That's a 100% true observations. Most religions can't even agree with themselves.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
561 points (95.3% liked)
Atheist Memes
5501 readers
68 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not even churches within the same religion can agree! That's why some fly LGBTQ+ flags, while others condemn gay people to hell.
Not agreeing with each other is not a reason to dismiss an entire way of thinking. Look at us! Two atheists disagreeing!
Not agreeing with each other is not a reason to dismiss an entire way of thinking. Look at us! Two atheists disagreeing!
There is an important difference, though.
We base our opinions, thoughts, perspectives, and experiences on worldly happenings, observable truths, testable hypothesis, etc.
Religious worldview and "rules" are governed by the same text and same governing body (i.e. the Vatican in the case of Catholics), so they should be on par 100%. A Catholic Church on one street should have the same worldview as the Catholic Church down the street from them, or the one an entire state over.
If they don't, they are either making up their own interpretations of the same text, doing whatever because it's convenient for them, or they don't take their religion seriously enough.
I mean, if they literally believe that God gave them a set of rules to live by, or that God appointed someone to interpret those rules for them, then changing those rules would be failing their test of faith; which is critical, since faith is perhaps the most important thing that God wants out of them, second to begging for forgiveness.
That's why the idea of religion and religious organizations is silly beyond belief.
There can be many interpretations of all texts, including both religious and scientific texts. Those multiple interpretations come from being different people with different backgrounds, experiences, and cultural upbringing - rather than convenience or zealotry by necessity.
Scientists read the same texts, and study the same subjects all the time and come to different conclusions and that's seen as a positive - arguably because the only way to deeply understand anything is from multiple perspectives. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs happen when alternatives to deeply established ideas emerge.
Religious folks believe a whole diversity of things, just like atheists and scientific folks do.
We don't need to argue the legitimacy of atheism as a position by making science into something it's not - namely an unbiased, entirely monolithic, entirely perfect way of understanding the world.
Religion is not silly, its sets of cultural practices and beliefs that a huge majority of the population finds meaningful in some way - and for that reason deserves some form of respect even by non religious folks. Religion isn't the problem. Many forms of dominant religious practice, however, have shown to have real, human, social, and environmental harms. That's the problem.
There can be many interpretations of all texts, including both religious and scientific texts. Those multiple interpretations come from being different people with different backgrounds, experiences, and cultural upbringing - rather than convenience or zealotry by necessity.
The biggest difference, however, is that you can test a scientific interpretation, repeat a study, etc. You can be proven wrong or validated as right.
But with religion, there are no checks and balances. You are quite literally able to make up whatever interpretation you like, and you'd be neither right nor wrong. This is a massive conflict of what (organized) religion is.
You see, it really doesn't make any sense that the literal word of god would even need to be interpreted, since it should be clear as day for all to understand. At least, that's what I'd expect out of an all powerful god. And if enough people are misinterpreting the text, well, Mr. Bossman needs to come down and sort that shit out, right?
Scientists read the same texts, and study the same subjects all the time and come to different conclusions and that’s seen as a positive - arguably because the only way to deeply understand anything is from multiple perspectives. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs happen when alternatives to deeply established ideas emerge.
Again, if God himself says "X is true", there is absolutely no room for re-interpretation or a change in perspective. In science, it's EXPECTED and WELCOMED that theories will evolve, be improved, be found to be wrong, be found to have more evidence in support of it, etc.
For example, if X religion states that gays are bad, then you'd either have to believe that as the word of god, or ignore it.
If you ignore it, then do you really have faith in that religion? Of course not.
But if you choose to follow that belief, even if it goes against what you know to be true, then it makes you look foolish.
The biggest difference, however, is that you can test a scientific interpretation, repeat a study, etc. You can be proven wrong or validated as right.
As it turns out, not all the time. In fact, not even all that frequently. Popper criticized the idea of verification, Kuhn criticized the idea of falsification, and neither idea solves the demarcation (between science and non-science) problem. For a quick reference that won't require a number of books, try this.
You see, it really doesn’t make any sense...
