I’ll start! There was a lot of absolutist rhetoric there that said things along the lines of “All Christians are terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people!” I think a little nuance is in order, no?
Provide rules that require religious tolerance, while still allowing respectful criticisms of said religions.
Basically just avoiding the edge lord/ hate speech stuff.
Over at /r/nihilism we always had a similar issue.
Any posts that are critical of religion should be fact based and impartial as possible. Sources should be required.
As an example:
Posting a rant about how how you don’t like Islam: [deleted]
Posting a link to a news article about the statistical rate of s**ual harassment in the catholic church: “A+”
(Just examples)
All that being said, I think we should more focus on how to live our lives positively and effectively. A lot of people perseve atheists as having no motivations/ being unreliable. I think we should try to overcome that image by focusing on progressing our own “beliefs”, and spreading our message: “Life is what you make it.”
We should also strive to be a safe place for recent refugees of different religious backgrounds. Not only should we be a place of open discussion and critical thinking, but a place of support and recovery. That’s more my opinion, though.
I would love to see posts like:
“Tips on staying positive after recently losing your faith”
“Rebuilding a social network after cutting ties with toxic family”
“How to come out to your religious family as atheist”
“I recently came out as atheist and my family disowned me, what should I do?”
“What are some good movies you’d suggest for an atheist?”
“Here is some art I made as a social commentary on religion”
“Making eye contact during prayer”
Etc…
Seconded.
I personally have adopted an “as long as it’s not hurting anyone” view of religions for individuals and smaller local groups, but I recognize that there’s a lot of factual hurtfulness that goes on systemically. That inherently will try and make this community devolve into intolerance, so there’s a tricky balance of moderating intolerance and welcoming open conversations that I don’t have the answer to.
One thing to keep in mind is that some people are anti religion due to experience. There are a lot of religions that ARE hurting someone by fly under the radar.
For example, I always see people say Lutherans are chill. Look up LCMS, it’s a literal cult. I grew up in it. There is a lot of abuse prevalent in it, ie teaching you how to hit your kid “correctly”.
But then people who speak up about it are labeled as “intolerant” or “edgelords” because “but everyone else told me Lutherans don’t hurt anybody!”
And even beyond that, there can always be specific churches within religions or denominations that are seen as “okay” that are abusing their power to hurt others. I am not going to go out and attack religious people or anything, but I’m also not about to be neutral on the subject when I know it opens up a world of potential abuse.
I am very against requiring religious tolerance, abuse victims require a place at the table.
That’s a very good point that people’s personal abuses play a key role in the intolerance of religion.
It’s a very blurry line between enabling detriment via tolerance, and disabling an inclusive discussion environment via intolerance. And, I’m not sure where that line could be well defined.
If this Atheist community would be prone to being more tolerant, perhaps there could be forums specifically for ex members of different beliefs. For example, I know there was an Ex-Mormon community on Reddit.
I mean, if you have to ban discussion of abuse and send abuse victims somewhere else to be “tolerant” then maybe… You shouldn’t be tolerant?
I think you may be misunderstanding. I’m not saying we should ban discussions of abuse in a misguided effort of tolerance (or at all). I’m saying that we should be careful of overgeneralizations, and that if people would like a space to overgeneralize, it should be on other communities.
there’s a tricky balance of moderating intolerance and welcoming open conversations
Where does not tolerating religiously motivated hatred and intolerance fit into that framework?
I would classify that as harmfulness that should not be tolerated. However only at an appropriate level of generalization.
Articles about an individual going extremist should be met with disappointment in the individual, and disappointment in a system that would foster that extremism. But to call the whole religion a group of extremists would be too far.
When religion is used to strip away civil rights, I don’t think those actions deserve tolerance. Those actions are supported by large populations who were indoctrinated by their regional religion with mythologies that promise a happy afterlife if the members follow their leaders. Efforts to limit education and crticial thinking are used to avoid followers from realising the grift for what it is.
I realise the above is a generalisation, but they are real concerns of mine. At what point is tolerance just complacence?
I used to be one of those toxic circlejerkers on r/ as a newly-deconverted teen with no life, now as a more mature adult I’ve also adopted that more nuanced stance- a major reason why I left that sub a long time ago
What is the point of censoring the word sexual?
