> be an atheist
> criticize e.g. abrahamic big three religions for their hatred e.g. against non-believers and women
> be the most hated person ever
Why does it happen to me, always?
And I live in Poland. Also speak English and I happened to be accused of hurting feelings of religious oppressors.
Ask me anything about my religious and ideological views. Screw wars, I'm a pacifist!
>>2177151>Why does it happen to me, always?I think religion reprograms the brain. It is like brainwashing (in addition to being a tax write-off / money laundering scheme). Maybe it's my exposure mostly to Evangelical Protestantism here in the U.S., but it's almost like a stand-up comedy routine (which I don't like either BTW), in which some guy is giving a speech on a stage, and he's trying to get everyone in the crowd to "empty their minds," which allows the preacher / comedian to suddenly "land" in it with a "punchline," which is when the reprogramming happens. It's especially important for there to be crowds involved. They want a crowd to get everyone to reinforce each other in the groupthink.
In the case of preaching, the preacher – after getting everyone calm and relaxed with emptied-out minds – will gradually build up into a hyperbolic speech about how all that stuff we talked is really because there was a man named Jesus, who wasn't JUST a revolutionary, and he wasn't JUST a good man (although he certainly was), he was GAAAAAWD and HE IS HERE RIGHT NOWWWWWW and his name is JEEEEEZUS and everyone is like OMGWTFBBQ
This is ultimately nonsense. On the other hand, there might be a rational kernel to it as a form of social organization. It's not a coincidence rural areas are more religious than urban areas, but that's because there's less entertainment, fewer things to do, life is less stimulating, and it's also kind of miserable and shitty. The church is a social hub that provides entertainment but also a community to belong to, and place for kids to socially interact with other kids.
In the U.S., which is the only country I have any real familiarity with, there was a whole wave of "charismatic" new religious movements in the 19th century among people who lived in the middle of nowhere. So they'd gather from miles around in these campfire revival ceremonies to listen to some traveling preacher, and start handling snakes and speaking in tongues and acting in really crazy ways, but they were also building social institutions where there had been none.
>>2177651Yes, ironically Zionism actually comes in multiple flavors. There is Nationalist Zionism where they will support anything the state does and there are Anti-Nationalist Zionists who think it is wrong for man to do something only God can do. To them the Israeli state and it's attempt to make a Jewish nation is wrong. A lot of people completely miss this fact. Also I've seen so many Jewish sites admit to things like saying the story about Hebrews being slaves in Egypt never happened and is just a story to take meaning from but Christians would never say this.
>>2177696Because people in the past talked about it and they are prescribing to those old views of a time when there were more Jews who had more impact on society. Also because Jewish prominence in the media industry so when people watch TV shows and movies their only experience of Jews is an annoying Jewish aunt or rabbi type character that Jewish writers threw in because their personal experiences. Also because the whole Israel Palestine conflict and Evangelical Christians fetishize Jews as being part of a special lineage they think if they treat them well it is a key to heaven for them. This leads to a lot of very polarized views on Jews since being so small a population most people never even knew a Jew. Plus the whole issues of Hassidic Jews I brought up briefly but did not fully touch on since some have been behind a lot of controversy time to time and are centered in New York City which with such a large population small fringe groups get a lot of attention. The hate against Jews is in part because Christianity was created to be a religion to pacify Jews preventing them from overthrowing the Roman empire. This is why in the bible so many Romans are portrayed very positively in how they treated Jesus and why Jews were blamed for his death, it was meant to guilt trip Jews into conversion but also lead to some of the hatred against Jews. See the book or documentary Caesar's Messiah for more details on how Christianity arose. I think the speculation is well supported however I think it goes too far claiming there was no Jesus figure at all, I suspect there may have been a revolutionary Jewish figure that was part of his basis and is very different from the Jesus in the bible. Islam I am less clear on why that arose since it's been questioned before if Muhammad even actually existed.
>>2177167OP I've never seen this happen to anyone unless they are an unhinged Reddit atheist. As other replies ITT show, the vast majority of atheists are religiously illiterate.
>>2177167>literally nothing took it's place as an opposing counterweight for existing religious fundamentalismNew atheism was never a counterweight to religious fundamentalism because it was itself a form of fundamentalism. In fact, its hard finding atheists who weren't secular fundmentalists.
>>2177174Marx opposed making atheism a plank of the international. It seems self-described Marxists decided not to follow his advice.
