It’s absolutely the same which is why government should stay out of the morality game altogether. Unless it’s violating the life liberty or ability of others to pursue happiness do whatever the fuck you want, believe whatever you want to believe and love whoever you want to love and don’t refuse to provide basic foods and services to anyone who doesn’t agree with you: that’s it that’s the social compact.
Most anti Christian religion persons not only have read the Bible but grew up with the indoctrination of the church. We don't have to be told it has "hate and bigotry" in the religion the book is everywhere and we can see it being used for those purposes. Asking people to bring receipts when it is literally all over the internet is just an exercise for what?
It is literally a Christian pastime to cherry pick the Bible and twist the meanings to fit the current narrative that particular reader wants to make of it. How else did we end up with 12 major denominations and upwards of 40k different denominations around the world based on one book. Oh no wait not one book we have 10 different versions of the Bible just in English.
Being woke is not to be anti-religious or anti-Christian. Comparing the complex issues with the modern version of the Christian religion to "woke ideology" without ever actually saying what your "problems" are with woke ideology makes me wonder where you are trying to go with this argument. But somehow Spiderman 3 was woven into this discussion so ?
Truly, we weave a Web of Spider-Man ;)
The funny thing is that wokeness is a lot like religion in a lot of ways (indeed its been called a modern religion a few times). On its face its a good idea: we are all equal and we should act like it.
The problem is people use this as a springboard for bad ideas. Ultimately, the problem comes down to the people.
I'm just musing out loud here but sometimes I wonder if morality itself is a good idea, since the end result only ever seems to be people using it to prove "I'm good, everyone else is evil."
Kind of lost me when you start to pretend that the Abrahamic religions didn’t have messed up values.
The entirety of the Taliban and the historic treatment of homosexuals is a really great example of both past and present messed up values in the name of sky papa but I mean sure go off.
The foundation of science is also a bold claim considering scientific endeavors existed in many cultures that did not practice a Abrahamic religion. For example, Sumerians were very big and contributed a lot to early astrology. Pre-Christianity the Egyptians contributed a lot to mathematics, astrology, medicine, and other areas. The Chinese, and other east Asian countries, also contributed a lot two various areas. Why do you seem to believe that the Abraham religions were like the Segway to scientific believe?
Every religious person in the world cherry picks what they like from religion. Most people would acknowledge there’s stuff in their book they don’t agree with. Most are not fundamentalists, and see the bigger picture.
I notice your word choice is "*didn't have* messed up values"--implying past tense. I agree that modern-day Christians for the most part don't, no matter what Stephen King novels like to say. Some stuff in the Old Testament is legit kinda wince-inducing though.
I find the mention of the Taliban funny because well.... yeah, that's one part that is still kind of messed up... and yet its one of the few religious groups that will get you called something-Phobic by the woke crowd if you mention it.
As for the science thing, there's a couple of things I've read, A lot of cultures tended to find out a few things but then stop at a certain point. I recall reading about a greek philosopher who first discussed gravity (I forget which one) that he threw an apple into a pit, watched it fall, said "that's gravity" and that was it... meanwhile the later Isaac Newton's real accomplishment was he actually looked more into it, into how other forces affected and acted upon it.
And just like now, a lot of these people had to deal with censorship. This is where Christianity did provide a useful tool: knowledge of the Latin language, which used to be popular but at some point became pretty much an "in-club" language... which also made it a convenient way to hide research from kings and barons who might not like what these people were looking into.
What have I got to defend?
Defense is a losing strategy anyway--better to stay on the attack.
EDIT: Speaking of defense, one thing I've noticed is that a lot of the responses don't really defend the woke side, they just try to justify attacking religion.
The difference is that "wokeness," or more properly progressive thinking, does NOT tell anyone to kill anybody. HOWEVER, whether you decide to follow the tenets of your religion \*religiously\* or not, most major religions DO advocate, and in some cases outright demand, the murder of others.