This will definitely be too much to ask, but if we didn’t have regular “why are you an atheist?” threads like r/atheism had every single fucking day, that would be lovely.
I was happy with r/atheism. A lot of good people. We had some I didn’t agree with, but that is ok. I’m sure we’ll be the same here.
Welcome to the internet.
Maybe a greater respect for the biological reality of limbic needs. People who are religious aren’t automatically morons for simply being religious. Spirituality is an essential part of what makes us humans. So, perhaps we could do better to vocalize that respect, while still addressing the specific truth claims.
Also, helping believers ask their own questions without attacking the fact they’ve been led to believe something would go miles further in helping them develop critical thinking skills.
Insults only drive people deeper into superstition and fundamentalism.
EDIT: Check out “Street Epistemology” on YouTube for what (in my subjective opinion) seems to be the most efficient way to help people think through their beliefs.
EDIT 2: It seems we may be defining spirituality differently. I am NOT talking about supernatural beliefs. I’m talking about an emotional sense of connection to something bigger than oneself. The things managed mainly in the midbrain, especially through the limbic system. Spirituality =/= superstition, though the latter has become deeply entrenched in popular spiritual pursuits.
EDIT 3: “Something bigger than oneself” = Any natural system of which you are a subcomponent.
Spirituality is an essential part of what makes us humans.
Source?
I read that to mean “Spirituality is an essential part of [human history, and is still prevalent today in most cultures].” In other words, it’s an inseparable aspect of humanity. Just as erring is human.
This kind of makes it sound like concerns over inner experience or universal ontology are erroneous. Ofc superstitious and fundamentalist instances of this are error, but “spirituality” does not depend on either of those.
Edited my comment
No I knew what you meant, I just would like to see where you’re getting that idea from
Not to sound adversarial, that’s not at all my intention. But you can’t just say common human desires are a conditional requirement for humanity without strong evidence to back it up.
I could just as easily say “Wanderlust is an essential part of what makes us human. Everyone needs to travel the world and connect with new places and cultures. It’s ‘cause of the way our brain is”. Many people want to travel, yes, but is the way I phrased that correct? Can I prove that?
But either way, I agree with the spirit (hah) of what you’re saying, just feel like that’s a weird angle
I’m not sure we’re on the same page yet. Please bear with me…
Spirituality refers to concerns with the inner human experience. Dualists would say they’re concerned with the “soul/spirit” of a person, but you and I know we’re talking about emotional functions of the brain.
My whole point is that being concerned with inner experience is quite natural.
Naturalistic peeps like you and me would obviously prefer science-backed approaches to this (e.g. certain breathing exercises/meditation/mindfulness/productivity/self-improvement/education), but many people prefer superstition and fundamentalism… pursuing tradition-backed approaches.
The ignorance lies in the approach, not the concern.
Calling people stupid or ignorant for mere inner experience pursuits just isn’t helpful, because inner experience pursuits… the design is very human 😂
That’s not to say all people are or should be concerned about their experiences. It’s just not dumb for people to be concerned about it.
Yeah like I said I know what you’re saying. I think it was just phrased weirdly. Your third and also your final paragraph better represent how I (not that I’m anyone important) would have liked to have seen the idea communicated in the first place
Edit: also still seriously curious on a source for the neuroscience you’re referring to
To provide you a source I guess I’ll need to know the parameters of your question. There’s a lot that goes into subjective feelings of connection, concerns with inner experience, recognizing our place in larger systems, etc.
To be honest, I think if I try to continue this conversation I’m going to become unacceptably snarky. So I’m gonna dip. I appreciate your perspective, please enjoy your weekend!
Spirituality is an essential part of what makes us humans.
I guess I’m not a human.
.
Edited my comment
I’m talking about an emotional sense of connection to something bigger than oneself.
Still sounds like I’m not a human to you…
You have a limbic system, a parietal lobe, etc. You don’t feel connected to anything? No people? Communities? Games?
Inner experience doesn’t matter to you, even if science-backed?
Even if you don’t feel any sense of connection to anything at all, you’d still be human, but you’d probably be diagnosed as a psychopath.
