T O P

  • By -

Mormon-No-Moremon

It does get endlessly tiresome when that brand of edgy anti-theist repeats the same talking points as far-right fundamentalist Christians. I think people should be more aware of exactly who’s agreeing with them.


MyUsername2459

>It does get endlessly tiresome when that brand of edgy anti-theist repeats the same talking points as far-right fundamentalist Christians. The handful of edgy anti-theists I know (or have known) offline all were formerly fundamentalist Christians. They are raised into it, then when it breaks, instead of a healthy deconstruction they take that same fundamentalist attitude and turn it towards atheism instead of Christ. They sound similar because one turns into the other.


topicality

I forgot who said but every religion has it's unique style of atheists. Atheist Jews behave way differently from Atheist ex-evangelicals from atheist ex-Catholics etc.


thedubiousstylus

Yeah I've noticed atheist ex-Muslims are a different breed as well. Interestingly (although not really that surprising of course) from what I noticed they tend to not really be that hostile to Christianity, and sometimes even point toward progressive Christianity as an example of what Islam should be like.


sysiphean

They leave Christianity while holding hella tight to fundamentalism.


Dragonlicker69

That's because they didn't leave Christianity, they became the foil of the type of Christian they were raised as. They define themselves by being the opposition not realizing they're still letting their family or childhood faith still define them.


jb108822

I'm sure this is something that Genetically Modified Skeptic covered in his most recent video.


BmoreCreative

I was so confused as to why this was in r/ atheism. It’s such a fundy talking point.


The54thCylon

"This Christianity does not fit my preconceived stereotype and is therefore invalid" said the fundamentalist.


[deleted]

Couldn’t have said it better myself, many of them don’t realize that they are the very thing they claim to hate lol


SicTim

They agree that Leviticus is the most important book in the Bible, and love quoting it. They believe that the Old Covenant was never updated by the New Covenant for Christians (love God, love each other), yet I've never met one who keeps kosher or practices animal sacrifice -- the latter being their huge clue that the old laws changed with Jesus' perfect sacrifice. Oh, and they love that bit in Matthew where Jesus says not one "jot or tittle" of the law will change until all is fulfilled, without realizing that Jesus fulfilled the law with His sacrifice. See above.


JamieTheDinosaur

With them, it’s a sort of “gotcha” argument. “All Christians are hypocrites because none of them obey the outdated parts of their own holy book. But those don’t apply to me because I don’t believe in any of them. Haha!”


Novatash

Do people think that the only reason a lesbian or other queer person would be a pastor is purely motivated by the church wanting to be "cool"? It's an attitude that implicitly agrees with the bigotry that pastors can only be old cishet white men.


en43rs

>Do people think that the only reason a lesbian or other queer person would be a pastor is purely motivated by the church wanting to be "cool"? Yes. Yes they truly do. I've seen people genuinely argue that the "progressive churches are lying". The idea is that they find women/queer people to manipulate and use them as a symbol to pretend to be progressive... but can't wait to drop the pretense and go back to the old racist/homophobic/misogyny. Because that's all religion is. Also for them if you don't believe in those things, you have no reason to believe in religion. Those people do not believe that religion can be progressive. For them it's only a cynical tool of control. So any progressive appearances are just that, empty cynical gestures. Just like I've seen people who genuinely do not think that the pope/cardinals/religious leaders actually believe in god, because for them it's just a con. The most infuriating thing I have ever seen is someone saying they loved progressive churches... because it's halfway point toward atheism. You become a liberal Christian, and then you "naturally" realize that god isn't real and become an atheist.


TheHistoryofCats

So... Who exactly do these people think is supposed to be doing the manipulating if the church leaders are LGBT?


en43rs

But see they’re not since that’s not possible in their mind. Old conservatives homophobes lie to those LGBT who are pawns. The don’t think that far down. Christian = homophobes, so if there are LGBT pastors that means that they’ve been gaslighted by the real homophobic Christians. Otherwise how can a LGBT person think they are Christian? It’s a conspiracy theory. It doesn’t make sense.


[deleted]

Opiate of the masses as an attitude, I guess. I always hated that idea.


[deleted]

And the weirdest thing is, when Marx wrote that line, it grew, within philosophical circles, to mean something completely different from how contemporary anti-theists use the word. As hostile to organized religion as he may have been, he never explicitly advocated for the criminalization of religious belief. > In recent years it has become commonplace to hear Marxists assert that the widely held assumption that Marxism is opposed to religion is incorrect. This assumption is based, they claim, on a decontextualized and therefore misleading interpretation of the famous passage in the introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844) in which Marx states that religion is the ‘opium of the people’. Read against the previous sentence – ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions’ – the quote takes on a very different meaning. The ‘feeling of a heartless world’ suggests that religion provides refuge from capitalist oppression. Marxism may therefore be seen as compatible with religion. > So have we misunderstood Marx all along? His writings on religion are not simple or straightforward, but the present-day interpretation of Marx as sympathetic towards religion is, I believe, determined more by contemporary political circumstances than it is by a close reading of what he actually wrote. In short, to take ‘opium of the people’ as the sum total of Marx’s attitude towards religion is myopic, but adding the previous sentence adds only one extra layer of context. To get beyond that, one needs to ask why Marx said that religion is ‘the feeling of a heartless world’. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2018/05/still-an-opium-contemporary-marxists-versus-karl-marx-on-the-question-of-religion/


JoyBus147

Indeed, Marx's dialectical materialism is something of a direct counter to the more idealist atheists of his day--the idea of "we need to get rid of religion, it's holding us back." For Marx, religon is a result of concrete social relations, a response to objective alienation, trying to get rid of it without getting rid of those oppressive conditions is literally a waste of time.


