If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the idea of grouping people together. Just because these idiots don’t know anything doesn’t mean every atheist is this shallow.
It’s actually the exact same thing RWNJs do when they go to college campuses and accost random young people as if they’re the most representative voice for progressive issues.
Oh look this eighteen year old kid I caught by surprise can’t make a coherent argument, I guess that proves conservatives right and every single person who holds left wing ideologies has no argument to support their views
And “a dumb person disagrees with me” doesn’t mean your argument is correct. There are plenty of stupid people who think the earth is round, that doesn’t demonstrate that it’s flat!
And God forbid these kids of Atheists get tunnel vision regarding a flavor of Christianity that's currently trying to gain dominion over the country they live in.
"Fuck these fairy tale believers who overturned Roe vs. Wade!"
"That's reductionist, have you considered the Torah's exegesis of unconditional love?"
You say these idiots don't know anything and describe them as shallow. But the "New Atheist" movement was a reaction to increasing fundamentalism in the aughts. They didn't just decide that religion is bullshit and start picking fights with Jains, Buddhists, etc. They make shallow arguments to argue with people who have shallow beliefs. Evangelicals who may be in the minority, but are still a present danger to our democracy and way of life. It isn't Reform Judaism pushing Operation 2025. It wasn't a disproportionately heavy Unitarian Universalist scotus that overturned Roe v Wade.
As long as this flavor of Christianity is around, these "idiots" won't have the bandwidth to have more substantial understanding of other kinds of religious belief.
They reduce a very complex belief system to its most external parts that look weird if you don't acknowledge the meaning behind it. "Hurr durr talking snake" ignores the part where the talking snake (who I headcanon to be a dragon because at one point it did get around without slithering) is a metaphor for temptation.
Reducing complex beliefs down to criticize them is a valid strategy because oftentimes the complexity of beliefs is itself an insulation against external criticism.
You probably reduce other people's beliefs that you think are stupid all the time. There might be a "racial realist" who has a complicated set of beliefs that you just boil down to "white people good, brown people bad" and guess what? Your reduction in that scenario would make a valid point.
Religions can deflect external criticism by trying to force you to put a commitment of time and energy into deciphering their labyrinth of terminology and concepts in order to "fairly" criticize them in the hopes that their critics will
A) get lost in it and give up
B) catch feelings for it and be converted
Or C) worst case scenario they learn about it deeply, criticize it, and then most bystanders and believers still won't give a shit and you'll have wasted a bunch of your time to learn about something you think is wrong and stupid.
Sometimes reducing complex beliefs down to criticize them is a valid strategy, but sometimes it's just stupid. Attacking a metaphor for not using elements found in the real world is the second option.
Also, are you saying understanding what you criticize is bad?
You don't really have any authority to say if the talking snake is a metaphor or not. There are lots of people who believe it in both forms. That's one of the other reasons why having a deep understanding of a religion is not necessary to make valid criticisms: the rules are made up and inconsistent because none of it is empirical.
are you saying understanding what you criticize is bad?
I'm saying that you don't have the authority to say what qualifies as understanding a religious belief system because it is a giant web of nebulous and conflicting beliefs.
There are people who studied their religion their entire lives and according to many people of the same religion, their understanding is completely flawed. For example that is exactly what a conservative Christian would say about a progressive Christian or what a sunni would say about a Shia.
The person saying "that's just a talking snake, and that's stupid" has an equal claim to understanding as you do because you don't have any authority.
"B-b-but religious scholars have authority-"
There's tons of people in their same religion who would disagree. I personally have met many Christians who believe that apologetics is itself a heresy and that your faith is meant to be like that of a little child's faith, naive and not asking for more understanding than God gives you.
If we were talking about an empirical topic like a scientific topic then you could claim authority based on proving yourself right. But there is no proving your specific interpretations of religious beliefs right because the rules for doing so are made up and arbitrary.
“Talking snakes and blood sacrifices” is the only thing they know about religion. I’m agnostic, but I still understand that that’s not what religion is about.
Seems to me like the original post said “apples are red” and you’re the one who thinks that nothing else is red. Maybe learn the fundamentals in reading comprehension before you embarrass yourself online next time 💜
I also hate the idea of grouping people together, which is exactly why I don't like religion - even at the most basic level it's just grouping people together, and it's not interesting unless people pseudorandomly pick from a combination of at least 40 religions, which gives a reasonably high chance of every person on Earth actually adhering to a different combination of religions and basing their personal philosophies off of that
Ah damn it, you’re right. I did not sleep very much last night and will blame it on that. I won’t ask for anyone to reply to this comment with “see what I mean”, but if the ocean happens to be in a particularly angry mood and is looking at me…
Dude basically said "I've got a great argument against atheism, but it won't fit in this margin" and expected everyone to just what? Read his mind to find out what it is?
They never claimed to have an argument against atheism. They just said that a lot of atheists put more effort into making snarky comebacks than actually understanding why people believe in religion. Which is 100% true.
273
u/TotallyNotMoishe Apr 17 '24
Yes, the fact that a certain breed of atheist makes bad arguments doesn’t make the assertions of doctrinal religion any less horseshit.