Atheism isn’t “reactive by nature” because it’s not a centralized belief system. All it means is that the person doesn’t believe in god. There are atheists of all flavors and creeds, some may—shocker—even be part of a religion like Buddhism, where belief in a god isn’t a requirement to follow its tenets.
i feel the atheists who are anti-theist are just people who have bad personal experiences and are blaming it on religion as an institution, as opposed to realizing anyone can have bad experiences anywhere, with anything. the victim mentality is definitely rewarded nowadays, and people are celebrated in certain circles for "escaping" religion.
Unless you are born to an atheist family (which, granted, more common now), then you became an atheist as a response to the way you were raised.
Sometimes that, sometimes it's just seen as fashionable/intellectual. There is a good reason why people here hate atheists.
"Atheism is reactive by nature because of contingent circumstances that even I admit are becoming less universally true over time."
So perhaps not “atheistic” in a Western sense, but I’d say since you’re not worshipping a higher power.
I really don't think "my worldview and moral framework are unjustifiable without a omnipotent God simply dictating it to me" is the win that religious conservatives believe it to be.
yeah, the theists arguments about no moral without god always make the theist look like a sociopath. it comes off as projecting, without god id happily rape my mother and murder my neighbor, and kidnap children and literally the one and only thing stopping me from doing these things is i fear going to hell. saying stuff like that isnt a win like the theist think it is.
care to explain why?
you dont do these things bc you grew up in culture where morality derived from faith permeated legality.
Not especially, no. If my reasoning is not intuitively obvious to you, you're just as deranged and psychopathic as your previous post implies.
lmao what was the purpose of your reply other than to be MATI then?
i think there's way less of that now than, say, the early aughts. it was definitely huge back then. now you only really see those "euphoric" types on places like reddit. but yes, those edgy atheists are rightfully hated. i don't like them either.
Humanity was always majorly religious and the current cases of atheist families are a tiny fraction of the cases. You might as well argue that male and female don't exist because intersex people, a tiny inconsistency doesn't disprove a trend.
You kinda are though. Even without the whole pantheon of birth/destruction, you have Buddah as a beyond god enlightened figure and the wheel of reincarnation.
Humanity has done a lot of things throughout its history that’s considered antiquated (or illegal) now, like child marriage. Just because it was done and served a purpose at one point doesn’t necessarily mean it translates well to modern day.
This seems like a take based out of being butt hurt that some people mock your beliefs. Someone can be a cunt and still have legit ideological reasons for how they think that they simply refuse to share with you. They can also have beliefs with nothing deeper than “that’s how I feel” behind it which is perfectly alright. In fact most people of every belief set, including Christianity; fall into the latter category
Nobody here was even being a cunt and they’re still butthurt. If people can’t accept having others talk about their beliefs without retaliating with baseless accusations then they’re unsuited for deeper conversation.