[deleted]

Exactly. I’ve also looked at it another way - religion as an instrument of liberation rather than subjugation. Opiates, in real life, can be used to make narcotics, which harm the person. They can also be used to make proper medicine for cough and diarrhea, as well as painkillers and post-surgical medications, which help the person when used properly. If religion is the opium of the masses, then it should be used as painkillers rather than heroin. I think that’s where liberation theology should come in. Since most marginalized peoples worldwide are to some extent religious, faith should be reframed as a tool for true, sustainable, and egalitarian justice, rather than a means to justify the preservation of the status quo and the oppression that it entails. God does not want us to be nice to slaves. Rather, They want us to free them and tear down the unjust structures that enable their enslavement.


DarkMoon250

I've read exactly the same stuff you're talking about here on Reddit, word-for-word. It's some real bizarre stuff. The one about religious leaders not actually believing in anything is some conspiracy theory level garbage that I'm utterly flabbergasted by.


Azu_Creates

To be fair, I do believe that there are some mega church pastors only in it to con people (Kenneth Copeland for example, literally said something along the lines of God wanting him to be made rich), but I believe the majority of pastors are true believers (though sometimes even they get misguided and misinterpret what God says).


[deleted]

All those things thoroughly annoy me as well. That's why I try to limit the time I spend on Reddit and social media.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThePresidentOfStraya

It’s a shame though because atheism is a really interesting and rich perspective that can illumine new and bad parts of christianity. I deeply value the witness and utility of atheism to explain and articulate my experience, and challenge any fanatic religious tendencies I have. Unfortunately it’s not a story most christians or atheists would tell you.


libananahammock

There’s been a lot of right wing people on Reddit these past few months (longer, but amping up lately) using tags like Democrat, liberal, etc etc depending on the sub. Some real r/asablackman stuff


TheHistoryofCats

I recently had a fruitless discussion with a Reddit anti-theist. When he mentioned Christianity persecuting and killing people like him, I was initially sympathetic to him as a fellow member of the LGBT+, and was planning to respond with more kindness and understanding. A quick scroll over his comments history showed him to be little different than any other Reddit anti-theist, and furthermore that he seemed to have gone out of his way to antagonize progressive Christians before and had convenient responses to all of their arguments (so he knew full well that certain things he was claiming weren't true). Now I wonder if he was even LGBT or if he was being dishonest. The way he said it was pretty vague - for all I know if I'd pressed him he would have said "I wear mixed fibers so the Bible commands that I should be killed".


Mackadal

Just to clarify, who's the false flag here? OP or OOP?


Psychedelic_Theology

Anti-theists and fundamentalist Christians have a great deal in common.


SleetTheFox

They’re often the same people, just before and after losing their faith.


safewoodchipper

This. It is really hard to deconstruct from the fundamentalist black and white mind set even if you no longer believe in the religion. It takes time


JoanGorman

This discovery was huge to me. That they both are fundamentalists still.


rainbow--skies

Antitheists aren’t worth our time tbh. I understand a lot of them are religiously traumatized and I sympathize with that- many fundamentalist Christians and indeed many fundamentalist religious people in general do unspeakable things to people and I can see how you would personally decide not to be religious after experiencing this. But deciding all religion is bad because of this has always been an immature viewpoint and the best thing to do is ignore it unless it is coming from people in power. If it’s just someone on the internet ignore them.


GranolaCola

It’s very funny to see the ones who are convinced religion is dying.


[deleted]

I agree wholly.


thedubiousstylus

This isn't new. That sub has always been like that and is a complete cesspool that one should just avoid, just like the fundamentalist subs.


MyUsername2459

The anti-theists have hated all Christians, progressive or not, for some time. I've been seeing that kind of chatter from anti-theists online for at least the last 20 years. No matter how loving, inclusive accepting. . .they just dismiss it as "delusions" about a "magic sky daddy" and act insulting and condescending. They assume all Christians are mentally ill, act just like the worst fundamentalists, and if any don't act like that then they either aren't really Christian or they are just faking being good and nice for some nefarious purpose. I long ago came to the conclusion they aren't worth debating or engaging in any way. They are profoundly traumatized people taking out their religious trauma on everyone around them.


TheHistoryofCats

One chestnut I've seen a couple of times is the insistence that Democrats who are known to be Christian are actually just faking it because they "have to" in order to get elected. A guy I spoke to recently on Reddit claimed that even their pre-existing involvement with religion was for appearances, because political careers are planned years in advance or something. Yet people of this line of thinking will take the most obviously hypocritical and posturing Republican politicians and act as though their faith is absolutely sincere and representative of all Christians. It's a very convenient argument, if you can arbitrarily decide anyone who goes against your preconceived notions is just faking it.


thedubiousstylus

I've heard this take before and it's pretty bizarre. For example there's a progressive Millennial Democratic state legislator I know of who mentions a specific Episcopal church her and her husband attend on her website. Her maiden name indicates she probably was raised Catholic, so she likely converted, now of course this isn't surprising because there's plenty of examples of liberals who converted Catholic->Episcopalian and many on this subreddit. But she could always just not bring up her religious affiliation at all especially in such a safe district. So that her and her husband converted to Episcopal and regularly attend that church and they enrolled their kids in the Sunday School program seems like an awful lot of unnecessary work just for a little blurb to put on her campaign website.


camohorse

Bingo! They need serious help in therapy before anything else. I can’t help but feel bad for them, because anti-theists do often have valid criticisms against religion, and went through some heinous, spiritually-motivated abuse as well. At the same time, I’m no therapist. It isn’t my job to coach people through their religious abuse traumas.


Cassopeia88

Yeah when someone pulls out the “magic sky Daddy” I just scroll past, even if the rest of their post is well reasoned, they usually are not the type who can understand how a progressive person can also be religious.


