5 ms·

>Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? It was the juxtaposition of the hubiris against the weakness of the arguments.

>Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? It was the juxtaposition of the hubiris against the weakness of the arguments. I'm generally put off by people who think they're much smarter or stronger than they really are, and who use it to bully others. >What about your religious views would you say are "radical"? To give one example, I now believe non-Abrahamic religions (or a lack thereof) should be entirely illegal. I did not hold any beliefs even remotely as fringe back before discovering Mr. Repzion, Richard Dawkins, Jackyln Glenn and The Amazing Atheist, Onision as a kid back in ~2011. After that my impression of atheists gradually soured and I began to observe that in some sense, their attitude was not restricted merely to speech despite what they might dishonestly claim, and that their positions and the demand for that content reflected society's general attitude towards religious people. I began to understand that this is natural for all groups, tribes etc, so it would be naive for me to allow myself to be on the backfoot.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hydrok9 4y ago
You believe being non-religious should be illegal?
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  Yes
  - hydrok9 4y ago
    Bizarre. From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online!
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      >From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online! That's an accurate observation, but being a zoomer, it's also pretty standard.
      - hydrok9 4y ago
        It's also a pretty bad way to get any kind of context about what "people" think, or how they act
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    But why? Why do you even care so much what other people believe?
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      Because of the prisoner's dilemma. It is more often than not beneficial to a given belief system, for that belief system to suppress alternative beliefs. Various expressions of atheism are subject to this too. We see this more explicitly in China and France, but we are also beginning to see it in other areas of the western world primarily using soft power, such as by funding subversive institutions and figures. As with the prisoner's dilemma, there is no good reason for religious people to play the game with their hands tied behind their backs.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        I don't really see this as a "game". As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. Also note that many religions disagree on many things, and they all believe they are the one true right one, yet this is literally impossible. But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. One of the things I never really grasp is how much hate is coming from religious groups regarding what people do in the bedroom. Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this.
        antibasilisk 4y ago
        >As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. This rings hollow, because as soon as we want to police our own communities according to our laws suddenly it becomes 'you are sexist, you are homophobic, you are anti-democratic, now hand over your children, your wealth and your guns'. >What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. So that we can instead have your morals and values imposed on us? >But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. So you would have no problem with Christians fining other Christians for premarital sex, or imprisoning women for having abortions, or Muslims flogging other Muslims for engaging in sodomy? Hell, what if we just don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? >Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this. Our morals are based on our religious texts. It has nothing to do with whether we feel 'affected' in the short term.
hawkesnest 4y ago
I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which are allowable but all others are not? What benefit would this provide? Do the benefits outweigh the harm? Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not? How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something? Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not I'm all for thought experiments and playing what-if, but if you're going to make the statement that my sheer existence should be illegal, I need quite a bit of clarity!
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  > What is an appropriate punishment? You know as well as I do that going down a road like what antibasilisk is suggesting only ends in concentration camps.
  - hawkesnest 4y ago
    I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety. The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?
    - hydrok9 4y ago
      They are wanting to think that they are taking the "long view" of things, are being totally logical,and that calling it "heinous" is simply the view of people on the wrong side of history.
- 4y ago
skissane 4y ago
> To give one example, I now believe non-Abrahamic religions (or a lack thereof) should be entirely illegal. If you actually believe something is true, trying to compel people to believe it is a very counter-productive measure, because it doesn't convince people to believe it – they may outwardly pretend to believe, but inwardly they'll rebel against the compulsion; compelling people to believe something is sending the message "my arguments are no good which is why I have to resort to force". I remember my mother trying to force me to go to Mass as a young teenager – it did nothing to endear the Catholic Church to me, and to the extent I have any sympathy for it nowadays, that's in spite of her influence not because of it You see this in Iran – the government makes it a crime to leave Islam, with the result that only around 40% of the population really believe in Islam any more; most of the remaining 60% will pretend to believe (to escape persecution) but in private they don't. [0] (Tolerated religious minorities–Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians-are less than 1% of the population.) While I have no doubt some of the decline of Islam in Iran would have happened anyway, for similar reasons to secularisation in the West, I think the Iranian government's attempts to force Islam on people (and a very authoritarian interpretation of it at that) have likely accelerated the decline of Iranian Islam, and it would probably be in a healthier state today if the 1979 Revolution had failed [0] https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-reveals-huge-changes-in-religious-beliefs-145253 https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-r...
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  >If you actually believe something is true, trying to compel people to believe it is a very counter-productive measure, because it doesn't convince people to believe it – they may outwardly pretend to believe, but inwardly they'll rebel against the compulsion This isn't the case at scale, people are more likely to believe something if it is normalized for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
  - skissane 4y ago
    > This isn't the case at scale, people are more likely to believe something if it is normalized for them. How then do you explain the case of Iran I cited? Islam enforced as the state religion, leaving it is punishable with death (at least in theory), and yet there has been a huge decline in Islamic belief over the last few decades. That's evidence against your position. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments In those experiments, only a minority of test subjects adjusted their expressed belief in response to social pressure; and only a minority of that minority appeared inwardly convinced in doing so. So this experiment doesn't support your position – putting aside the question of whether a highly contrived experiment is actually generalisable to ordinary human social behaviour.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hydrok9 4y ago

