this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
739 points (94.8% liked)

Atheist Memes

5589 readers
343 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exanime@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Proof of lived experience and philosophical conjecture?

Neither... get proof that religion is right/accurate. That is what we are talking about and what I replied with "get proof". No need to move the goal post.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

get proof that religion is right

How do you prove a moral philosophy is correct?

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's precisely the point bud.

You cannot and therefore we should not use religion (in this instance) to write laws... it would be like banning musical genres based on my taste

I do not agree with the original quote from Hitchen that every religion must be wrong (although I do not think any are right since they are all just made up stories) but I do believe that should be left to people's personal choice and not a centimeter more.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You cannot and therefore we should not use religion (in this instance) to write laws…

Strictly speaking, we don't. Legislation has to be in line with the constitutional authority of the acting branch.

But when you talk about rationales for that action, there's no filter that exists to screen an individual's religiously informed ideology from their legislative, judicial, or executive behavior.

Hell, given the nature of popular democracy, there can't be. What are you going to do? Establish a religious exclusion test for candidates? For voters? Who would support that in a country with enormously influential and active religious organizations?

I do believe that should be left to people’s personal choice

When large numbers of people engage in the same personal choices, they create an implicit policy. When state officials campaign, they appeal to the local customs and taboos. And those customs/taboos become laws, on the ground that they service some useful social function.

What prevents this snowball from forming? Are you going to forbid a plurality of people from propagating their views?

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Strictly speaking, we don’t. Legislation has to be in line with the constitutional authority of the acting branch.

Well, that is not where the USA is going if they continue down the MAGA rabbit hole. They are now even quoting the Bible as a reference for law writing.

What are you going to do? Establish a religious exclusion test for candidates? For voters?

No but you are taking it too far. All I want are laws that are not based on religious beliefs. If they coincide with some religious belief I have no issues, I just do not want religion doctrine to be the driving force.

When large numbers of people engage in the same personal choices, they create an implicit policy.

Which can objectively be avoided or mitigated.

When state officials campaign, they appeal to the local customs and taboos. And those customs/taboos become laws

Why should they? this is exactly what I am talking should not happen and something you just claimed "strictly speaking" does not happen.

What prevents this snowball from forming? Are you going to forbid a plurality of people from propagating their views?

Now you are just pearl clutching for effect

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

that is not where the USA is going if they continue down the MAGA rabbit hole

"Strict Constructionism" is a central tenant of the conservative movement. A big chunk of their revanchist ideology is embodied in the slogan (Make America Great Again), implying we left the rabbit hole and we need to go back.

All I want are laws that are not based on religious beliefs.

That's a shit basis for a legal system, as it does nothing to protect individual civil liberties or form an egalitarian basis of enforced legal standards. I can shave the serial numbers off all my religious precepts and implement a secularized fascist government without anyone noticing the difference.

Which can objectively be avoided or mitigated.

How do you mitigate majority rule in a democracy?

this is exactly what I am talking should not happen and something you just claimed “strictly speaking” does not happen.

Constitutional law is a secularized standard of customs and taboos. The legalism stands in for the religiousity, but yields the same practical results.

Now you are just pearl clutching for effect

We've seen this anti-religious hysteria in action within the US/UK before. It just got pointed at minority religious groups. Hell, Hitchens himself had no problem striking a common cause with UK sectarian Anglicans and Catholics when it came time to wage a Holy Crusade on the majority Muslim states of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

Secularizing your bigotry makes you no less of a shit.