Anonymous #1 1d

I mean that’s part of it but atheism isn’t providing you anything. It’s like saying you’re anti life instead of pro choice. Atheism isn’t providing people with anything it’s denying something that does. Religion gives people understanding of the world, cope about death, community, a set of morals to live by. Secularism will always be behind unless if we start to provide people these things.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Religion brainwashes people to think those things are necessary

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Getting all of these things from religion is something religion tries to argue is necessary, it’s not.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

You absolutely need a set of morals to engage society with.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Yes you do, why is it required that those come from religion?

3

Anonymous #1 1d

It’s not that’s my point

5

Anonymous #1 1d

My point is secularism needs to provide people things rather than just being “religion is wrong lol”

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Replacing religion with something is just reheating the nachos of religion its self. Which, yeah, will make people not want to agree with it. But that’s where education comes in, what religion does is build communities with systems that reestablish the communities. What non-organized religious followers want is for people to realize that the communities are around them and that the systems are free and open, no set to certain days or places.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Needs to according to what? That’s my point, is that it doesn’t. And religion has just convinced people it does

3

Anonymous #2 1d

What people want is the ,in essence, group therapy, and a charismatic leader who is good at defining complex topics, being reinforced by the environment(church and followers). That’s where the problems arise, plus the ability to feel like there is a higher power controlling everything so they don’t have too, which also is where the problems are. Humans like larger than them systems to handle the things they do not, they like to feel apart of a group,

6

Anonymous #1 1d

But you just said people need a moral to engage with society? So do you not need it or do you?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Answer, needs to according to what?

5

Anonymous #2 1d

and to feel better than the “others”. It’s also why people join clubs, Greek life, sports teams. Atheists and agnostics don’t want people to feel like they need these things to not feel alone or to feel like they have control, the only way we get there is(secularism) is to educate the masses. Which is not what religious powers want, because then the money and power those at the top of the hierarchy get.

4

Anonymous #2 1d

I totally reject the idea that education can replace religion that doesn’t make sense. If anything some form of morals or “religion” would inform education. We don’t just randomly teach people things there’s necessarily a moral goal that people ought to know this or that.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

According to living in a society wdym? You’re just hitting on a fundamental thing it’s necessarily gonna be circular. “Why is being nice to people good” “well it’s good to be nice to people bc then they cooperate with you and that feels good” “why does is feeling good, good?” “Well bc feeling good feels good” etc

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Again, nothing should replace religion bc that is not the goal. Education is what will reduce people’s need on religion. That is the goal.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Why do all of those things have to stem from secularism specifically, is my question.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

What does that even mean? Education necessarily requires some moral system kinda like religion. Education isn’t just giving random facts.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

people should enjoy the benefits of religion. But we shouldn’t use religion as an escape from the world we live in, use it define morality or legality, have people abuse it without question, and have people uphold corruption and abuse for the sake of “better thought” and to separate ourselves from each other.

2

Anonymous #1 1d

Bc otherwise they stem from religion lol. People if you don’t offer people something some other ideology will. U less you’re saying you don’t want people to follow your ideology?

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

I have no clue what you’re trying to say.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Greek life, knitting club, and sports teams are not enough to provide a shared framework for morality and civil justice.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

you should really engage in true secularist arguments. They’re never not aware of what people get from religion, it’s society’s reliance on those things that cause problems. People who are educated and have the ability to understand critical thought and reasoning is what we should all be aiming for. Even religious people. We should all be more connected with one another through our shared understandings of the world than through our understanding morphed by the lens of religion.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Because religion convinces people that those things need to stem from one singular ideology. God forbid people believe multiple things at once lol

2

Anonymous justinian 1d

but they do. Bc you engage with each other, share thoughts with each other, and have a common goal. That’s how morality is morphed anyway, by the environment you live in. That’s sociology.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

