Well, that certainly covers Christianity, Islam, and some select groups of Judaism. It's not really fair to make such a generalization when it kind of only applies to religions that hold a majority in their respective nations.
car-centric infrastructure destroys cities and residential areas, you're stupid if you think r/fuckcars is relevant to this meme. most people on r/fuckcars have a car
Many of them believe they should deflate the tires of people they consider "car heads". The theme here is forcing others to live how you want them to based on your personal values rather than letting people be.
Generally when tires are deflated it's people who are in ultra expensive and dangerous SUVs which are basically just killing machines and nothing else. But people deflating tires is a very small amount in the community regardless, although I could see people deflating the tires of those who endanger others very realistic.
Yank tanks (unreasonably gigantic and dangerous SUVs which are almost always American, named so because other countries have started being infected by them and now the rest of the world is mad at us) are just bad. Owning one is bad, using one is especially bad, they only exist to be the bigger vehicle so they can "win" car crashes and crush pedestrians like a tank (and because they cna bypass emissions regulations). It isn't a matter of "I want to live this way so you have to live this way", it's "you're endangering the lives of everyone around you beyond a tolerable amount". So no, it's not relevant at all.
Honestly your argument kind of sounds like someone against no-smoking zones because "let people smoke, just because you don't want to doesn't mean they can't". Second hand smoke endangers the health of a lot of people around you, it has nothing to do with other peoples' not wanting to smoke – same goes with SUVs, they're one of the largest causes of death that isn't a chronic health problem, they are a danger. If smoking at, say, a middle school were legal, and someone did it with kids around, I'd have no issue with stealing their smokes and chucking them into a trash can, even if what they were doing wasn't illegal it's still immoral. Even if it caused them serious issues and withdrawal and stuff, what they're doing endangers others and I'm fine if someone takes it into their own hands to put a stop to it. You can apply that same logic to yank tanks.
Funny you justify these actions on this post by arguing morality.
To a religious person, the threat of creating an immoral society is worse then say smoking or polluting. The soul is eternal and corruption would result in greater then a lifetime of consequence whereas your examples do not.
Point I'm arguing isn't to say one is right or wring but can you understand your arguing from the same concern as the person in the meme above.
Religious beliefs aren't real, they're delusions, and being gay or some other random "sin" isn't at all comparable to what I'm speaking of. Cars are the #1 cause of death in the US other than health complications, most of those SUVs, they are demonstratably extremely harmful to society even if you don't consider how their dominance destroys our infrastructure design, increases stress, and how they pollute the Earth a ton.
It's silly to cater to people who believe in Christianity or something similar when we have actual problems that we have proven solutions for, like getting rid of car-dependent infrastructure. Compared to say, being gay or uttering the words "oh my God", which according to Christian belief are equally as bad as murder, slavery, and rape or even worse than it on the sin scale. If a religion believes in a hell, especially when believing in an omniscient and omnipotent future-seeing God, it's worth immediately disregarding everything from.
Even entertaining the idea that the Christian ideas of morality have any basis in reality, especially putting it on the same level as actual science, is unbelievable.
The point isn't that you have to do anything. You theme here is that you live your life and respect others living their own life. You have argued as if its a zero sum situation where you can force your belief on others and you refuse to accept that allows others to do the same.
Religion is very real to some people and not respecting that can absolutely lead to the same attitudes being presented in the above. It leads to one group initializing the other and acting like they know better.
Either way, religion has no real life basis, it's not scientific. You can, however, use science to observe the mass murdering of children, destruction of cities, plowing down thousands of neighbourhoods to build highways, caused by SUVs and dependence on cars. The point is that SUV drivers do not respect life because SUVs exist to, and are popular solely to, be the bigger tank in car crashes, have a high hood so you kill pedestrians when you run them over, and endanger the lives of others for your own perceived (and fake) safety, while also blasting out a ton of pollution while you're at it.
If religion is real to someone, they are crazy. Just as we shouldn't entertain the delusions of a schizophrenic as real, we shouldn't entertain the delusions of religious people as real. What matters is the actual observable scientific facts we have available to us, which supports things like ending car-centric infrastructure and not using SUVs and trucks if you don't need them and are just doing errands the city in them like a loser. Civilization's completely fucked by car emissions and SUVs have a higher pedestrian killcount than a hundred 9/11s but hey man gotta drive my kids to soccer practice in a tank, and besides the pastor said the rapture was imminent or something anyways.