I don’t feel connected to anything bigger than myself. I feel connections with other humans. I feel connections with animals. Unless you mean other humans who are physically larger than I am, I do not feel any connection to anything bigger than myself.
So I guess I’m not human.
By “bigger than one’s self” I mean things like community, family, etc. A group of people is larger than one person. Or nature: you’re a part of the universe at large, and are ontologically connected to it in a variety of ways. You’re part of ecological systems bigger than yourself. Life and death and all that naturally implies. You don’t feel in any way connected to anything beyond your own body that’s larger than you? Not your source in space, your inevitable demise, or even this community?
I don’t feel emotionally connected to groups or “the universe at large.” I feel emotional connection to individuals.
I’m talking about an emotional sense of connection to something bigger than oneself.
My house is larger than I, and I really like it. Is it what you mean? If not what do you really mean?
I see spirituality as similar to sexuality: wildly popular across and entwined with every culture for obvious biological/social reasons, but just as I don’t see asexuals as being less involved in the “human experience”, I don’t see spirituality as essential to humanity.
Edited my comment
“I am NOT talking about supernatural beliefs. I’m talking about an emotional sense of connection to something bigger than oneself. The things managed mainly in the midbrain, especially through the limbic system. Spirituality =/= superstition, though the latter has become deeply entrenched in popular spiritual pursuits.”
How is this definition distinct from, say, feeling a sense of connection to one’s community? Neighborhood? Political party? Those are distinctly real things, no superstition required, but I don’t think you’d say that someone canvassing for a governor’s race is spiritual.
This definition is in no way distinct from that emotional sense of connection to anything else. I wouldn’t call canvassing “spiritual,” because it can be done for intentional, material interest. “Spirituality” is a term reserved for inner, emotional concerns. Of course, canvassing, like anything else, can be the result of these concerns, but if it’s not an activity knowingly intended to meet “inner” life concerns, it would indeed be weird to call it a “spiritual” activity. Then again, canvassing under the guise of Christian Nationalism may be considered by the canvasser to be a “spiritual” activity, and in the sense that they are doing it because they feel driven by an inner sense of connection, they’d technically be right about calling it that, though I have a few other words I’d use to describe it…
Lol. Holy shit the replies to this…
Slow your roll, everyone. Maybe don’t grab onto the ‘Spirituality is an essential part…’ so fervently. If it doesn’t apply to you, good for you! Sure, it was worded in a way that made it sound like it was applying to all humans, but the sentiment of the post was a plea for a bit of grace when dealing with people coming to terms with religion. No need to be so dang pedantic.
No, ‘spirituality’ isn’t vital for human flourishing, but it’d be folly to say that it isn’t an important dimension of human experience. Just not ALL humans, and certainly fewer now than in decades past.
As lurker, I felt it was more doom, and watching the decline of civilization by the Christian fascist. And sadly those are clearly issues to be concerned about.
I think this community is starting to wake up and realize it’s not a small fringe part of society but a growing part of the soon to majority.
Now is the time to have discussions on what issues most concern the group and how to we proceed. Stop being “independent” or in the side line but register for a political party and start effecting change.
Steps off soap box
TST news is good shrugs
Might not be bad people entirely, but religion is fundamentally poison to society.
The best thing to avoid would be giving the impression that religious belief entitles someone to having those beliefs respected. Nobody owes them that kind of pandering.
Exactly this. Respecting the human is important, but nobody owes a thing to a belief.
I was fine with the old place tbh.
Removing /r/atheism as one of the default subs was one of the first real signs of reddit going downhill.
Well before my time. It was because of advertisement, yes?
Honestly, and I might struggle a bit to explicate this, but I don’t necessarily think that places like r/atheism are without value. I am an atheist, but I’m not “interested” in atheism – one day in adulthood I realized I don’t even think about religion at all anymore. Unless there’s some zealot freak on the news, I forget religion or religious people exists day-to-day, and my general course in life does not bring me into contact with religious people anymore. This is a luxury not shared by all, of course. I was an angry atheist who liked to use words like Christofascism and smirk about the sky daddy. Later in life I went to a Richard Dawkins rally to hear Tim Minchin play and it didn’t have the same resonance for me because my lack of religion was a given.