Ok I know I have no room to grammar police people but “never not aware” what lol? I feel like I’m talking to yoda. You just gave a secular argument you just made the argument I’m trying to make lol. You’re saying there SHOULD be some humanist understanding of the world, I agree that what i’m for.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

no it does not. It builds off of evidence and reasoning. You seem to not understand education either. Education is the building of knowledge, which is the experimentation and learning from patterns and concepts seen in our world. What I’m trying to say is that you misunderstand the argument at hand.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

So true sociology

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Idk what to say, there isn’t a measurement for ideas. There can be multiple ideas under one label. For example as a liberal I believe in free speech and free markets whatever. You can say that’s multiple ideas or you can say that’s one idea “liberalism”.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

Why is evidence and reasoning good? Your necessarily morally loading things 🤦.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

3rd spaces are great but you can’t really build a durable civilizational moral framework on it. You would have to literally have a cult around a frat or a sports team in order to do that, and by that point you wrap all the way around to having a religion again

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Atheism or agnosticism only exists to fulfill one purpose, moral, ethical, etc questions are answered by different concepts built to answer those questions. You’re arguing that a fridge should be able to cook your food when that’s not the purpose of a fridge.

4

Anonymous #1 1d

Yes I’m saying there should be more to atheism than what is currently considered atheism. Idk how else to explain this.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Blue Wave and I are asking the very fair question of how you cook food when you throw out the stove and haul in the fridge where it used to be

3

Anonymous justinian 1d

exactly. It is all still religious in theory anyway. Religion didn’t even build moral frameworks first anyway, we did that and then put religion on top of it.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

I don’t think you understand what I’ve said. Reread it again. You should also read up on what evidence and reasoning is, it’s not that it’s “good”. It is what it is.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

More because it doesn’t answer questions it’s not meant to answer?

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Okay, so you’re preconceived notions are coming through now.

6

Anonymous justinian 1d

Why are you expecting the fridge to cook your food to begin with?

5

Anonymous #2 1d

Exactly? Exactly?!?! So you are fine with like, a Denver Broncos CULT setting the moral tone for society??

7

Anonymous #2 1d

lol so true

5

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m saying the label “atheism” should be expanded beyond just answering one question.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m saying that secularism should define itself beyond being “not religion” that’s my point.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Ok I’ll bite what preconceived notions I feel like I’m talking to someone whose smoking weed rn

4

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

We should change the definition because you don’t like that it doesn’t do something it’s designed not to do?

3

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Why?

3

Anonymous #1 1d

Bc I think that’s more compelling to people than being anti religion. If I got to pick between people being religious or following my moral system I would rather people follow my moral system.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

So we should change the definition because you personally can’t fathom the idea of getting morality, ethics, standards of behavior, mannerisms, or ideological views from something other than religion or a singular source

6

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m saying we should change the definition bc I don’t like it. I’m saying it should change bc it has more utility to society and my interests. You’re begging the question, people “design words” words don’t have universal meaning given by god. You’re ironically giving kinda a religious argument that things aren’t socially defined.

3

Anonymous #1 1d

No I can fathom it, that’s why I’m saying people should lol.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

People should change the definition because we can acknowledge multiple beliefs can come from multiple sources?

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Wdym “multiple sources”? I feel like if you’re secular you generally believe in empiricism and rationalism.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

“Generally” You just acknowledged that you can be secular and derive other views from different philosophies. So there’s no need to criticize one thing because it’s not doing a job it’s not meant to do

6

Anonymous #1 1d

I like how every debate on here turns into a semantics argument about what specific words mean. I feel like it’s very clear what I’m trying to say. I take it back not generally you have to believe in empiricism and rationalism if you’re secular.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

And if you don’t by my decree you aren’t secular that is the final meaning of the word and no one can ever change it. Bc that’s how words work apparently.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

It’s on you to articulate your point. by the way. You have to according to?

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Even if we accepted this as true which it isn’t. If atheism isn’t meant to make all these other claims, why are you arguing it’s failing at doing those things?