Going to an atheism community or science-based community and saying "but religion might be real though, their bigotry is equally as valid as actual facts/science" and expecting anyone to take that seriously at all is crazy.
What matters is the actual observable scientific facts
This is a centuries old debate about empiricism vs rationalism. Take some time to learn about it.
Ultimately though, science has limits. One thing I often hear is that science can't prove anything; it can only disprove things. The point I'm making is that we can't prove religion is not real, nor can we prove it is real. Yet, people believe it to be real. Likewise, you can show measurable things like deaths caused by cars. However, that does not justify imposing your will on other people. What are you measuring those deaths against? Given that almost every person owns a car and drives daily, is the issue moot? Am I wrong for driving a vehicle if another person gets into an accident?
The internet is one of the biggest tools used by sex traffickers and pedophiles. Should you smash your computer? Does it make it okay for you to smash another person’s computer who has nothing to do with any of that?
Science has limits. It can't solve questions that do not have measurable or empirical evidence. It can't provide answers to moral, ethical, and existential questions that are deeply personal and subjective. These questions often require us to draw on philosophy, religion, and personal values to find meaning and make decisions.
Things that are not measurable or lack empirical evidence are not necessarily any less real than anything else. You can't prove why two people are in love. You can measure process and hormones in the brain and body. You can't scientifically explain why. You can't measure consciousness so is that not real? Are we just brains inside a jar floating in space hallucinating all of this?
Hell trusting that science is the be all end all is a belief itself.
All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position. Sometimes its necessary but its easy to go too far even if you think you're doing good.
All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position.
Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it's an "asshole position" that neo-Nazis and the KKK can't rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren't a danger to literally everyone who's not a right-wing white guy, they're just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn't be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.
"Science has its limits" is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.
If you think "communication devices can be used by pedophiles" is anywhere comparable to "this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life" then you're unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn't superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.
Also...
You can't prove why two people in love... You can't scientifically explain why.
YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it's possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You're gonna need a lot better argument than "[obviously complex thing in science] isn't solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational". It's like saying we shouldn't trust mathematics because we haven't solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven't completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.
You also can't measure "consciousness" because "consciousness" doesn't mean anything. It's a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no "having consciousness" or "not having consciousness" or "having 50% consciousness" or something. It's a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.
"Rationalism" doesn't mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can't be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?
a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
And you wanna know what empiricism is?
view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.
Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren't a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.
Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It's excusable because it's not really their fault, but I can't excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn't make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.
No it makes perfect sense, let me break it down for you.
nah, this is how vegan treat others
See, here he denies that this is how the religious treat people with "nah," offering up vegans as the "true" exhibitors of this behavior. Now to break down my response piece by piece.
Well "yes,"
He is correct, that is how ideological vegans, the ones who feel you should be vegan for moral reasons and as a result are very preachy and evangelistic, operate.
but "that is because to the ideological vegans, it is a religion,"
but the ideological vegans behave this way due to the fact that ideological veganism is tantamount to a religion
so not "nah" but "yes and-."
So, with this in mind, the "nah" isn't accurate, as both ideological vegans and the religious both act with the same vitriolic fervor due to them considering themselves morally superior to their respective "out" groups, so instead of
nah, this is how vegan treat others
It is
Yes (this is how the religious treat others), and this is how vegan treat others, as well.
To further explain the "yes and-" joke, Here is a youtube video from some random guy about the rules of improv. #2- "yes and-" is of particular import to this discussion, as it may be key to understanding the reference.
I hope that helped you understand my complex comment, no need to glitch about it.
(Just preemptively, to explain, see, "glitch" rhymes with "bitch," and so you see a pun was made in which you said I'm glitching and I said "no need to glitch about it," you see. I hope this one was not similarly misunderstood.)
“Well I think its OK for me to beat my wife, so you shouldn’t mind me doing so.”
