Atheism and Agnosticism discrimination thread

[Punished UMN]

I mean central and Eastern Europe are also quite secular, there aren't many traditionally Christian countries that aren't secular today.

i'm assuming 'mainly secular' is supposed to mean 'mainly irreligious' here, not the actual style of governance. maybe i interpreted what they meant wrong; i do agree that obviously if we're talking government, there aren't really christian theocracies that exist anymore.

Yeah but central and Eastern Europe have a lot of irreligion too. Czechia is like the most atheist country in the world and the former Soviet Union is extremely irreligious.

[Dreria]

Hello general, I am here to make a new thread about atheism and Agnosticism discrimination in politics, participation in activities, and others.
For reference:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Dm&ampcf=1
https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/09 ... ion-in-us/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... 0520121210
Thx

I support it

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

i'm assuming 'mainly secular' is supposed to mean 'mainly irreligious' here, not the actual style of governance. maybe i interpreted what they meant wrong; i do agree that obviously if we're talking government, there aren't really christian theocracies that exist anymore.

Yeah but central and Eastern Europe have a lot of irreligion too. Czechia is like the most atheist country in the world and the former Soviet Union is extremely irreligious.

romania, moldova, poland, serbia, croatia, greece, and georgia all have some of the highest rates of christianity in the world but im not even just talking about eastern europe - there are few countries in latin america, sub-saharan africa, or oceania where christianity was at one point predominant but is now lower than 75% of the population.

[Ayytaly]

i'm assuming 'mainly secular' is supposed to mean 'mainly irreligious' here, not the actual style of governance. maybe i interpreted what they meant wrong; i do agree that obviously if we're talking government, there aren't really christian theocracies that exist anymore.

Yeah but central and Eastern Europe have a lot of irreligion too. Czechia is like the most atheist country in the world and the former Soviet Union is extremely irreligious.

Czechs are also very racist.

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

If atheists claim religious discrimination, are they admitting that their beliefs are grounded in faith, not reason?

[Hukhalia]

If atheists claim religious discrimination, are they admitting that their beliefs are grounded in faith, not reason?

depends how you define "religion"

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

define "religion"

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

[Neutraligon]

define "religion"

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods.

in which case they are agnostic, not atheists.

And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

no they aren't. this nonsensical narrative mostly appeals to and is peddled by I Fucking Love Science!ists who don't want to consider the idea there might be something greater than themselves and zealots who don't want to consider that the dogma they've been taught often since childhood may not tell the full, literal story. actual scientists and religious leaders don't even believe it.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I had to be honest here, have you noticed that many of the countries that used to be predominantly Christian, are now mainly secular? I'm just saying.

if you think western europe is the entire world sure

Name every first world nation.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I mean central and Eastern Europe are also quite secular, there aren't many traditionally Christian countries that aren't secular today.

i'm assuming 'mainly secular' is supposed to mean 'mainly irreligious' here, not the actual style of governance. maybe i interpreted what they meant wrong; i do agree that obviously if we're talking government, there aren't really christian theocracies that exist anymore.

Yeah, in fact I think the Vatican is the only one?

[The Alma Mater]

i'm assuming 'mainly secular' is supposed to mean 'mainly irreligious' here, not the actual style of governance. maybe i interpreted what they meant wrong; i do agree that obviously if we're talking government, there aren't really christian theocracies that exist anymore.

Yeah, in fact I think the Vatican is the only one?

Poland did declare Jesus to be their king...

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Yeah, in fact I think the Vatican is the only one?

Poland did declare Jesus to be their king...

Oh ok. My bad.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I'm not convinced atheists/agnostics face discrimination. At least not in my country.

we very much do. religious people will go as far as to beat a athiest to near death if it means converting them.

If that is true, I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw an atheist beating a christian. Unless of course, you guys are perfect.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

It was the philosophical and theological thinkers of ancient Greece that fathered western scientific thought. Your modern pure and logical science was developed by numerous religious scientists like Pasteur and Braun. Lemaître, a Catholic priest, came up with the Big Bang Theory. Geometry, maths, medicine and architecture were all developed through numerous religions. I could go on and on.
They are both intertwined, believing that science is a separate dogma that goes against 'backwards' religion narrows your own thinking. The very core of both can be interpreted as understanding existence, both do this and revolve around each other - to simply place all faith in one or the other is human arrogance.

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

If anything, they are perpendicular, and can provide great synergy if properly combined.

[Neutraligon]

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods.

in which case they are agnostic, not atheists.

And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

no they aren't. this nonsensical narrative mostly appeals to and is peddled by I Fucking Love Science!ists who don't want to consider the idea there might be something greater than themselves and zealots who don't want to consider that the dogma they've been taught often since childhood may not tell the full, literal story. actual scientists and religious leaders don't even believe it.