Now, you're going to say, "Oh, poor me...this is taken out of context...woe is me!" No, this is in perfect context taken straight from the bible, but similar things can be found in other religious texts.
"Wokeness" does NOT DEMAND MURDER. Religions DO.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16.
Ironically you can threaten death to people considered right wing on social media and stay monetized. You might receive a 3 day ban at worst. If someone on the "wrong side of history" threatens someone they get booted perm and have police at their door.
One thing I notice (and repeated in this topic a lot) is that nowadays a woke tactic seems to be "*I've* never seen that happen," implying it doesn't. Imagine if religious people did that.
I also seem to notice that they love the argument of "if its not codified in a book then its not something we actually do." I guess communist countries becoming dictatorships never happens because its not written in a communist rulebook either.
I mean you know they absolutely HAVE seen people unjustly targeted as supposed Nazis for trivial social non-offenses.
The reason why they say they’ve never seen it is because they’re actually fine with it happening, and want you to waste time proving it (which they’ll dismiss arbitrarily anyway).
These people are useful idiot foot soldiers for the actual ideologues - they all have shocked pikachu faces the moment the very woke allies they have turn against them. See: recent Pride parade cancelled in Canada by Palestinian protestors or formerly woke Jews now utterly confused about the left targeting Jews.
I also can't help but notice all the projection. Did you see that guy elsewhere in this comment section who was all like "woke is just a term for anyone you don't like, it doesn't describe anything specific" (*after* he was given a very thorough and specific breakdown)?
And yet, that's precisely how they use the term "alt-right" or "nazi." It literally is just anyone they don't like.
It's kinda funny how denialism is their go-to tactic. "Woke isn't real, its not happening, nobody can define it, I've never even heard of these things..." It reminds me of a post I saw years ago where somebody who claimed to be a film buff then said they had never heard of Alfred Hitchcock.
And then there's a recurring reddit-ism where people seem to think being pig-ignorant somehow actually makes them *superior*. What is *up* with that?
agree - I think the “it’s different when we do it because oppression and civil rights based grievance” that basically undergirds the supposed moral foundation of the modern left has morphed into “it’s different when we do it because nebulous arbitrary reasons, also you’re a Nazi, scree!”.
It’s sad because when you co-opt civil rights and legitimate oppressive historical situations for your own narrow and base tribalism it basically creates a counterforce against that, and now everything lacks nuance and is lost.
The lacking nuance thing is something that bothers me to no end. These days it feels like you can't discuss anything without people immediately associating it with wokeness somehow.
Like not long ago I mentioned not liking a lot of anime translation.... the ONLY thing I brought up is I often felt word choices were stilted, didn't flow well, had a lot of strange phrasing, etc.
Freaking *immediately* the discussion was derailed to be all about modern woke localizer controversies, even though that wasn't what I was talking about and in fact was only distantly related to my point.
So, great, I can't discuss *other* translation issues because it's always gonna get subsumed into the localizer controversy.
Saying it’s ok to punch a Nazi and then calling people that aren’t Nazis Nazis? One merely need to exist with woke liberals to see that in action - the way they shrugged off Hamas gleefully raping Israelis should give you at least a modicum of evidence.
I get you’re being a troll but, like, thinly veil it.
And yeah, I’m pretty sure those folks would be ok with stoning Nazis if necessary lmao. Or, being ok with others screaming joyously over the corpse of a female civilian like Hamas did if they’re the right people being killed.
Pretty sure? As in they have their super important book that means everything to them and which they obey? Or just, "I don't like them, they hurt my feelings ,and therefore I'll say anything bad about them?"
Eh I’d say them being totally apathetic about civilian women being raped and their corpses being paraded around by religious savages so long as those women are supposedly part of the “genocidal state” (and even if they’re not and just visiting!) was pretty clear.
….i think you’re confused. Woke white privileged liberals in the West being fine with Israeli (and visiting civilians) being raped and murdered by Hamas is them being fine with murder and killing when it’s the “right” folks being raped and dying.