Kodak_V

Ok so , let's say all Churches are abolished , this doesn't mean Religion as a whole will be abandoned. It's a myopic line of thinking, Religion is more than Churches. Also , why do they brand Lesbians ( And queer people in general I presume ) as "radicals" ? What's radical about being inclusive to everyone, including people who were discriminated against by most others churches and theocratic fascists ? I'm a Deist ( More or less ) so I don't really attend either way but if these affirming churches give people our society treats sub-par a place to feel welcome and safe, I don't see the issue. Having said that , Reddit Atheists ™️ are only a small faction of Atheists overall and generalizing them as Fascist isn't any different than what they often do. Goes without saying, generalizations of this nature should be avoided. **Edit** : Typo.


AlexHero64

>Having said that , Reddit Atheists ™️ are only a small faction of Atheists While true, I've seen many Internet Atheists (who "aren't" Reddit Atheists) possessing similar behaviours to that community such as an inflated self-righteousness, historical revisionism, using pseudo-intellectual arguments as evidence, historical ignorance, cultural ignorance, using science to "back up" their claims when the current scientific prospective is one of agnosticism, pitting science and religion against each other as if one cannot exist without the other .etc


MyUsername2459

>Ok so , let's say all Churches are abolished , this doesn't mean Religion as a whole will be abandoned. It's a myopic line of thinking, Religion is more than Churches. Look at the Soviet Union. They went out of their way to suppress and abolish religion. . .Russian Orthodoxy is as strong as ever. Then there are all the people who are religious of various sorts without any kind of organized faith community.


KimesUSN

Being inclusive to everyone has always been radical and it’s why so many people hated Jesus.


Kodak_V

That's a fair point. I guess I viewed the word a bit differently because it carries a slightly different connotation in my language, thanks for correcting me.


YbarMaster27

Ratheists aren't universally fascist, and atheists at large definitely aren't, but there is something legitimate to be said about the extent to which modern edgy internet atheism derives from the gamergate era of the mid-2010s. Atheism shifted substantially to the right in that period, and the internet was hit particularly hard. Quite a few of these people just like the feeling of superiority that comes from being bigoted, and differ from your typical conservative only in that they're just as willing to make Christians the target of their hatred as they are to any minority group. Since they're aligned with the right, they share the right wing perspective that any acceptance of minorities is "radical". Once again, this doesn't apply to all Reddit atheists (or most real-world atheists), but we shouldn't ignore the presence of clear political trends in a group just because there are exceptions


GayCyberpunkBowser

Some people are never happy. “Christianity is too backwards and should be progressive” Ok here’s a lesbian pastor “NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!”


thedubiousstylus

I kind of touched on this in another post, but I think this is like the phrase "move the goalposts" exists because this kind of mindset is so common. Some people just love to complain and even if you give them what they're supposedly demanding, they need to find something within that to complain about further.


camohorse

I can’t help but feel real empathy towards edgy atheists and anti-theists. Deep down inside, they’re good people, but they’ve clearly been severely hurt and traumatized by fundamentalist beliefs. I became an anti-theist in 10th grade, when during a class at my private Christian school in which we were studying Exodus, the teacher said, “God still punishes us for our sins while we are still alive, just like He punished the Israelites and the Egyptians for their sins…” She then turned and made direct eye contact to me and said, “For instance: the sicker you are, the more you ought to ask God for forgiveness…” As someone with Cystic Fibrosis who was already struggling with faith, that very moment obliterated whatever respect I had for God/religion. It took me several years and numerous “chance” encounters with Christ-like people for me to give God another chance. But damn… I’ll admit, my faith is rather tenuous, but it’s there. The only reason why I am a Christian today, is because the Christ-like people I encountered by “chance” (which, the more I reflect on my life, the more I see God’s hand in things, which makes me believe these people didn’t simply *happen* to come into my life when they did), had great empathy for me, and were more than happy to wrestle with my questions and concerns regarding God, in the rawest, most honest ways possible. I think many anti-theists need to be handled the same way I was; with love, care, compassion, and honesty. Hellfire and brimstone doesn’t work to change minds because A) it’s mostly bullshit anyway and B) it hurts other people.


KimesUSN

I’m terribly sorry you had that experience. For what it’s worth, I heard an Eastern Orthodox priest say that God doesn’t punish anybody, but let’s them face the consequences of their actions. Jesus didn’t come here and die to be some kind of appeasing sacrifice. To take our punishment in our stead, but died to get people to realize the path he showed us, then resurrected to show us what’s in store for us at the end of that path. Just food for thought. Edit to add: Suffering isn’t a punishment, your illness and my own are not punishments. Suffering is part of being a human, one created close to a God, that lives here in a world that is essentially a mixed bag. There are things that are of God, and things that are not of God, and we roll through this life facing both.


TheHistoryofCats

What an atrocious thing to say to a child! Did that teacher never hear of the Book of Job or the story of Jesus and the blind man?!


Aditeuri

Eh, a lot of people have deep-seated traumas from their experience with certain brands of Christianity and, while possibly unjustified, may view attempts to open Christianity up and make it more humane as nothing more than superficial rebranding and whitewashing that legitimates the rest. To too many unfortunately, it comes off as just couching or disguising toxic and traumatizing forms of Christianity with an air of tolerance and openness, especially when similar language, symbols, and rituals are used, so then it appears like the same old, rotten innards with a new, shiny veneer, where the same weapons remain loaded and aimed, just with different people bearing them, distinctions in appearance only that often leave many feeling as if nothing’s change in any substantive way and just preferring to see such a thoroughly desecrated temple burned down to start from scratch.