They are agnostic atheist, the two are not mutually exclusive. Since they do not believe in a god, they are atheist. That does not mean they believe no god exists. Science and religion are mutually exclusive since one is based on faith while the other is exists to remove as much human bias as possible...including faith.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Science and religion are mutually exclusive since one is based on faith while the other is exists to remove as much human bias as possible...including faith.

that is not what the point of science is and i'm really curious as to who told you that because it's just so far from the truth

[Neutraligon]

Science and religion are mutually exclusive since one is based on faith while the other is exists to remove as much human bias as possible...including faith.

that is not what the point of science is and i'm really curious as to who told you that because it's just so far from the truth

The point of science is to learn about the world around you through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is used to remove as much human bias as possible, whether that bias comes from the culture one lives in, the desires of the scientist, or any other source. So yes...that is pretty much the point of science.

[Dreria]

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

You and being right are in direct opposition to each other

[Neutraligon]

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

You and being right are in direct opposition to each other

Since I am right no they are not. Science and faith are fundamentally in opposition.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

that is not what the point of science is and i'm really curious as to who told you that because it's just so far from the truth

The point of science is to learn about the world around you through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is used to remove as much human bias as possible, whether that bias comes from the culture one lives in, the desires of the scientist, or any other source.

the scientific method reduces bias in observations of natural phenomena, not from the operation of the entire world.

the scientific method only holds validity for directly observable phenomena and science as a field does not deal with the question of ultimate origins. no peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific paper has ever made the conclusion that god does not exist based on data, because questions of god's existence, of morality, or of supernatural phenomena in general are entirely outside the purview of science, because they are fundamentally philosophical in nature.

pop scientists push the line that atheism is fundamentally in union with science, or that a scientist may only be atheistic, because it gets them a wider audience of gullible reddit atheists. it is anything but. there is no dissonance between the belief that the scientific method is a good way to do what it is designed to do -- explain proximate origins for what happens and why it happens in reference to other natural observations -- as well as that X religion holds valid as an ultimate explanation of all of the natural observations that are scientifically irreducible in terms of the cause for their existence.

[Neutraligon]

The point of science is to learn about the world around you through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is used to remove as much human bias as possible, whether that bias comes from the culture one lives in, the desires of the scientist, or any other source.

the scientific method reduces bias in observations of natural phenomena, not from the operation of the entire world.

the scientific method only holds validity for directly observable phenomena and science as a field does not deal with the question of ultimate origins. no peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific paper has ever made the conclusion that god does not exist based on data, because questions of god's existence, of morality, or of supernatural phenomena in general are entirely outside the purview of science, because they are fundamentally philosophical in nature.

pop scientists push the line that atheism is fundamentally in union with science, or that a scientist may only be atheistic, because it gets them a wider audience of gullible reddit atheists. it is anything but. there is no dissonance between the belief that the scientific method is a good way to do what it is designed to do -- explain proximate origins for what happens and why it happens in reference to other natural observations -- as well as that X religion holds valid as an ultimate explanation of all of the natural observations that are scientifically irreducible in terms of the cause for their existence.

What do you mean by ultimate origins? Because people are looking into the big bang. Atheism is not in union with science, it answers one question, if you have god belief. It does not preclude the belief in the supernatural or anything like that. Scientists can be religious, it is just that when they are doing science they are not using faith, they must separate their religion from their science.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

the scientific method reduces bias in observations of natural phenomena, not from the operation of the entire world.

the scientific method only holds validity for directly observable phenomena and science as a field does not deal with the question of ultimate origins. no peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific paper has ever made the conclusion that god does not exist based on data, because questions of god's existence, of morality, or of supernatural phenomena in general are entirely outside the purview of science, because they are fundamentally philosophical in nature.

pop scientists push the line that atheism is fundamentally in union with science, or that a scientist may only be atheistic, because it gets them a wider audience of gullible reddit atheists. it is anything but. there is no dissonance between the belief that the scientific method is a good way to do what it is designed to do -- explain proximate origins for what happens and why it happens in reference to other natural observations -- as well as that X religion holds valid as an ultimate explanation of all of the natural observations that are scientifically irreducible in terms of the cause for their existence.

What do you mean by ultimate origins? Because people are looking into the big bang.

what caused the big bang. why are the laws of the physics so. etc.

Atheism is not in union with science, it answers one question, if you have god belief. It does not preclude the belief in the supernatural or anything like that. Scientists can be religious, it is just that when they are doing science they are not using faith, they must separate their religion from their science.

ok so now you agree with me. hooray! glad i convinced you!

[Neutraligon]

What do you mean by ultimate origins? Because people are looking into the big bang.

what caused the big bang. why are the laws of the physics so. etc.

Atheism is not in union with science, it answers one question, if you have god belief. It does not preclude the belief in the supernatural or anything like that. Scientists can be religious, it is just that when they are doing science they are not using faith, they must separate their religion from their science.

ok so now you agree with me. hooray! glad i convinced you!

We do not know what caused the big bang, scientists are currently trying to look into it. They are also looking into the why the laws are the way they are.
...You did not convince me of everything. I never said that atheism had anything to do with science. I said that religion and science are in contradiction because the very basis of the two things are mutually exclusive and I still hold to that.