>>2179231>New atheism was never a counterweight to religious fundamentalism because it was itself a form of fundamentalism. In fact, its hard finding atheists who weren't secular fundmentalists.New atheists being secular fundamentalists isn't a contradiction to them being a counterweight to religious fundamentalists. You are taking the "fundamentalism" as more critical to the discussion then the religious/non-religious component, on a topic regarding religion. It's dishonest, it's like saying Liberal nationalists and nationalist monarchists were non-oppositional during their day, because they're both nationalists.
>Marx opposed making atheism a plank of the international. It seems self-described Marxists decided not to follow his advice.For the international, yes. But the international was also a program which was created to inherently be very broad. It is not synonymous with Marxist theory itself. In Marxist theory, atheism is foundationally critical as you draw the line from Feuerbach to Marx.
>>2177573Carlin was doing something different yeah. I haven't developed it enough, but it's not an original take on my part, it was reading a comparison to preachers and standup comedians from a Chinese guy on Quora. He thought stand-up comedy was an inherently liberal kind of thing.
Not to be a weaboo about China, I have just never really liked standup (although I like sketch comedy), and stand-up comedy has apparently struggled there, although they have their own versions like comic dialogues with two performers, which in the U.S. would be like old-fashioned Abbott and Costello acts I think. One way to look at standup comedy might be a more secularized, urbanized version of preaching. Fans of famous comedians can sometimes refer to them as "prophets." People also increasingly look towards comedians to be leaders so this might be "old wine in a new bottle."
>>2180090Found it. I don't agree with everything this guy posts but I found it interesting.
>The nature of stand-up comedy from day one since its creation in America has always been the big concentration camp to massively indoctrinate its audiences into liberalism through catharsis (conducted by manipulation of terminologies and narrative-framing inserted into the “joke” to extract your mind) and then, after emptying the brain (similar to the effects of scaring, or post massive killing, or post having sex, or post abusing your subject either a cat or a person, or “conversation” with your shrink, or any type of PTSD), the “comedian” lands into your brain, encounters no local resistance, or peace-keeps your remained resistance, and then injects a narrative into your brain, and repeats this process not just for feeding the information but also the construction of the infrastructure (rewriting the pathway in your brain).
>The crowd reaction will even make it better because every one of them, similar to Christianity’s regular group therapy session, lowers his/her guard by laughing and then confirms the liberal narrative to each other by nodding, clapping, and imitating (using the system science’s terminology, it will be called the “emergence” of the system) as opposed to a person (atomized, can’t be defined, contain an uncertain/un-quantifiable property ranged from being a weirdo, a psychopath to a mighty warrior) conducting critical thinking by him/herself free from environmental influence/entanglement.
>Cut the metaphysics or “philosophical debate” and spare you the details. What really happens to your brain is the subtle change in the nervous system. Your brain is rewritten and develops a path dependence on certain loops so you become more addicted to stand-up comedy and you also, after indoctrination, prefer to think in a certain way or believe in a certain narrative and consequentially process a certain type of information, which in this case is liberalism.
>Due to various reasons which are hard to elaborate on in one or two sentences, stand-up comedy itself is suitable for indoctrination of crowds for liberalism, just like Islamic rituals for Islam, Christian weekly country music sessions for Christianity than Buddhism, and etc and etc.
>Stand-up comedy from its organized culture, structure, setting all the way to its execution, the content and etc is perfectly designed for liberal capitalism plus corporation. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where a stand-up comedy would be organized in a way to promote anti-liberal values. Even if that is the case, it is still under the framework of liberalism and plays good cop bad cop with the liberals (I’m not against liberalism but I’m just saying you ain’t the real liberal because the real liberal is…. This is similar to “you aren’t a real Christian/Muslim/Marxist/….. because the real XXX is….”).
>So stand-up comedy doesn’t negate liberalism at the core but instead, it negates the negation of liberalism so it confirms liberalism and liberal value. It will be like a Christian is scared of death and punishment but after indoctrination, the Christian believes in God for his salvation and forgets that death and punishment are precisely imposed by the so-called God in this story.
>So the audiences in stand-up comedy would experience the same process that all the anxiety, fear, dread, or hatred in their brains caused by this global neoliberal alienating corporative capitalism is extracted so that they are directed to worship this God called liberalism and believe that “God” can fix all the problem as long as you say “I believe in Jesus” which in this case is liberal “value” or liberal “12 commandments”.