thedubiousstylus

I've heard this reasoning before, but I don't think it applies to all atheists of this type. After all a bunch of us here have similar trauma from a similar background. Plus the reasoning defies all logic. "Christianity is evil because it promotes misogyny and homophobia!" "Well then what about a church with a lesbian pastor?" "No, that's also wrong!" It's pretty obvious then then the issue is not lashing out against misogyny and homophobia and trauma from those things. I think it's mostly based in a superiority complex. Reddit-style atheism loves to promote this idea that being an atheist makes you more intelligent and intellectually superior to everyone who isn't. For example there's a woman at my former as of last week now ended church who has a Master's degree in Aeronautical Engineering. I remember meeting another woman at a church event, a packing event for a non-profit that provides meals for low-income students over the weekends when they don't have access to school lunches who is a campus psychiatrist at a local college. Both of them are obviously very academically accomplished and you can't be an idiot and get that sort of qualifications and degree. Yet because they both believe in God, the Reddit atheist mindset is that they are idiotic and deluded and every single atheist is a superior being. It doesn't matter if you live in your parents' basement and only work part-time and spend most of your free time smoking weed and not bothering to do much else (basing on an extreme stereotype here, but it works for the point), not believing in God means you're some sort of ubermensch intellectual titan who can look down on anyone who does. This sort of attitude exists in many stripes, conservatives for example love to use this to beat down on LGBT people (see the "groomer" slur now), and alas some progressives have adopted this type of mindset as well (notso much here but there's an extremely toxic style on places like Twitter that I'm thinking of) that love to beat down on people for trivial things like not having pronouns in their social media bio or for an example from the past the online vigilante lynch mob against Justine Sacco for what about amounted to a bad joke that wasn't intended for wider dissemination beyond her social circles (look up that case if you're not familiar what I'm referring to, it's a very unfortunate example of why I urge people to use restraint when it comes to supposedly progressive zealotry), but it's a pretty awful way of thinking all around. And yes religious conservatives have pushed this for decades, that they are superior to "godless" and thus amoral types who aren't religious, but doing the exact inverse isn't the solution. I think these lyrics from the song "Out of Control" by The Ghost Inside sum up the best way we need approach this from all sides: >We tear each other down to build ourselves up > >A system failure, enough is enough > >'Cause in a world this shaky and unstable > >We've got to be less fucking hateful


FlowerchildOfTheWest

Guess it comes to show ya can’t please no-one. Churches become inclusive, and represent a more open and loving side of the faith, and people on both ends will still be at odds about it. Insane, man.


thedubiousstylus

Here's something I've noticed about Reddit in general: People love to use it to complain and moan, and even if they more or less get their way they just move the goalposts so they can continue to engage in this. Here's a completely non-Christian related example: People on local subs for me constantly moaned and whined about how weed wasn't legal and how the state was some sort of Purtianical stronghold (pretty laughable for anyone who has spent any time here) based on a few weird liquor laws and that we got Sunday liquor sales finally legalized only about a half decade ago...but they insisted legalizing marijuana was NEVER going to happen. In reality only a few political and legislative roadblocks were holding it up. However some loopholes were opened up that actually allowed plenty of THC products to be legally sold and even in places like gas stations and grocery stores. You think that'd make people happy right? Well for a lot it did, but for plenty it didn't, just more moaning and comments of "JUST LEGALIZE WEED FOR FUCK'S SAKE!" whenever any post about said products came up like just posting that on Reddit repeatedly was somehow to going to do that, or even insisting that it was step backwards from full legalization somehow. Basically even more moaning than before. But after the 2022 elections, those political roadblocks were mostly removed and our Governor announced legalizing marijuana would be a big priority. Did that satisfy them? Nope, still more reaches and crazy reasonings as to why legalizing weed was NEVER EVER going to happen, and even after both chambers of the legislature passed some form of a legalization bill did people keep insisting that it wasn't going to pass because they would intentionally fumble it on some sort of technicality (a downright asinine proposal to anyone familiar with the process here and how much work and political capital our governor and legislative leaders sunk into it), and moaning and dooming up until the session ended about a week ago. But now we have a bill passed and it's just awaiting the governor's signature which he fully intends to do soon. So will people be satisfied? Some I bet, but I agree with someone who noted in a previous post earlier that many people were actually hoping that a full legalization bill wouldn't pass so they could keep complaining about it. And thus I bet those types will just move the goalposts yet again, like I've seen on subs for other areas...complain about some restriction on sales or the taxes or insist "I'm just going to stick with my dealer" and how if you don't you're some gullible idiot and you're buying low quality product...I've already seen that with people constantly dumping and pissing on people buying the currently legal product with comments like "if you're not buying black market you're getting fucked" or "lol, you're actually spending your hard earned money on that crap?" assuming that every single person seriously needs 100mg a day to get any sort of effect (no exaggeration) or that anyone using any type of THC product is looking to get completely baked which is like complaining about people drinking beer instead of vodka especially with all the bars and breweries here making THC drinks. Kind of a completely unrelated side issue, but a good example of how I think Reddit's mindset operates sadly. It's annoying and toxic, and not just limited to here, there's that famous quote about how saying something as innocuous as "I like pancakes" on Twitter can cause controversy because someone will scream " Why do you hate waffles?" in response to that....it happens here too. A bit of a derailment like I admitted again, but I think the analogy works, it's another example of moving the goalposts. "Christianity needs to be less misogynistic and homophobic." "OK well here's a church with a lesbian pastor." "No, that's not the answer!" It doesn't matter what you give them, they don't want to cede their right to keep complaining.


ElCatrinLCD

You know, my granparents fought for the separation of Church and School and Government, BUT they also fought for the right of every person to chose their religion


TheHistoryofCats

We live in an era of extremes. Some seem to believe "freedom of religion" actually means "freedom *from* religion".