Husband: I consent
Jesus: I consent
Wife: I don't
Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
Things can unaffect you diferectly, yet still be wrong.
What would you consider a hospital staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
What would you consider a hospital > > staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
But for cases of no risk to the mother the morality of facilitating an abortion can be more dubious. The conservatives certainly have a strong position, even if I disagree with it.
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
Many wouldn't. The ones that wouldn't tend to be more well-financed and politically well-connected in my home town of Houston. And therein lays the rub.
But for cases of no risk to the mother
There is no such thing as a "no risk" pregnancy. The question every expectant mother has to ask is how much risk they're willing to take. And that's a question some folks would argue is best answered by the woman and her doctor, rather than a state appellate court or a legislature's pray circle or a police officer with an itchy trigger finger.
There is no strong position. Should the government be able to force donations of blood, kidney, or liver if it saves a life? How would you feel if you had to be a living donor for your rapist's child?
The point of the cartoon is to extend the argument to the most extreme example. You're missing the entire message. It's not that belief is unacceptable and no one can have shared beliefs. It's, taken to the extreme, religious belief extends beyond what most would consider reasonable.
Where are these non-religious beliefs that are being inflicted on others? By far the most common case in the US are religious beliefs, specifically from the Christian right. Everything else is "well akually" that's little more than background noise.
Flat Earthers and Anti-vaxxers have huge overlap with religion.
See the pronoun debacle in Canada for instance.
So asking people to use the right pronouns is equivalent to making rape victims carry their baby to term? I think you have some fucked up bothsideisim here.
That's not at all what I said. I just listed few examples of where beleifs have gone too far as to infringe the rights of others who don't share that belief. I haven't even taken a stand on any of those issues. I haven't even compared them.
There are many such laws that are argued for from a non religious point of view.
Recreational drug use: Laws against possession and use of drugs like marijuana, despite debates around whether adult personal use should be criminalized if it doesn't harm others.
Prostitution/sex work: The exchange of sexual services for money between consenting adults is still broadly criminalized in most states.
Gambling: Many forms of gambling, even when just involving individuals risking their own money, remain illegal in some jurisdictions.
Obscenity/indecency laws: Restrictions on distribution of pornographic material or public nudity, even if just involving consenting adults.
Physician-assisted suicide: While permitted in some states, actively assisting terminally ill people to end their lives remains illegal in most places.
So you just named several things that are predominantly argued for by religious people for religious reasons, even if they don't come right out and say it.
Ok so let's use a real example. Many Christians are anti-LGBT based on their interpretations of the Bible and their moral beliefs.
So should we ban homosexuality?
Also your argument is just as flawed. The average person has a moral objection to domestic violence. This comic is referring to when there's a difference between the average person's moral beliefs and the religious ones, especially the radical zealot's belief
I personally I've never viewed abortion as a religious view because babys on their own are pretty useless they are as functional as the dogs and cats we kill on a regular basis we only value babies because they develop into humans that are sentient and capable of speaking so why can't we apply the same logic to fetuses that develop into babies that develop into humans for that reason I personally believe we should view abortion as a how long does it reasonably take to decide a really important decision personally I think maybe 1 or 2 weeks of finding your pregnant because as a parent id imagine your going to need to make important decisions that can't wait but hey what do I know im a 19 year old man that has never even had sex or been around anyone pregnant I just feel that if you're cronicly unsure of weather to keep the kid or not you probably shouldn't have the kid and the more time that passes the closer you get to the argument of is this child murderer
Morals are subjective. In someone else's mind homosexuality could be immoral, and this has been the case historically.
In civilized world laws are not (or should not) be based on "morality", but to ensure level and fair playing ground for all people. This includes not restricting persons way of expressing their sexuality as long as it doesn't negatively affect others (ie. Rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc)
Of course we don't live in that kind of utopia but I hope we're getting better slowly
I mean, this but its unironic. "Eating ice cream on mondays in the park is murder and if I catch you doing it I'm going to treat you like I would if I saw you committing a murder".
I don't really like this comic, because it trivializes what is generally seen as a serious medical issue. A ban on ice cream would be vastly preferable to a ban on abortion, as you're not going to die from a lack of ice cream. This feels more akin to a Christian Scientist passing a statewide ban on blood transfusions.
