this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
831 points (96.3% liked)

Atheism

6273 readers
691 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not an argument? How did you get an argument out of this?

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's implying that there's some sort of hypocrisy or logical contradiction with Christians suddenly caring about pronouns being correct when it applies to God. But that entire premise is wrong, because as someone else eloquently stated, they never claimed not to care about pronouns, in fact they care about them probably more than most transgender people. They just care about them being their version of "right". The post is very clearly meant to be some sort of gotcha or serve to Christianity. But there is no gotcha, so the whole post is stupid. Really picture the exchange:

A: "I love God, I'm so thankful for how she's blessed me."

C: "She? God is a man. He blessed you."

A: "Ohhh, so now you care about getting pronouns right, but not for someone like Elliot Page, huh?"

C: "No, I always care about getting pronouns right. That's why God is a He and Page is a she, and it pisses me off if you say either of those differently"

???

So with that in mind, we can see this post is just someone owning an imaginary strawman.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, it's really about misgendering. They're misgendering God, just like they're misgendering Elliot Page. Elliot Page wants to be called he/him and they want God to be called he/him.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But to the Christians, misgendering is defined as calling someone by the pronouns they "actually aren't", so they would consider he/him pronouns to be misgendering Page. Their notion of misgendering has nothing to do with what the person wants to be called, it has to do with what they fundamentally are. So from that point of view, there's no contradiction in their reasoning. It's internally consistent, and so there's no "revelation" (ha ha) where they're trapped into looking like a fool as this imaginary Twitter post scenario implies. So this whole hypothetical demonstration of calling God a girl still goes nowhere. Go back to my initial dialogue. See how there's no next response for the atheist, how it ends with the atheist having nothing to say? That's why the Le Epic Win in the original post is not what it's presented to be. Its a bad argument. The argument is implicit, but it's there. It's the entire content of the post.