>I’m not saying that stand-up comedy should be banned or is totally toxic. I am saying that you have to at least know what you sign up for. If you go to a Christian church regularly, you should not complain that they sell you Christian theology there because that’s what Christian preachers do.https://www.quora.com/How-will-the-current-political-climate-in-the-United-States-affect-stand-up-comedy >>2177153t. another ignorant westoid who thinks religion equals institutional monotheism
sure, go around the planet forcing Le Atheism on countless indigenous peoples and their animistic beliefs
like a good colonizer you are
>>2180158not quite, I'm a Buddhist but far from the Tibetan branch which is basically Buddhist Mormonism to me
but I live close to indigenous communities who practice their own shamanism, so fuck off with any kind of "communism" that will try to erase their culture again, like capitalism has been doing since the colonial era start
>>2180161>Tibetan branch which is basically Buddhist Mormonism from my very limited understanding of the three big branches of buddhism this actually makes a lot of sense.
>but I live close to indigenous communities who practice their own shamanism, so fuck off with any kind of "communism" that will try to erase their culture againthats fair, tbh it seems like actively going after religion as concept just backfires most of the time anyways and your better off just improving public education and going after scam priests/monks and religous reactionaries with guns. Is there specific reason you say "again"? Im not super well read on SEA history so if the Viet Minh or Pathet Lao move against shamanism or something? iirc many of the ethnicities didn't strongly associate any of the nation-states(capitalist or communist) in the region and often faced prejudice from low landers.
>>2180175the problem that a "religion" is actually three things:
1. The original teaching
2. The clerical institution, which in the popular religions is fusioned with the state power
3. The lay people's rituals and practices
communists/socialists again and again commit the mistake of attacking all three instead of helping to purify the second one (which would often help them to gain support from the third group)
> Is there specific reason you say "again"?I live in LatAm, but in SEA those are highlanders that were persecuted by the state powers, check out "The Art of Not Being Governed" by James Scott
>>2180161>erase culture Culture is fleeting, it exist in the moment and context of the time. It evolves with those times, carrying the elements of previous generations to be taken care, reform it and eventually break it into something new.
In age and time under the crushing weight of global capital. The illusion is broken, the temples are gift shops, and you're spirituality is product that is sold to you. You can keep using your time to purchase nostalgic feedback or you can press forward.
>>2177151Because simplistic antitheism (most public "atheists" are actually antitheists), without any research into how and why religion had formed, what pushes people and societies to follow it, and what roles it plays in politico-economical reality (see picrelated) is way too easily subverted by liberal-fascists (see Sam Harris justify the invasion in Afganistan with "we're le enlightered science-based secular civilisation, they are savages ruled by an insane death cult").
Besides, it is surprisingly difficult to adequately define what religion even is. I personally use the definition "religion is an ideology based on natural philosophy instead of science (like "normal" ideologies)", but I am not sure if even everyone in this thread would agree with that.
>>2180332you said
>most public "atheists" are actually antitheistsand
>see Sam Harris justify the invasionthis is an incorrect assertion, the individuals you refer to are not anti-theists, but humanists.
>>2177151Once you get far enough from the overthrown window, opinions converge back to liberal centrism
>>2177167<He's a poleServes me right for not reading the full post
>>2177169Not an exclusive. See tibetan buddists.
Also the only Vietnamese contact I have said that the church was gaining followers over there only because somehow they managed to be less pedophilic than the local monks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>2178596Didn't work out so well last time
>>2179231>secular fundamentalismSounds very based
>>2180297Recently in my town they kicked out a kindergarten from a run-down building so that a bishop could go live there.
And for some unrelated reason, they started the renovation only after kicking out the kids.
>>2178596>I'm tired of this Middle Eastern poison erasing European pagan heritagelmao
The Abrahamic religions, Christianity especially, are all way closer to the general sentiment of communism than the fucking European pagans.
>>2180190> I have seriously considered trying to fake charisma and hijacking a dying church so I can start preaching a kind of americanized liberation theology. I think that, especially in rural areas, some kind of cryptocommunist Christianity could potentially catch on and work to deprogram these people.There was a based TV show like this called Damnation that unfortunately got cancelled.
>>2180445> Catholic Church is also horrible, but it is not devoid of any redeeming qualities like evangelicals are.Evangelical pastors scam poor people out of money.
>>2180626The Mayans, Aztec, ancient Egyptians and so on had planned economies and were relatively egalitarian. I know less on the full details of the various European pagans since there is just so many.
>>2180678>The Mayans, Aztec, ancient Egyptians and so on had planned economies Palace economies. Just because an economy isn't a market economy doesn't make it socialist. Feudalism could also be seen as a sort of semi-planned economy.
