• ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    even if it is a religion. So what? does that degrades it’s value? what happened to them preaching about christian’s tollerence?

    if it was ever there.

    • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.

      Just to be clear, I define Atheism as “without belief in a God”, that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.

      • Jackeoh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How you define it is irrelevant. How is it defined in society? We can only trust to established dictionaries to track the usage and meaning of words.

        The OED defines ‘atheist’ as ‘a person who does not believe that God or gods exist’.

        • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.

          Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).

          The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.

          Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.

          • phx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a great explanation of the terms. Thanks for that.

            Given this, can you think of a word that would describe those who are hostile to the concept of a deity? Antitheist, perhaps?

            • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

              Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.

              As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do know many Christians who are all about love and tolerance, the problem is, they aren’t the ones going onto Fox News to declare they’ll be shouting how much “Jesus loves you, but only if you’re straight!” at your local university…

      They’re the ones quietly living their lives according to Jesus’ teachings…

      A few of these friends have taken to calling the kind of Christians the Alt-Right claims to be 'Xtians", for they have taken the “Christ” out of “Christians”

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Heh… Xtians I like that.

        Though technically X was Greek shorthand for Christ so Xtians means Christians just as Xmas means Christmas.

        But I doubt any Xtians would know that so I think I’m going to start using it.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well these are the same crowd that likes to chant keep Christ in christmas, because they are offended by Xmas and for some reason Santa claus, even though Saint Nicholas was a real person canonized by the Catholic Church

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup. These people just want something to be angry about, so they aren’t going to let facts get in the way of that.

      • stringere@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Crosstians? They sure like to carry them and seem to be quite cross with the rest of society, fits for me.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There were literally cases of Preachers being asked to stop teaching the Sermon on the Mount for being too “leftist”

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            True. I was raised in a religiously leftist household, and even as a child, when I first came across right wing xtians, I was legitimately confused by how they even exist. Our instruction was pointedly about reading the words of the character of Jesus (or for those too young to read, having it read to you) and boy is there a lot of stuff in there that I have no idea how the hard right xtians explain away.

            Of course, there are the later writings from someone who never even MET the character of Jesus, which seem to be more problematic. I think it was RAW that said the people that seem to want to follow Paul more so than Jesus should really be called “Paulian”, not xtians.

            Of course, the OT and NT taken as a whole, and then trying to treat it as a cohesive message is a fool’s errand and it quickly falls apart, but…

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My dad converted from Christianity to Wicca, but he more or less had the same problem, you saw all of the relatives on his side of the family seemingly refusing to stand by everything they ever taught him.

              As for the old and new testament, it really is a fruitless Endeavor to try to make sense of it without the proper background there’s a lot of it requires a historical context or knowledge of alternate translations in order to make much sense. This is why theology is considered a science in and of itself, the science of studying religious texts.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I have some extended family that was raised in the more liberal/red letter type of xtianity, only to later “rebel” by veering toward more authoritarian/right wing style of interpretations of “the” bible. Most of them are full maga now and don’t resemble anything I was taught as the core of xtianity.

                When it comes to trying to square the “old” and the “new”, I think it’s mostly in the eye of the beholder. A lot of xtians declare they have a “new covenant”, so therefore, they can selectively decide what is not law and what isn’t, especially when it comes to things like dietary laws being rejected. But there is that “not one jot or tittle” portion, and the position that the OT validates the claims made in the NT, so…not sure how they select what they will and will not follow. I think that’s how absurdist things like voting on what is and what is not canon came about…

                I watch all of that with a bit of amusement, I must say, much like I watch right wing Americans claim they want this country to follow xtianity and the Constitution, when right off the bat, the First Amendment and first commandment are in obvious conflict with one another…the First Amendment clearly lays out a secular country and the first commandment demonstrates that the god of “the” bible is a jealous god that won’t tolerate anything else but complete devotion. No real way to square that circle without changing this country to something other than its intent, which means they will not be following the Constitution…