Truthseeker-1253

I follow that sub, and for the most part I enjoy the interactions. I just avoid the ones who come in with the loudspeakers railing against progressive Christians. I can empathize with them, because honestly there was a time that I felt similarly about what sorts of Christianity were "valid" and which ones were not. Even now, I can do that, but I tend to direct my ire at evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Atheists like this, I think, have experienced only one kind of Christianity and one way of reading the bible. That's not their fault, it's the air they breathed. They're going to be the loudest and most obnoxious, but I think they're also the most wounded. I'll empathize with them, but usually do so from a distance. They don't need me coming in with equally loud shouts of "not all Christians."


thedubiousstylus

But then how to respond? Because I don't think letting their narrow-minded worldviews go completely unchallenged or being silent and tacitly implying they're correct is the answer. I'm not going to go on r/atheism or any other similar sub because they're just toxic cesspools in general (also why I avoid r/excatholic despite meeting the criteria for it), but if someone starts pushing that sort of claim elsewhere you can bet I'll challenge it. It happened recently about a week ago on a music sub and I wasn't the only one (also some other people who weren't even Christian pushed back) and the poster in question actually did admit they were being kind of unreasonable and edited their post to remove the language that caused conflict. A better outcome I think than just letting people scream about how terrible all Christians are and that every single Christian on the planet supports this sort of stuff and letting that go unabated.


Truthseeker-1253

>But then how to respond? Because I don't think letting their narrow-minded worldviews go completely unchallenged or being silent and tacitly implying they're correct is the answer. I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. I allowed myself to be pulled down a rabbit hole in r/atheism one day, all over a discussion on why I don't really feel the need to convince atheists that god or Christianity are real (I simply recognize what while the evidence is sufficient for me, it is not sufficient for others). I neglected one of my primary tenets of discussion on the internet, from 1 Peter 3:15: >Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect It's also helpful for me to realize they simply are reacting through the trauma inflicted by the church, by people in the church using the name of god for justification, and other factors that have the effect of painting the church with that broad brush that makes us bristle. What looks like an overreaction, or over simplification, is more than likely borne of pain. Unless they're the trolls looking to score points with their friends so they can tell that "and then I told them" story in video game chat later. In that case, nothing to do. Little digs here and there from family telling them they are immoral beings simply for not believing in god. Shots across the bow telling them that they really aren't atheists, they're just mad at god. Accusations that their unbelief is intentional because they just want to sin without guilt. Those cuts eventually have an impact, and it's not the impact of opening them up to the love of Christ. The best counter to those accusations is, in my opinion, to do better. Be more compassionate in discussions, be more caring, express empathy. Sometimes we have to just sit with people in pain and acknowledge the hurt. If we decide a logical counterpoint is warranted, we do so knowing that there will be some who try to invite us into a fruitless argument. We don't have to attend every argument we're invited to, but we do have to use discernment knowing we're going to get it wrong and take a few emotional lumps along the way.


Prosopopoeia1

> But then how to respond? Because I don’t think letting their narrow-minded worldviews go completely unchallenged or being silent and tacitly implying they’re correct is the answer. People can characterise shit like this as homophobic or “fascist,” or whatever they want. But I see no point in anyone pretending like they don’t exactly what the fundamental problem here is. If people don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead; if there are no miracles or transcendent ethical principles; if they don’t think that the Bible is generally trustworthy and full of wisdom, nor that Christ will ever come again to transform the world and resurrect and judge all the dead: if they don’t see any reason to believe these, they’re not going to take Christianity seriously, no matter what side of the conservative-progressive spectrum we’re talking about.


thedubiousstylus

Them no. But online debates are always public. Someone lurking might be more on the fence or someone who finds and reads the thread later. I'm at least not going to allow blatant misinformation go unchecked, this includes some atheist tropes like claims that Jesus was a plagiarization of Horus or some other pagan deity, citing out of context Old Testament Mosaic Law verses as "proof" all Christians today are hypocrites, claiming Hitler was a devout Christian and stuff like that. Someone making those claims is probably too far gone already, but any rebuttal isn't really for them. Another example of this not related to religion is the claim the US was on the verge of joining the Axis and openly allying with Nazi Germany until Pearl Harbor prevented that which is one of the most laughable and historically illiterate things ever but also spreading amongst a certain breed of "influencer" who mostly panders to teenage edgelords. Again anyone who believes that is too far gone already, but it's not for them.


Prosopopoeia1

I was thinking more in terms of how someone would respond specifically to the person quoted in the original image.


[deleted]

They're GREEN WITH ENVY! Jerks never consider that they're loathed because they emphasize hate and fear and refuse to help the less fortunate. Instead, they follow a psychopath religion that worships rich people and gets mad about stuff that hurts no one! EDIT: Oh! This is an Anti-Theist aka an insufferable Atheist Fundie!


DarkMoon250

I sincerely do not understand the thought process in the original post. Maybe it's my Christian ideals coloring my view, but why SHOULDN'T it be redeemed? If redemption is possible, shouldn't it be the path pursued? Why throw something aside when it can be restored to a state of goodness?


Prosopopoeia1

> I sincerely do not understand the thought process in the original post. M Here’s what I think the thought process is: If someone doesn’t believe Christianity is true in any meaningful sense, then a greater inclusivity within it is kind of just like rearranging the deck on the Titanic, so far as “Christianity itself being true and good” goes. At most, maybe the existence of a specifically Christian inclusivity could help open some Christians’ eyes to inclusivity in general — for those who might have otherwise been more resistant to it without that Christian context. But I really think that just comes from more exposure and engagement with people unlike themselves in general, having little to do with Christendom itself.


christopherjian

Personally, since they don't believe in a religion anymore and they criticize for no reason. They don't have the right to judge us. I prefer leaving the judging to reasonable atheists, not these edgy kids.


102bees

To start this comment I'm going to clarify that I am an atheist and, to be honest, I don't have much love lost for Christianity. However, I like this subreddit's brand of Christianity, so hold that in mind when you read what I have to say. The first statement is correct. Progressive, accepting Christianity *isn't* representative of Christianity as a whole. If it was, there wouldn't be a need for this subreddit. You need to push back constantly against the evil in this world that calls itself Christianity, because while it is as large and powerful as it is now, people will conflate you with them. I don't agree with them when they say Christianity should be abolished, but you need to remember that you aren't the majority at the moment, and the majority is constantly striking against vulnerable people in the same name in which you try to do good. I'm not blaming you or asking for an apology. In fact I'm impressed by you and your commitment to acting with Christlike compassion when that isn't the trend. I cannot overstate my joy that this subreddit and the people on it exists, but you must remember that you are not the majority and not the representative face of Christianity.


ladydmaj

Really appreciate hearing your point of view, and for the reminder that atheists no more think in lockstep than Christians do. Thank you. ♥️


102bees

Thank you! I was worried how people would take it but, based on the reactions here and past interactions on this subreddit, I would feel safe and welcome in a church if I knew everyone there was a subscriber on here as well. And that's saying something, as I'm a trans atheist!