But when I was in high school? When there was actual social pressure for religion coming down on me? The hostility I took from religious people was remarkable. It could have ruined me. I was angry, then, and at that time in my life I had to be rude and mean and hostile and throw back every insult and strawman I could get to get that freedom from religion. The smirking, fedora atheist with a bad attitude is annoying, and a community of them is not the type of place I want to spend time, but I think it’s so important that they have that community to develop that anger and language when it’s a weapon they need to fight.
Yeah, after a while, it does make you wonder if it’s all that necessary to be in a club that identifies itself by the fact it doesn’t believe in god. I’m not in the ‘Santa isn’t real’ community, but I sure as shit don’t believe in santa.
At least in a community identified as ‘atheist’, we might act as a spot for people who are questioning their religion to ask/see what life is like for people who aren’t.
TBH, I actually unsubbed from r/atheism years ago, because I didn’t like how overrun the sub became with anti-religiosity. Don’t get me wrong, I personally identify as an antitheist, but for me that means being opposed to religion on an ideological level, not thinking all believers are idiots, willfully ignoring the good some aspects of religion have done in the world, etc. There should absolutely be a place in atheist communities to vent anger about the harm religion does to society, but it got totally out of control in r/atheism eventually, to the point where reasonable, nuanced discussions became impossible to have there.
I also noticed that the community and mod team seemed to conflate atheism with a liberal political alignment. I’m a liberal, so I wasn’t affected that much, but I don’t see how there was any space for a conservative atheist on that sub. That’s not what a general atheist community should be about IMO.
I just subbed to this community, so I haven’t had the chance to get a feel for things yet, but I like what I see in the sidebar. So long as this place doesn’t get dominated by radical antitheist rage-a-holics, I think I’ll like it.
browsing r/atheism is like being run over by a truck full of middle schoolers who got lost on their way to bully kids at the park because they’ve never touched a boob. like bumping up against their teacher’s armpit makes them better than everyone else. the fundamental core of the subreddit is rotten and needs to be scrapped entirely.
if you want this to be a good group, one that appeals to thoughtful, interesting, and cool people, instead of stuck-up, gatekeeping dorks who do nothing but shit on religion all day (we get it, we are all atheists, you’re preaching to the choir), it’s gotta be the opposite of r/atheism. that is, be a community that is home to atheists, one where any and all topics can be discussed, rather than a community about atheism, where atheism is the single focus. in the former, i can talk with members of my atheist community about a movie i enjoyed; in the latter, i can only talk about atheism. in the former, i can talk with my atheist online friends about this wonderful book i’m reading. in the latter, i can only talk about atheism. you get the point.
good luck, have fun
p.s. sorry to end this so abruptly. things need doing, and i think i made myself clear enough. <3
cheese, for a start.
catheists are mostly lactose intolerant.
sorry, couldn’t resist
I’ve never liked r/atheism because it just felt like it was mostly populated by teenaged edgelords that treated atheism like a subculture they were into at the moment. Pizza-cutter atheists, all edge and no point.
Everyone else was butthurt and chronically angry. I’d like to see more activism, more community building, more maturity. Less butthurt.And a lot of it was driven by some past trauma or whatever. They go to r/atheism to vent, not to have honest conversations. Signal-to-noise ratio got pretty bad at times.
I mean I understand the anger. I think every atheist deals with it at some point. But you gotta move on and let that shit go. I’m getting old now and it’s just tiresome. I’m not interested in tribal BS. I’m interested in chatting with folks who see the world through the same lens I do without that shitty sense of superiority so many atheists seem to have.
When I first started browsing r/atheism, 14+ years ago, it was far more insightful. Part of that was on me, because I wasn’t already familiar with a lot of the common concepts.
Even so, over time, the dialog became less productive, sometimes to the point of barely being able to be called “dialog.” There were far too many simple memes, black and white thinking, soundbite reasoning. As I aged, the demographic of reddit overall got younger, more cocksure.
Maybe that’s just something I’ll need to come to terms with anywhere, that I am older than the demographic of pretty much anywhere on the internet, but it would be nice to participate in conversations that bring new concepts to the table.
Needs to get back to the glory days of non-professional quote makers IMHO