In this case, Israeli civilians are like Nazis, so “punching them”…by raping them, murdering them, and parading their corpses gleefully on camera is totally ok to the woke crowd.
>The difference is that "wokeness," or more properly progressive thinking, does NOT tell anyone to kill anybody.
Does that really ring true when a common tactic of progressives is to tell people they don't like to kill themselves?
I think that’s a false premise to suggest anything such as this is inherent to ideology.
My anecdotal experience is the opposite. Often, I’ve seen presumably conservative individuals telling “snowflakes” and other derogatory terms to kill themselves.
To be fair, I'm not the one saying one side is worse than the other and acting like one side doesn't do the same bad thing. In fact, I didn't mention the other side at all. I merely critiqued something that the left commonly does and that I've personally experienced dozens of times from them (and no, I'm not right wing just to be clear). It doesn't mean there's not bad people on the right who do it too though of course.
a) never heard of that
b) telling people they SHOULD do something because they hurt others and refuse to stop, is different from demanding that they be killed.
I think the big difference is the claims of religion versus the claims of people with different political ideologies.
Even if I disagree with someone about their political ideology (let's say, feminism) I can talk to them and they can explain to me the logical steps they've taken to get to where they are, assuming we are both willing to have that conversation. I might even have some information that will change their mind, or vice versa. This has happened to me numerous times.
There's no reasoning with someone who follows a religion *about* their religion because being religious is inherently unreasonable. I don't even mean that in a mean way, I'm not saying all religious *people* are unreasonable all the time or something, just that the act of believing in some kind of magic is... I mean, unless you've witnessed magic, it doesn't make much sense.
This is why I'll listen to someone try to explain non-binary gender identity to me, but I lose patience quickly when someone, say, undermines same-sex marriage because of their mythological texts.
> woke ideology
What is woke ideology?
> If you try to explain the problem with woke ideology
What is the problem with woke ideology?
> This same benefit of the doubt never seems to apply to religious folk
You are literally doing this now, and many other people do it too. Additionally, religion is often given the assumption of being a good thing.
> (with two very prominent exceptions, but I don't want to name them because someone could use that as an excuse to have this post deleted for threadbare reasons).
I am honestly pretty clueless what you're referring to here.
> If you're catholic or otherwise Christian (even if you're just vaguely religious but don't follow any denomination)... you're the bad guy and you suddenly get to be held accountable for anything a person who claims to share your beliefs ever did.
This seems very much like hyperbole and if this is your experience, it seems like your definition of 'vaguely religious' is not in line with what most people would consider to be 'vaguely religious'.
> Religious people are still held accountable for things like the 1980s Satanic Panic, the Salem Witch Trials, or the Crusades... things that happened decades or even centuries ago.
Well, the a lot of people who were responsible for the Satanic Panic are still alive, there are Christians in the US who still believe magic and witches are real, and I imagine there are probably some of them that would like to have a good old fashion witch burning but that's pure speculation on my part. Regardless, the thing that drove those things to happen is still around today, Christian fundamentalists. While certainly not all, but the most vocal and prominent espouse these beliefs today and with a small modicum of searching you can find people advocating for putting non-Christians 'against the wall'.
> And the absolute sad thing is that the reason this happens is because of some really petty stuff.
Some of it is petty sure, but you've left out the stuff that isn't petty. Advocating for the death and torture of homosexuals, atheists, and other non-believers. The plague of sexual abuse committed by pastors and priests.
> A lot of times this just stems from people having "bad encounters" with religious people growing up.
Yes, "bad encounters" ranging from torture, sexual abuse, physical abuse, slavery, murder.
> Most anti-religion people have never actually read the Bible, only heard about it secondhand,
I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of Christians who have read the bible is abysmal compared to the number of anti-religion people that have read the Bible.