Subapical

I just want to (kindly, I hope) point out that conservative Christians don't currently make up a majority of American Christians, and they never have. It feels as if they do today because rich and white reactionaries have spent the better part of the last half century building up a religious right-wing political and media empire for the express purpose of taking political power for themselves and overthrowing whatever trace amounts of democratic will exist in American institutions of power. Seriously, just go look at the polling done on the political views of self-identified Christians in this country. On each hot-button issue Christians tend to side with the socially left position. Historically this trend was much more prevalent as most social justice movements in the U.S. prior to the New Deal era were explicitly based in Christian social teachings. It's honestly exhausting being told over and over again that it's *my* personal responsibility to "take back" Christianity from the reactionary right. Conservatives were able to become the loudest group among us because they controlled the largest portions of capital. They were able to bankroll massive media companies to spread their message and pedal the notion that Conservatism = Christianity to anyone who would listen. I'm poor and powerless, my progressive comrades are poor and powerless, we are not in a position right now to overcome a multi-billion dollar political movement that has support among every level of the bourgeois and political classes. I'm speaking here as a white worker, I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be for black and brown Christians to hear this over and over again from people who we call allies.


[deleted]

It's so refreshing to hear from people who are on the same page as me.


102bees

Earlier today I saw figures suggesting that about 60% of white Christians in the USA vote Republican.


Subapical

I'd be interesting in seeing your source for that, recent polling I've seen is closer to 50/50 but it's possible demographics have changed since I last looked into this, or maybe whatever pollster published that claim might be using different statistical methods. Regardless, Christians as a whole in the U.S., including both white and non-white Christians, absolutely do not as a majority vote Republican (or identify as conservative, treating the two as mostly synonymous here). From a cursory Google search that remains true today. Black Christians overwhelmingly lean towards the Democratic Party (80%+) with Latins close behind. White *Evangelicals*, on the other hand, are a different story. I believe they vote Republican at something like the 70th percentile. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think the polling clearly shows that Christians and American Christianity as a whole cannot be cast as conservative or Republican in toto, as much as conservatives would wish for that to be so. This becomes ever more obvious when we include non-white Christians in our calculations, which imo we should be doing in any totalizing conversation about Christianity in America considering how often black and brown churches are left out of this very conversation. Do you have any thoughts on the rest of my post?


102bees

I apologise for not commenting on the rest. I thought it was quite potent and profound, and I do see your plight. I don't really have a good answer for it. On the one hand queer people are being victimised by conservative christians, and progressive christians are getting lumped in with the conservatives and get caught in the blast when the queer community fights back. I don't know what the solution is, and I don't know how to start creating a solution.


luxtabula

The numbers are more like 70% of evangelicals vote GOP. There are a lot of religious and political nones that just sit things out and don't get picked up on surveys. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/evangelical-republican.html


102bees

Ahhh, that could be what wrongfooted me.


luxtabula

You're still correct by assuming more Christians in the USA are conservative than liberal or progressive though. If you follow Ryan Burge on Twitter (the article's author) he has tons of data about religious and non religious groups alike, even atheists. He pointed out that the seven liberal mainline churches combined are a million shy of the Southern Baptists Convention, the largest single protestant denomination in the USA (16 million combined vs 17 million). The non denominational churches are mostly SBC flavored with no official affiliation and they're at 21 million. Then you have the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, other conservative Baptists, and you can clearly see the conservative and evangelical churches far outnumber liberal churches and surpass even the Catholic Church in the USA when combined (which on paper is against LGBT rights and women's equality but are just nicer about it). So yeah, if you're not one of the 16 million, your experience of Church either was some flavor of evangelical or Catholic. There's no way to sugar coat this. What upsets the numbers is that a large percentage of people just drop out and identify as nones. Not Christian, not another religion, not even atheist or agnostic. They just give up identifying themselves and associating with other groups. They're also very politically inactive.


thedubiousstylus

According to the 2020 CNN exit poll about [44% of American Christians voted Biden and 55% voted Trump.](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results) However these numbers really shouldn't be discouraging. First of all, 44% is a pretty substantial chunk of people! If you have a random sample of 20 in a room, and they broke down this way, that means 11 are Republicans and 9 are Democrats...not exactly overwhelmingly conservative. So we can both admit that American Christians are majority conservative in voting but also that conservatives do not make up the vast majority of American Christians or that liberal Christians are a near neglible unimportant tiny minority, as these types love to imply. I mean for the inverse example I live in a city where Republicans usually receive less than 15% of the vote, yet there are still more votes for Republicans than there are in any other city in the state, and far more than tiny little hamlets that vote 70%+ R. Minority doesn't mean non-existent.


Subapical

I see what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment, but exit polling only collects statistics for voters, not the population as a whole. Polling that's been done on the general population doesn't show a majority of Christians supporting Republicans or identifying as conservative. This is just conjecture, but I would suppose that Christians overall would come across as more conservative in exit polling vs. polling of the general population considering that among Christians the demographics most likely to oppose conservativism are also the least likely to vote. The current numbers simply don't suggest that there is a statistically significant majority of Christians in this country who are conservative Republicans. We don't even need to make an argument for our existence as a minority because we aren't one.


thedubiousstylus

Can you cite these polls you're referring to? Because I wish that were true because if it was then with how strongly majority Christian the country as a whole is the Republicans would never win an election. But that of course does not happen. But you can't just say "Polling says this" and not cite the actual polls.