Yep. My first thought was a flashback to Catholic school where they were trying to take away my roast beef sandwich and give me a fish sandwich cause it was Friday. They already knew I wasn't Catholic, or even Christian, they just didn't know what I was because they weren't about to find out.
My grandma used to work at a Catholic charity to distribute food for people without resources.
There were a few Muslims who requested food from there, and they always complained that the meat wasn't halal. Their very Catholic response was that they treated everyone the same, and weren't going to change the food they offered just because some Muslims were complaining.
Then again, quite very Catholicly, they didn't offer any meat during Lent to anyone.
I don't get your point. They give food away for free and they choose what and when. What's wrong with that, exactly? That their choices correlate with their religion? Well, duh.
They're imposing their customs based on dogma on vulnerable people with little to no capacity to choose, with no larger basis than "it's what I was indoctrinated to believe". It's doubly shameful because this is a country that has been trying to unshackle itself from the legacy of a Fascist Catholic dictatorship, the Inquisition, and the forced expulsion/conversion of Jews and Muslims.
Halal/kosher is basically a "farm to table" supply chain requirement. Especially if you're relying on donations it wouldn't be simple to source. I wouldn't expect any charity really to refuse supplies or try to source a 'duplicate' set of supplies for a minority of the people they serve. If they were in a Muslim majority area it would make sense to go to the effort.
The story is illustrative of the failure of private charities as public institutions.
We've got two sets of dietary restrictions, one of which the Catholics disregard and the other they faithfully apply. This makes their charity functionally inaccessible to the chunk of their neighborhood that's Muslim.
This recalls another common instance in church charities, wherein recipients are pressured into prayer before receiving aid. As many of these charities - particularly in the wake of the Bush 43 era "Faith Based Initiatives" charity privatization initiative - obtain their aid from the federal government, what you have is secular aid filtered through sectarian institutions as a means of cultivating particular ideological views.
What’s wrong with that, exactly?
Set aside the generic legalist "Seperation of Church and State" 1st amendment guidelines, wherein residents aren't obligated to hold religious views in order to access government services.
The fundamental problem with a state sponsored religious charity is that it polarizes the community into economic haves and have-nots, based on religious beliefs. And that foments discord, bigotry, and ultimately violence.
For the record, the charity I was talking about does also receive funding from the government, due to the religious institutions pressure through their media and their own preachers, so these criticisms are also appropriate for that situation.
In my country they don't pay property taxes, and often use charity as a justification. So it's debatable if their help with strings attached is a net positive.
Give me your wallet and I'll buy you an acceptable dinner with it.
Like I get not providing food you disapprove of. Food Not Bombs is supposed to be vegan food, but also when helping people, make reasonable accommodations to ensure you’re meeting needs they have. Haram meat given to a Muslim is useless, you’re better off giving that meat to someone else. No matter how many cheeseburgers you give a vegan, you won’t fill their stomach.
In fact this is one of the issues with charity as a concept. Many who do it expect gratitude for whatever they give and see requests for something that would help better or to stop giving things that will only go to waste as being a choosy beggar. When aiding people you need to ask them what they need, otherwise any help you provide is accidental.
I do have an amount of pity for people with extreme religious views. I remember talking to an atheist friends extremely religious mother who was trying to come to to terms with the fact her daughter was going to go to hell one day.
Imagine walking through the park and seeing someone about to eat an ice cream that you know has a powerful psychoactive substance in that will kick in after few years that tricks the persons brain into believing they're being tortured until their brain turns to mush.
I absolutely don't agree with people spreading their religious doctrine, especially when unwelcome, but many of those people could be considered victims to that choice and don't deserve to be antagonised.
All religions are cults in one way or the other, the followers and believers are all victims of their religion and those running their particular sect, but just like we see in other cultic situations the victims often become abusers themselves and many reach sunk cost fallacy levels where they refuse to believe they were duped because of how much time and energy the devoted to a lie. It’s tragic and horrifying
The Bible even says it's better for a man to put his seed in an ice cream cone than it is to let it fall to the ground. Though they may have just been talking about the ice cream cone. 🤔
