really American Atheism, or Western Atheism I have a problem with. Encountering another nonbeliever in the west is a real dice roll.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 hours ago

I agree with Marx on this one. Religion is a reflection of materialist conditions. To that end, any group cultures is going to be, in some way, a reflection of materialist conditions. Therefore, Atheist talking as a group will be somewhat identical to religion.

For my honest beliefs, I will happily label myself as athiest; antithiest. Any "God" that treats it's children this way is in no way worthy of worship. And I would rather believe that I was just very unlucky than to believe that a consciousness in the universe chose to curse me with the afflictions I face.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Not that I'm trying to criticize this post or endorse an /r/atheism worldview, but I have to say that this site is in an ironic position as a bunch of avowed leftists, with a ton of us being some flavor of ML, and being against atheism. Marxism is traditionally atheist, ML states have often been officially atheist, because religion is opposed to a materialist worldview.

It's always seemed to me that a lot of the the new/reddit atheist types were people who grew up in right wing Evangelical households and environment and broke out of it. They have a very understandable and correct hatred for that shit, but too many of them never really broke out of the pattern of thought they were taught. They kept the dogmatic, black-and-white worldview complete with smug superiority, just with a new dogma. Anecdotally I would sometimes argue with them against Jesus Mythicism and it was like banging my head against a wall. (Like, motherfucker I don't believe in the miracles or god shit either, but every piece of historical evidence points to there having been a dude who led a minor religious movement in Judea and got crucified by the authorities. Why is that so hard to admit? No one is asking you to believe anything else!)

But even so, I'm still pretty much an atheist even if I share your distaste for that word and the people who usually self-apply it, because what the hell else am I supposed to be? What, you want me to be Christian? I'm not doing that shit.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 hours ago

Yeah the more comments I read the more I understand my specific grievance. Specifically the brand of Atheism pushed by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, and others, sometimes called New-Atheism.

I've amended my title to reflect this realization.

Naturally in not advocating against being an atheist, but specifically this western chauvinistic brand of atheist. It's ironic that Hitchens called himself a Marxist.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

It sounds like you're judging reddit users and debate bros rather than the theological statement that there is no God.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 hours ago

The increasing emphasis on how bad Islam is and the decline of it being used against homegrown evangelists was where it got pretty bad and that was still in the Bush years. I was kinda above that stuff when reddit atheism came about, seemed like how I felt when I was 12. By the time reddit was a thing I was at least 17 or 18 and had been a weed smoking teen who got was in the ap English and sociology classes. Theological NonCognitavism was already my jam by then. If there is a higher power we'd be as close to understanding it as a goldfish would be to understanding space travel, so fundamentally it's not worth worrying about. If there is a god, he's a fucking asshole and if that God imbued me with the ability to hate him then he's either so untouchable nothing we do matters and we should behave like there isn't a god or that God isn't powerful enough to call god. No matter what, it's useless for me to consider seriously so I don't. I don't give a shot about why we're here or if we were put here by anyone, it wouldn't affect my choices whatsoever, if there's no god, fine, if there is fuck that god and I'm gonna do what needs to be done in the here and now to improve conditions for things we know to exist and to suffer. Atheism is stupid cause they're still wasting their time caring about this shit. There's work to be done.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago

You basically just told my life story. I was one of those capital 'A' Atheists, made it part of my identity, for lack of an ideology. I was an obnoxious little shit. I read Dawkins and Hitchens. Religion was my enemy. Then I went to Japan, and visited Shinto and Buddhist shrines and temples, studied Islamic history and architecture in college. I learned to see great beauty in these cultures and religions, that religion wasn't inherently evil. When I found communism, I understood what my true enemy was. I still lack any faith in a god or follow any specific religion, but I do not like the atheist label any more. While I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, I have found great passion in learning about it and incorporating aspects of it into my life. As the situation in Palestine has progressed, I have found myself having a lot of respect for Islam as I have been exposed to and learning about the resistance. On the day Lebanon was invaded, I found myself listening to a prayer that someone posted in the news thread, it brought me great comfort, and moved me to tears. I don't think I'm an atheist any longer, or rather feel completely alienated by that new-atheist community. It's frustrating, my new-atheist family member who was instrumental in forming my early beliefs, who taught me to "question everything" has stuck with it all these years, and has become quite reactionary and complains about woke and cheers on US imperialsm. emilie-shrug