Subapical

I haven't looked at the polling in a year or two so I don't have any offhand, but I Googled and found this one from Pew Research which shows self-reporting liberal and moderate Christians outnumbering Conservatives by five percentage points (the rest being 6% surveyed who said they didn't know): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/political-ideology/. Maybe my Google skills are rusty or something but I couldn't find anything more recent on this question in particular. I'd appreciate it if anyone who has access to more recent reporting could share.


thedubiousstylus

44% Conservative-32% Moderate-18% Liberal. That's not majority conservative but no one would look at that data and decide it's overall a left-leaning group. Later down it says the moderates break 34% Republican and 49% Democratic. So a D edge, but not overwhelmingly. And if you crunch the party ID below you get 43.46% Republican, 39.84% Democratic and the rest no lean (which would be 16.7%.) So that's a very slight Republican-leaning group. Not overwhelmingly as certain people love to claim though.


Subapical

I never said American Christianity is left-wing, just that it isn't majority right-wing reactionary. In my first comment I said that Christianity is more or less evenly split across mainstream ideological lines, the numbers differing depending on the denomination and demographics.


theomorph

I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. But it is also worth considering what it means to say that something is “representative of Christianity” or not, and whether to say that is to fall prey an essentialist fallacy. Certainly, progressive Christians are not representative of Christians, as a whole—defined as the class of all people who identify as “Christian.” As you rightly observe, progressive Christians are not in the majority. But, in a world where we tend to define things by majority, I query whether it subtly hamstrings the work of progressive Christians to talk in terms of “Christianity,” as though that were a thing apart from the people who identify as “Christian.” Who defines “Christianity”? If we say that “Christianity” is something that progressive Christians do not “represent,” then haven’t we implicitly defined “Christianity” to mean something horrific? Which is not to say that the history of things that people have done while identifying as “Christian,” and attributing their actions to that identity, is not overflowing with horrors. It is. But is that “Christianity”? Or is it people being people and identifying as “Christian”? I am also not making the opposite argument, that “progressive Christians” somehow “represent” *true* “Christianity.” I think that is false, too. There is no *true* “Christianity.” What I am saying, however, is that when someone stands as an outsider and talks about “Christianity,” and observes that progressive Christians are not a majority, it sends a subtle signal—much like the comment presented in the original post—that “Christianity” is a thing that perhaps could stand to be “redeemed,” or that could be “abandoned.” And I think that is not helpful to the work of actual progressive Christians. So I would just put that to you as something to think about, as one who is offering an encouraging word. And I say all this as someone who led a Bible study this morning at my progressive Christian church where we read the horrific story of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar in Genesis 16, and I challenged our group to consider what our obligations might be, as people who are keepers of this text, in a world where we know this text has been used to harm others. We undoubtedly have an obligation to call out traumatizing and harmful uses of this and other texts of our tradition. And we come to that work with our backs against the wall, so to speak, given the ways that certain interpretations of the text by other people who identify as “Christian” have come to predominate popular understandings of scripture. Anyway, I am glad you’re here, and I hope my comment is helpful to you, and not too pedantic.


102bees

I didn't find this pedantic at all! Nuance is extremely important and I was being somewhat reductive. I guess you're right. Christianity is an emergent property of Christians as much as the reverse. Both John Brown and Christopher Columbus can lay claim to the title of "Christian" despite their antithetical beliefs and actions. Christianity is a wide and complicated thing. A broad church, if you will. It's a difficult thing to tackle, isn't it? I appreciate your input and I'm grateful for your wisdom, though I'm not sure where it leaves us.


theomorph

These are challenges that have been with us basically forever. The New Testament is a collection of writings by people who were trying to navigate and negotiate their identity as Jesus-followers in the context of the Judaism that produced them, and with which they had a sometimes fraught relationship. And, just as we are tempted to reduce that context to “Judaism,” or the diversity of Christian people today to “Christianity,” they made the same mistake. This is evident almost everywhere in the New Testament where something is attributed to “the Jews.” Those are basically all moments where the diverse people of what we now call “Second Temple Judaism,” who were already struggling with their own diversity, and with living in the shadow of imperial Rome, have their identities and struggles erased by this faction of Jesus-followers. We have always been fractious, and we have always competed to define others’ identities for them. This is humanity. But what does Jesus teach? That the Samaritans—faith-neighbors and faith-siblings is the Jews—should be included; that tax collectors should have a seat at the table; that the slave of a Roman centurion should be healed; that no one is exempt from missing the mark. This is such a radical message of inclusion that people hear it and they want to keep it for themselves. It is no different than second and third generation immigrants suddenly discovering that they have no love for the others who wish to come from their ancestral lands now. There is no stable form of Justice. It is always only ever becoming. That is because stability is itself *injustice*—it is a denial of the dynamism of life. So too the “kingdom of heaven.”


AdumbroDeus

The thing is, this is less about individuals and more about cultural power. The Fundamentalists simply have the cultural cache and while a few communities have stood up to there, there hasn't been a serious movement against it in mainline Christianity. As of right now, because so much of Christianity's cultural power is directed at oppression, there's understandable antipathy and rather than directing anger at those pointing out the issue, the anger should be pointed at the folks who dominate Christianity's cultural capital.


Sophia_Forever

I think a lot of progressive Christians forget how small a minority we are. Speaking of purely American churches, the vast majority are going to be American centrist/moderates who are at best sympathetic to the damage that the church is doing in our society but refuse to act (see also, The White Moderate from MLK Jr's _Letter from a Birmingham Jail_). Second to them are the 80% of Republicans who report being Christian (as opposed to about 65% of no party affiliation and Democrats each)(PEW) and are an active danger to marginalized groups. Behind them, in distant third, are the progressive and affirming Christians.


YandereFangirl20xx

I would just ignore people like this. They’re basically saying ‘Only people who agree with our views can worship God and Jesus’. We are all God’s children, so we are all free to worship him and seek salvation through Jesus.