It doesn't make sense to you based on what your ideas of legitimate knowledge are - and you're making some major generalizations about how religion operates. For some religions there is a monotheistic deity, and for some of those religions the word of that deity is immutable law. But even in those cases, there is significant debate over what exactly constitutes the "word of God" - I mean, it's why there's so many different sects and factions (and even those argue internally). Just like in science, there are different interpretations of our observed world, and some interpretations become more dominant than others - and not always because they best align with our observations of the physical world.
No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it's billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.
I was raised Catholic, and still can't believe the absolute absurdity that grownups are telling themselves with absolute convict that they know the true word of the lord. It's as sad as it is hilarious.
it's why there's so many different sects and factions
No, the OP explains that, and it's because these religions are all bullshit and based on bullshit. Of the hundreds of Christian denominations, which is right? One of them? All of them? Some of them? None of them?
If there is disagreement about things that should be crystal clear, who's right? And who gives them the authority to "be right"? To them, only god knows the Truth, so any reinterpretation would be false by default.
No, it actually makes no sense that a relgion can simultaneously believe that the earth is 6000 years old AND that it’s billions of years old based on how they interpret canon.
Again, to you. That makes sense to the people who do believe that. It's just simply that you have - literally - different ways of making sense.
The OP on this thread only says "That’s a 100% true observations. Most religions can’t even agree with themselves." and I'm (being a giant pain in the ass and) responding specifically to your emphasis that it is this disagreement that invalidates religious thought. I still hold that there's no issue with disagreement within or among religious groups, in terms of the validity of their worldviews.
Religions have come up with ways of determining who is "right" under various conditions of dispute, just as science and other fields (like law), have. I am by no means a Catholic scholar, but I am very much under the impression that the religious texts Christianity are based on require translation efforts, and that those translation efforts can lose meaning in translation, not just between languages but between historical contexts - like many other historical texts. As such, they require study and interpretation - something that even those most fervent and uneducated of followers seem to understand.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(32 replies)
If you've ever watched his show Bullshit! You'd see many libertarian views with arguments which don't hold up to scrutiny. I recall listening to a podcast (I want to say midish 2000, 2007ish?) where he said that the good ideals were rich people supporting the social services (food banks etc) and that would be good. Which we all know don't hold up. That said, I do still enjoy his Bullshit! series (also that more recent one Fool Us is fun), him and Teller are very entertaining, though not who I'd quote for supporting ideals to give a better support to said argument. That said I believe Hitchens was on his episode about religion and he seems like a better person to use for said argument.
A lot of people who were in the libertarian atheist crowd saw the light, at least partially after trump was elected. Seems like Penn change his tune a bit too according to Wikipedia:
In 2020, Jillette distanced himself from aspects of libertarianism, particularly surrounding COVID-19. In an interview with Big Think, he stated, "[A] lot of the illusions that I held dear, rugged individualism, individual freedoms, are coming back to bite us in the ass." He went on to elaborate, "[I]t seems like getting rid of the gatekeepers gave us Trump as president, and in the same breath, in the same wind, gave us not wearing masks, and maybe gave us a huge unpleasant amount of overt racism."[53]
In the 2020 United States presidential election, Jillette endorsed Andrew Yang in the Democratic primary.[54] In an op-ed for CNN after that year's general election, he stated that he "used to identify as Libertarian", but voted for Joe Biden.[55]
I think a lot of that crowd outgrows it as they get older, and realize how impractical it is, but if you get rich while in that phase it seems to make you stick to it as you become out of touch with reality. It's easy to believe in libertarian principals when you're rich and privileged.
I might not be understanding You correctly, but are You saying that "The ritch should support the poor" is a bad idea?
I'm saying that they believe that the rich would willingly give the money to support the poor rather than have government tax people and create programs. The Libertarian way. At least that was what he was saying on the old podcast. I realize I didn't explain it well, but the whole Libertarian view that they don't like taxes was meant to be implied. The clash being if they don't like taxes how would their paying directly match what is done now?
X-D That's exactly how I took it too.
And yet the man believes in AnCap ideologies which are about as fantastical as any religion
load more comments
(1 replies)
@HLMenckenFan Not sure who said it before but Ricky Gervais makes a similar one at the Colbert show here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZOwNK6n9U Besides some other good arguments. Worth a watch.
view more: next ›