Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
I think the distinction is between people who don’t believe, and the people who beligerantly don’t believe. If you make your non-belief a big part of your identity, it’s not religion but it shares a lot in common
I feel the belligerent non believers are the ones who feel they have been hurt by religion and feel strongly that others should be saved from the same harm
I get that. I understand the analogy, and as an analogy, it’ll only get you so far. It’s hard to have a good faith (lol) discussion with you if you don’t actually read what I wrote; when you just repeat the same analogy that I already responded to, but with a different sport, you’re not helping me understand or telling me anything new.
I agree I wouldn’t call them a tennis player, but I might call them an obnoxious spectator who streaks onto the court, smashes the rackets, punches the ref, and hurls insults at players. If you insist on continuing the silly stawman analogy, anyways.
Edit: ok it wasn’t you who used the analogy before, it was someone else. But it’s such a common and silly analogy, you have to know it’s not really a good argument.
If you make your non belief belligerent, it becomes faith. If you organise people in your non belief structure, create a congregation to talk about your non belief, and make it your mission to spread the word of non belief, it becomes a cult. With enough people following that specific non belief doctrine, it becomes a religion.
Iirc, the satanic temple is a cult/religion about atheism, with a given doctrine and a specific belief system. Atheism itself can’t be a religion just how the concept of theism isn’t either.
I think the distinction is between people who don’t believe, and the people who beligerantly don’t believe. If you make your non-belief a big part of your identity, it’s not religion but it shares a lot in common
I feel the belligerent non believers are the ones who feel they have been hurt by religion and feel strongly that others should be saved from the same harm
I didn’t disagree with them. At the same time, it shares a lot in common with religion. Both can be true at the same time
What they lack is a belief in something. It’s like someone who so hates tennis that not only do they not play they tell others not to play either
You’re not going to call that person a tennis player
I get that. I understand the analogy, and as an analogy, it’ll only get you so far. It’s hard to have a good faith (lol) discussion with you if you don’t actually read what I wrote; when you just repeat the same analogy that I already responded to, but with a different sport, you’re not helping me understand or telling me anything new.
I agree I wouldn’t call them a tennis player, but I might call them an obnoxious spectator who streaks onto the court, smashes the rackets, punches the ref, and hurls insults at players. If you insist on continuing the silly stawman analogy, anyways.
Edit: ok it wasn’t you who used the analogy before, it was someone else. But it’s such a common and silly analogy, you have to know it’s not really a good argument.
If you make your non belief belligerent, it becomes faith. If you organise people in your non belief structure, create a congregation to talk about your non belief, and make it your mission to spread the word of non belief, it becomes a cult. With enough people following that specific non belief doctrine, it becomes a religion.
Iirc, the satanic temple is a cult/religion about atheism, with a given doctrine and a specific belief system. Atheism itself can’t be a religion just how the concept of theism isn’t either.
This is simply false. By definition.
I said several things, can you point which one of them is false? I’m not sure of the satanic temple thing, I might be remembering incorrectly.