You believe being non-religious should be illegal?

antibasilisk 4y ago
Yes
- hydrok9 4y ago
  Bizarre. From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online!
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    >From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online! That's an accurate observation, but being a zoomer, it's also pretty standard.
    - hydrok9 4y ago
      It's also a pretty bad way to get any kind of context about what "people" think, or how they act
- wkat4242 4y ago
  But why? Why do you even care so much what other people believe?
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    Because of the prisoner's dilemma. It is more often than not beneficial to a given belief system, for that belief system to suppress alternative beliefs. Various expressions of atheism are subject to this too. We see this more explicitly in China and France, but we are also beginning to see it in other areas of the western world primarily using soft power, such as by funding subversive institutions and figures. As with the prisoner's dilemma, there is no good reason for religious people to play the game with their hands tied behind their backs.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      I don't really see this as a "game". As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. Also note that many religions disagree on many things, and they all believe they are the one true right one, yet this is literally impossible. But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. One of the things I never really grasp is how much hate is coming from religious groups regarding what people do in the bedroom. Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this.
      - antibasilisk 4y ago
        >As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. This rings hollow, because as soon as we want to police our own communities according to our laws suddenly it becomes 'you are sexist, you are homophobic, you are anti-democratic, now hand over your children, your wealth and your guns'. >What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. So that we can instead have your morals and values imposed on us? >But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. So you would have no problem with Christians fining other Christians for premarital sex, or imprisoning women for having abortions, or Muslims flogging other Muslims for engaging in sodomy? Hell, what if we just don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? >Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this. Our morals are based on our religious texts. It has nothing to do with whether we feel 'affected' in the short term.

hawkesnest 4y ago

I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which are allowable but all others are not? What benefit would this provide? Do the benefits outweigh the harm? Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not? How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something? Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not I'm all for thought experiments and playing what-if, but if you're going to make the statement that my sheer existence should be illegal, I need quite a bit of clarity!

fknorangesite 4y ago
> What is an appropriate punishment? You know as well as I do that going down a road like what antibasilisk is suggesting only ends in concentration camps.
- hawkesnest 4y ago
  I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety. The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?
  - hydrok9 4y ago
    They are wanting to think that they are taking the "long view" of things, are being totally logical,and that calling it "heinous" is simply the view of people on the wrong side of history.
4y ago

skissane 4y ago

> To give one example, I now believe non-Abrahamic religions (or a lack thereof) should be entirely illegal. If you actually believe something is true, trying to compel people to believe it is a very counter-productive measure, because it doesn't convince people to believe it – they may outwardly pretend to believe, but inwardly they'll rebel against the compulsion; compelling people to believe something is sending the message "my arguments are no good which is why I have to resort to force". I remember my mother trying to force me to go to Mass as a young teenager – it did nothing to endear the Catholic Church to me, and to the extent I have any sympathy for it nowadays, that's in spite of her influence not because of it You see this in Iran – the government makes it a crime to leave Islam, with the result that only around 40% of the population really believe in Islam any more; most of the remaining 60% will pretend to believe (to escape persecution) but in private they don't. [0] (Tolerated religious minorities–Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians-are less than 1% of the population.) While I have no doubt some of the decline of Islam in Iran would have happened anyway, for similar reasons to secularisation in the West, I think the Iranian government's attempts to force Islam on people (and a very authoritarian interpretation of it at that) have likely accelerated the decline of Iranian Islam, and it would probably be in a healthier state today if the 1979 Revolution had failed [0] https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-reveals-huge-changes-in-religious-beliefs-145253 https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-r...

antibasilisk 4y ago
>If you actually believe something is true, trying to compel people to believe it is a very counter-productive measure, because it doesn't convince people to believe it – they may outwardly pretend to believe, but inwardly they'll rebel against the compulsion This isn't the case at scale, people are more likely to believe something if it is normalized for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
- skissane 4y ago
  > This isn't the case at scale, people are more likely to believe something if it is normalized for them. How then do you explain the case of Iran I cited? Islam enforced as the state religion, leaving it is punishable with death (at least in theory), and yet there has been a huge decline in Islamic belief over the last few decades. That's evidence against your position. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments In those experiments, only a minority of test subjects adjusted their expressed belief in response to social pressure; and only a minority of that minority appeared inwardly convinced in doing so. So this experiment doesn't support your position – putting aside the question of whether a highly contrived experiment is actually generalisable to ordinary human social behaviour.