I would burn my Dawkins and Hitchens if I didn't think burning books was a crime. I keep them, they were an important part of my past, they started me questioning our society and beliefs, but they will gather dust. Those 2 creeps sicken me now, and I don't know how I ever swallowed so much of their crap for so long.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 hours ago

As an atheist, I'd change the title of the post to "there's a type of atheist that disgusts me". I think religious beliefs are an expression of material conditions and the political culture, so those are what I focus on. And the material conditions and political culture breed all kinds of strange nonreligious belief systems that people should be more skeptical of. But I genuinely do not care what people believe as long as they do not use it to justify hating marginalized people, especially if they find meaning or peace in it. I don't think people find meaning or peace in QAnon, but I know Christians who are genuinely very good people and do not want them to stop believing if it makes them happy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 hours ago

At the end of the day all modern atheists who are not socialist are theists as much as any creationist or dominionist

Capitalism is their religion and they worship it with a ferocity indistinguishable from any Spanish inquisitor

They worship a machine god that actually is real, which in a terrifying sense makes them more dangerous than all the religionists who came before them

[–] [email protected] 22 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I think my framework of looking at American counter cultures as being heavily biased towards being fundamentally just as chauvinist as and a little more treat-centric and libertine than the mainstream culture works well here. Like Atheism as a movement in America has fundamentally been comfortable straight white men who think all the performative stuff and cultural signifiers they have to do to join with the Evangelical power framework are cringe and dumb barriers in between them and their preferred treats: in their worldview all the cruelty and hate and domination and violence that the theocrats carry out are secondary bullet points to tack onto a powerpoint presentation in support of their real grievances, which are that the theocrats are cringe little weirdos who think silly things that are cringe and what's worse are standing between fun loving guys and yim yum tasty treats like drugs and porn and free access to women's bodies.

Atheism itself is just disbelief, a rejection of mythology and magic as infeasible. It's not a ward against chauvinism or libertine treat-lust, and toxic sorts of self-interest and an alignment with American hegemony can make anything and everything toxic by association.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 hours ago

libertine treat-lust

no notes, 10/10

[–] [email protected] 17 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

theocrats are cringe little weirdos who think silly things that are cringe and what's worse are standing between fun loving guys and yim yum tasty treats like drugs and porn and free access to women's bodies.

You cracked the "LessWrong" code. yud-rational

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The secret is that if you swap out the word "theocrats" in that sentence for a context-appropriate antagonist it becomes an accurate description of a big chunk of basically any big counter culture in the US over the past century or so. Sometimes you don't even have to swap it out, you just have to attribute it to a different time. Like it describes freeze-gamers being mad at geriatric old fuddy duds who hate fun one year and then redirecting that onto women the next year because Steve Bannon told them women were coming for their treats, it describes the hedonism of rock fandoms or the hippies, etc.

Smug treatbrain is so quintessential to American culture that it makes me want to do a bit about brainpans and treat lobes to mock explain it.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

"The uncool old guard are trying to inhibit access to your treats" call to arms arguably goes back to at least the American Revolution, if applied broadly enough.

I don't even mean the tea tax or the attempt to ban applejack. I mean "England is trying to restrict and discourage slavery! How dare they!"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. Fundamentally the same sentiment sits at a lot of reactionary thought, either in opposition to a status quo that isn't permissive enough for the privileged classes or in defense of a status quo that gives them almost unlimited personal freedom to act upon others as they please. You've got slavers opining that abolition would be the real slavery because it would destroy the only true freedom that is being an idle slaver dandy who can do as he please and live in opulence on the backs of others. There's that one take on Fascism that it was fundamentally selling itself as the liberation of the warrior class and the powerful who were then free to subjugate and act upon others as they pleased.

We can even tie this into the whole farcical framework of "individualism" vs "collectivism," where "individualism" is the "good and free" state of things where the vast majority of all individuals are subjugated through violence both direct and indirect to serve the opulence and lusts of the more privileged classes, and "collectivism" is the "bad and unfree" state of things where all individuals have their needs met and there is a systemic goal of preventing a more privileged class from separating out and preying upon them or abolishing and reintegrating such a class if it already existed.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago

We can even tie this into the whole farcical framework of "individualism" vs "collectivism," where "individualism" is the "good and free" state of things

Too many fair-weather leftist fall on the individualist side of things, like during that struggle session about wide-scale corporate powered sports gambling where "fuck you don't tell me what to doooooooooooooo" became the beginning and ending of a few treat defenders' arguments.