>and were relatively egalitarian.lmao
Most people who suck off the pagans focus on a few edge cases where the pagans were more progressive than the Christians, and then never particularly deeply and never viewing both as a whole. Maybe the prime example is "The Romans were gay" and generally talk about them as though they were tolerant, free-love types. If you actually did a deep look into Roman sexual morality, you'd quickly learn that it wasn't progressive at all, and even their seeming tolerance of homosexuality was contextualized inside of brutal class domination. The other thing that these people focus on is some paper written back in the mid 20th century that made the case that paganism was ecological while Christianity was "anthropocentric" which has been long debunked, but the general sentiment has survived. In fact, there has been a general sentiment that old European paganism was essentially "The Counterculture Movement: The Religion" when literally any amount of study proves this wrong.
Probably the biggest disconnect is in morality. There is this assumption that the pagans must have had a higher understanding of morality similar to modern ethics, but this isn't the case. Most pagans ran on some version of "might makes right," or, as the Greeks put it: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Modern morality, including the morality of communists, is much closer to the Christian "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
What's more, since Christianity has essentially become the "default religion" in many parts of the world, many people who praise paganism often think of it as "Christianity, but better" with completely Christian assumptions about the divine.
A good example of this is in Thor: Love and Thunder. It's capeshit, but there are parts of it that are clearly reflections of popular attitudes about the divine even from non-Christians. Here, in this scene where Gorr approaches the god Rapu (a largely pagan-style god), you're clearly supposed to be shocked at Rapu's behavior and sympathize with Gorr. This is based on the Christian assumptions that God loves you, that he is a benevolent entity that loves his people, all he asks in return for his blessings is faith and devotion, and in return all believers will receive eternal bliss in the afterlife. Of course, this is not how actual pagans saw things. If a pagan saw this, they'd see an idiot blundering into a god's domain, eating the god's food without apology, offering no sacrifice or anything else except a sob story about his people's quiet suffering devotion (okay, and?), trying to guilt trip the god into helping him, and when the god correctly points out that he doesn't owe the mortal anything, the fool Gorr blasphemes the god to his face and is surprised when he gets choked out (pretty patient and merciful for a pagan god all around, most would have given him a fate far worse than death much sooner for far less of the myriad infractions Gorr made)
>>2181585Vid related
(whoops).
>>2181585> Palace economies. Just because an economy isn't a market economy doesn't make it socialist. Feudalism could also be seen as a sort of semi-planned economy.They distributed food to people too though.
>blah blah blah Pagans are bad blah blah Christians are based blah blahYou wrote so much yet said so little of substance and are clearly just coping that Christianity is a hierarchal religion built around unquestioning obedience to authority. There are some good aspects particularly in certain denominations but you're fetishizing it I can only presume because you're Christian and are trying to convert people here. I doubt you spent any time actually reading into other cultures of the past with how vague your statements are. The egalitarianism I reference is more about the gender equality which is contrast to Abrahamic views of the inferiority of women which stemmed from some Greek philosopher's misogyny that was part of the basis of Christianity. Pagan views do hold different roles for women and men in many cases but they aren't seen as inferior. Christianity was invented by Caesar's orders by Flavian family to pacify Jews and make them worship him without knowing it, he's the Jesus figure in Christianity. It's why the Catholic Church was and still is so central to Christianity because the Catholic Church is an extension of what is left of the Roman empire. As for sexuality that's complex and varies but basically the Vikings, Greeks, Romans all viewed homosexuality as fine if you're a top and at most only make fun of someone for being a bottom not persecute them for it. Which it is worth noting that homosexuals were not always persecuted by the church though. You're being needlessly standoffish for what is nothing more than just an explanation of the truth not a dismissal of everything in Christianity.
>>2181587Imagine getting your idea of history and religion from Hollywood capeshit.
>>2181611You didn't even read my whole post.
You don't even know why I posted the capeshit video.
>Pagan views do hold different roles for women and men in many cases but they aren't seen as inferior.lmao no. Women were seen as property under most pagan systems. Not in every single one, I'll grant you that, but those were a tiny minority.
>Christianity was invented by Caesar's orders by Flavian family to pacify Jews and make them worship him without knowing itlmao you're one of those
While you're willing to believe any old bullshit by crackpots so long as it makes Christianity look bad, Jesus was actually an ALIEN who was preparing the world to be docile sheep for the alien invasion! Go warn the world, anon!
>all viewed homosexuality as fine if you're a top and at most only make fun of someone for being a bottom not persecute them for it.In Roman sexual morality, being the bottom was absolutely shameful and typically reserved for slave boys, and often it was typically not consensual. In fact, Roman patrician men weren't supposed to even care about the pleasure of their sexual partners, nor consent if their partner was a slave. For this exact reason, there was a huge taboo against cunnilingus.
Unique IPs: 40