4

Anonymous #1 1d

I am articulating my point you’re the one choosing to anally play semantics games.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Words aren’t “meant” to do a thing beyond what people want the word to communicate. Idk why you keep acting like words are “meant” to do something by some authority. My point is the purpose of words are to provide utility to society. I’m saying the word would have more utility if it communicated more than just being anti religion.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

They do, you just arbitrarily decided the purpose wasn’t enough

5

Anonymous #1 1d

And I’m not just talking about the specific word I’m saying there should be a greater interest by secular people to provide a moral framework for people rather than just debunking religion.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Clearly not lol. If I’m arguing semantics that’s because of how you’re phrasing it. Blame everyone but yourself apparently lol

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

They do, you’re just arguing about terms

5

Anonymous #1 1d

Ok I’m talking to someone who’s high. idk how to communicate with someone who thinks words have to be defined in a specific way like they aren’t dynamic or contextual.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Yes I’m arguing terms bc you keep rigidly defining them I don’t understand why. Like what do you mean when you say “atheism isn’t meant to make all these other claims” who decides what concepts words are supposed to represent?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

I’m defining them by how they’re defined. The definitions aren’t rigid in the sense that I have an authority but just that you’re using them incorrectly

3

Anonymous #1 1d

Ok do you see this is a little unnecessarily circular? “I’m defining them by how they’re defined” unless we’re arguing words have to mean what they mean. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “the purpose of words are to give some utility to society by communicating some idea”

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

I agree Do you agree that your perception of the efficacy of that word does not warrant a change in definition or utility?

6

Anonymous #1 1d

That’s what we’re debating currently I think it has more utility that’s the point. This is where our disagreement should be but you kept spamming things about how words mean what they mean. We should be arguing about the utility.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

“Spamming” is such a disingenuous way to phrase how I’m contesting your logic I’ve literally never seen you engage in good faith debates lol

1

Anonymous justinian 1d

if that’s what how you interpreted that please get a fucking grip. They already do btw. And we let Christians do it, and they did so well? They allowed slavery, Jews bit off babies foreskin, people married children and their family members. It’s not religion did so well on the morality think.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Bro just wants religion and can’t accept that those have logical reason for not. Yawn.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

This entire convo has been me saying I don’t want religion lol. You can at least pretend to engage with the point.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Lmao why is this comment so unhinged

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Spamming is the nice way to put what you’ve been doing in this convo lol. I’m curious could you summarize what you think my argument is?

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Im not saying my perception warrants the change im saying the utility does. Idk how many times I can say the same thing.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 22h

Yeah I could once you commit to leaving out the half character attacks

1

Anonymous blue__wave 22h

Your perception of utility lol

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Yes, why though? That’s the disagreement I’m trying to get to. Why is my perception wrong?

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Idk what the character attack was but sure?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

Might’ve been poor phrasing but you seriously think trying to argue Im spamming you is good faith?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

1 comment ago you said it wasn’t your perception and now you’re saying yes it is

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Bc my perception is based on what I’m saying has utility. I’m just against the hand waving of my argument bc it’s “my perception”. Everything we’ve said so far is our perceptions.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

I’m trying to get you to actually engage with the argument instead of just saying it’s my perception so you never engage.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

Yeah but you’ve yet to actually justify why your perception warrants change

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Yes when you’re acting like this it’s 100% good faith. I can tell right away when someone can actually defend their arguments bc they don’t drag out these endless meta convos. Notice how every time I try to get you back on track you drag it back into a conversation about the conversation? If I’m so incorrect you should just be able to address it rather than talking about the semantics of the word spamming. So again can you summarize my argument so we can get back on track?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

You don’t get to just make these blanket accusations and then expect someone else to move on. We’re currently discussing the topic in another comment thread. Explain how I was spamming

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Bc I think a secular society is better than a non secular society. I think making secularism or atheist or whatever word we want to use into a more holistic ideology and focusing more on providing things rather than debunking will lead to a more secular society. Which part of that do you disagree with?

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Bc instead of addressing the argument you kept making tautological statements about how a word means what it means. Like words aren’t contextual or dynamic. It took me addressing multiple times for you to stop. Just kinda an annoying thing to do a convo.

1