"No veggies at dinner, no bedtimes" baby leftist ideology is ideological poison.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Once again I'll tap the sign

citations-needed did a whole episode on it, and it basically hits the stuff you're talking about. One of their early bangers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Downloading now. Thanks comrade!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Congrats on overcoming your cultural programming and becoming a normal atheist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago

Thanks comrade ❤️

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Atheism is by no means western see, there are 'atheists' like Bill Maher who cite Bible to defend the existence of Israel. There is no text in atheism which says you have to hate Muslims etc.

Personally, I would rather not believe there is a god because if they were real, I would love to 'kill' them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 hours ago

Personally, I would rather not believe there is a god because if they were real, I would love to 'kill' them.

yes-hahaha-yes-r anti-shinra-action ecoterrorism an-tifa yes-hahaha-yes-l

[–] [email protected] 20 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Just my perspective as a Catholic, I don't think it makes sense to dismiss atheism as a whole because of the islamophobic tilt it has gained since the Bush years. If your materialist analysis leads you to think that belief in God or some other religious system is inconsistent with reality, why should that be invalid? There's a big difference between not wanting to believe in the things you can only believe in by faith for yourself, and believing the crap people like Dawkins preach about religion holding humans back because some brown people say Allah Ackbar when they fire their RPGs at occupation tanks. You understand that material reality is the engine behind those behaviors (in that particular example a very positive behavior that would undoubtedly still get called "religious violence" by the atheists you talk about), not the inherent violence of any given belief system, so you can obviously dismiss the racist nonsense. That doesn't take away from your absence of faith. The two things are independent of each other.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Ya that post seems like a heavy over correction by them from reading too much reddit. Honestly a pretty online view. The amount of times any atheist has brought up their views unasked in real life is countable on one hand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

and believing the crap people like Dawkins preach about religion holding humans back because some brown people say Allah Ackbar when they fire their RPGs at occupation tanks.

I think this is what I'm railing against specifically. These guys, Dawkins, Hitchens, took this notion of non-belief and made this an external force instead of an internal force. Instead of it being a personal belief, they insisted on public debate with religious leaders.

I have no issue with people who have non-belief. I fall into that category as well. I think though, if a persons non-belief is steeped in this new-atheist framing, they need to reevaluate it.

Their writings have infested the discourse of non-belief and have turned it into a crusade against all religion. It isn't enough to be a nonbeliever, you have to actively support the eradication of religion, because as hitchen said, organised religion is "the main source of hatred in the world".

I understand where your coming from. It just feels like the term Atheist and the well it draws from are tainted. Hitchens referred to himself as a Marxist and a Trotskyist, his "material analysis" seems to have lead him to a conclusion that leads directly to progroms and genocide in my view. Even if that wasn't his intention. It still manifested publicly in the vial notions being put forward by some twitch chud streaming to a football stadium equivalent amount of people.

Sorry if my tone is off here, I really appreciate your perspective.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If nothing else I think the dialectics of a Catholic arguing in favor of atheism while a nonbeliever argues against it are really chefs-kiss

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 hours ago

That got me laughing! What I'm learning from this thread is I have a very specific grudge against western new-atheists.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

As someone who was once also a Reddit atheist and became a theist again, most atheists aren't like that. It's entirely possible to be a committed, even strident Atheist and still not be a smug asshole.

Marx was one, and he combined a well justified hatred of how organised religion supported capitalist exploitation while acknowledging the deep emotions and humanity at the heart of religion.

For all Communists, atheist and theist, religion is an important contradiction that we must struggle with and progress seriously.

It is idealism, but one which directly touches the material world and how we engage with it. In many ways it turns historical materialism back on its head and shows it it's mirror image.

I find this an incredibly productive tool to use, I admit that my beliefs in communism and religion don't meet neatly and that that is kind of the point. Without imbalance and contradictions there can be no motion.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›