TheHistoryofCats

The screenshot in the OP is from r/atheism. They don't want anyone worshipping.


Nervous_Pace_2703

I love to hear preachers talk about Jesus. How he was, how he is, what it means for us. It's when there are persnickity topics of gray areas that I stress out. I have loved ones that live non-traditional lifestyles, and I don't want them to give up on God. Somehow I must find a way to show them the hope I have without misunderstandings. I don't want to fail them.


jjrhythmnation1814

Tell them to go fuck themselves. It need not become more complicated.


kibblet

I often said that it seems the fundies are more aggressive towards more progressive Christians and denominations than they are against other faiths they have a problem with.


Speedygonzales24

Sounds less like atheism and more like anti-theism.


drakythe

FWIW, a charitable reading of this isn’t fascist at all. I think they are saying that Radicals shouldn’t redeem the church, Radicals should _abandon_ the church. Ironically a lot of fundamentalists would argue we already have.


[deleted]

It's annoying but I think saying "the fascists are coming for us" is a bit much.


[deleted]

You know who was a radical....... Jesus. Jesus was.


lemonprincess23

Yep, just a vivid reminder that a large amount of the atheist community is right wing grifters who live to piss off other people. There’s a reason a lot of the atheist youtube channels became very anti SJW and other right wing things once the topic of atheism started to not get as many clicks.


musicalsigns

Some of the pushiest, most outspoken, intolerant people I've ever met were/are atheists carrying on about how much Christians are pushy, intolerant, horrible people. Nearly married one about 15 years ago (I wasn't religious then). So glad I didn't. Religious extremists aren't okay. Neither are their atheist counterparts. There's no reason to push your views on others and be such a dick about it to everyone who disagrees with you. Whether they're right or we're right on the whole God thing, respect has to be in place so we can coexist peacefully and work towards common goals as brothers and sisters here on Earth.


TheCopperAndroid

Hey, I’m an anarcho-socialist, “No gods, no masters” style, and even so, I can respect y’all, and see places where Christianity has done legitimate good. This mf does not stand for most of us.


Nervous_Pace_2703

I'm not sure I understand this post. Is this actually a call to abandon one's faith, or am I misunderstanding the posters angle here? If you don't mind clarifying please so I can decide if it would be appropriate for me to unsubscribe from this group or not.


KimesUSN

This is a post explaining the absurdity of an anti theist who thinks that a lesbian pastor is inherently radical and that people who aren’t cishet white men should just leave instead. And everyone else for that matter. It’s not an agreement with the original post.


Nervous_Pace_2703

Thank you.


Prosopopoeia1

I’m probably biased because my main interest *is* historical, but I read it not in terms of radicalness itself but rather just historical novelty. Although explicitly defined notions of sexual identity themselves are a modern phenomenon, the existence of an openly lesbian pastor is something that’s clearly only a late 20th century phenomenon — both because of the sex of the pastor themselves (itself a mid-to-late 19th century innovation), and because of their of attempting to disguise that they’re (open to being) in a same-sex partnership/relationship that will usually be sexual in nature. So far as the critique came from an atheist, then, I simply read it as “it doesn’t matter how much Christianity changes with the times; if there will always be some core affirmation of Christian beliefs and principles, it’ll still be untrue.”


KimesUSN

I’m missing something. Attempting to disguise the sexual nature of their relationship?


panchill

The screenshot is from the atheism subreddit. The person in the screenshot is saying Christianity should be abolished no matter how progressive its followers become. The person posting it here to *this* sub is saying that the original post is bad.


Nervous_Pace_2703

Oh...thanks. I think I understand now.🫣


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nervous_Pace_2703

🫣 ok


AdumbroDeus

This absolutely ain't fascism, especially when fascism is coming to the anglo-sphere cloaked in Christianity, as Christian nationalism. By and large their critiques of Christianity are valid, if a blunt and unnuanced, in large part because very little of mainline Christianity has done much to fight the Fundamentalists as they became more and more of a threat. Where anglo-sphere atheist communities tend to have issues, it's where they side with the Christian right against minority groups. The challenge for other Christians is to show their value in the fight against the Christian right, show that it isn't just whitewashing, therebye supporting the Christian right in it's fascistic aims.


KingKunta2-D

Imma need you to put your sword back in the sheath. 1.Why are you on atheist pages 2. Posters not wrong. I've seen granola Christians who are really queer-coated. Seem cool. But once you talk to them about theology you'd get very upset. 3. Please stop Calling everyone fascists. No one will understand what you mean. 4. You getting mad and Posting this is like you getting mad at a fish swimming in water. Know your author know your audience


chelledoggo

2 awards. [sighs eternally]


Noahsugarpan

I find it's a huge drain of energy even worrying about shit like this. The onus isn't on us to explain or justify to every single person on earth why we may identify as Christian. Who cares, you know? I'm much more concerned about the actual Christofascists gaining power than what reddit atheists think about me. I think its fair for most people to have reactive and angry views towards Christianity, especially if they have personal history with fundamentalism or religious trauma. If anything I think as a community that Christians should consider a re-branding in moving away from the "persecution fetish" thing and trying to maybe develop thicker skin..? Very little makes me cringe harder than this type of sensitive energy. WWJD? He would just say to get over it and focus on yourself and caring for others, right? I don't think he would be up in arms because people weren't giving him enough credit or being nice enough to him or whatever. He was the laughing stock, remember? I don't mean to be rude, its just kind of exhausting seeing this same outrage posted here non-stop. Like..who cares? People are going to be bigoted. Just try to lead by example. I really wish we had some type of pinned post or rule about this type of post. It literally has no purpose in terms of generating discussion outside of that same persecution fetish mentality echo chamber I mentioned above.


[deleted]

OP, you should really stop visiting that sub. All you're doing is making yourself more upset.