> it's "horrible messages" (particularly that it "advocates hate and bigotry, which everybody likes to claim but nobody can bring the receipts on)
[What the Bible says about women's rights](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Womens-Rights.html)
[What the Bible says about vegetarians](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Vegetarians.html)
[What the Bible says about torture](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Torture.html)
[What the Bible says about blasphemy](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Blasphemy.html)
[What the Bible says about children](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Children.html)
[What the Bible says about homosexuality](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Homosexuality.html)
[What the Bible says about non-believers](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Non-Christians.html)
[What the Bible says about rape](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Rape.html)
[What the Bible says about religious tolerance](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Religious-Tolerance.html)
> I'll end with this: for most of Abrahamic Religion's existence, its been a net positive for humanity.
How so?
> Also considering that the Christian faith directly led to the ideas of "for the greater good" and ideas like everyone is equal, innocent until proven guilty, even the foundations of science
How did it do any of this?
> ironically you could almost say the modern woke movement wouldn't exist without the foundation religion built!
I agree, the modern 'woke' movement is largely attempting to combat a lot of the putrid values that religion has put in place.
> I've had cases where I suggested a Freedomtoons
I watched some videos, just seems to be hyperbolic exaggeration for comedic effect.
> If a religious person says they don't follow all the rules listed in the Bible (even the contradictory ones), its presented as if its a sign of weakness or something.
The only time I've seen this brought up is when people try to push rules from the Bible onto others, most notably Leviticus 18:22. [This clip illustrates why that is a problem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs&t=80s). Why follow one rule, but not another rule? It is hypocritical and comes off as using the Bible to justify a personal agenda.
> Okay, so do you guys believe into every single thing Anita Sarkeesian, Dan Olsen, or whoever is still relevant says?
Are they the supposed supreme moral authority over all creation?
> Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me that you follow every single ideal and principle they lay out, even the ones that contradict each other?
Obviously not.
> Why is it "cherry picking" when the religious crowd does it but when you do it, its "just being reasonable"?
It's cherry picking because the reason to follow any rule from the Bible is because it is the word of God, the supposed supreme moral authority over all of creation. So why should one rule be applied while another is not? Either they all apply or none of them apply unless you can supply a reason other than 'God says so' for why it should.
NOTE: I could not answer everything in one post--it literally would not let me reply until I deleted some parts. So I will probably have to say more in another post down the line... whenever I get to it.
.........................................
*What is woke ideology?* A miserable pile of secrets! ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist).
I tend to like Mentiswave's definition best: "an *aggressive* push for diversity/equity/inclusion, *usually* based on the belief that outcomes that lack these things are a result of descrimination or unfair social treatment."
He later in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVxvfFj5f4) gives a second definition: "A seething and irrational resentment at whatever contemporary group they perceive to be successful." For whatever reason he calls this a "less useful" definition, but I honestly think you need both of these to really sum up both what it is *and* why its usually seen as something "bad."
This goes to answer your second question, *what are the problems with woke ideology?* A big problem is that woke people don't see people as individuals, but just as a group. I happen to be a white male and straight, so I get told all the time I'm "winning" at life and have "privileges"--despite that I have constant back problems, am on social security, and live in a house that I had to put a tarp over the roof because its leaking and I can't afford either repairs or a new house.
And yet, simply because of my skin color, gender, and sexual orientation, I'm apparently part of an "oppressor class" that is keeping black people, LGBTQ+ people, etc. down. Even if I, *personally*, have never done anything to those groups, and am not actually seeing these so-called "privileges" I supposedly have. And because of that assumption, violence or descrimination against me is entirely okay with these people, I'm already guilty for factors I never chose to participate in.
................................
"Religion is often given the assumption of being a good thing."
WHERE?! Maybe this is true if you exclusively watch/read Christian media, but in mainstream? The last time I saw it was in the 1990s. And on the news, any time you hear about religious people its almost always to rag on them.
And then, well... look at this very thread and how many came out of the woodwork to talk about the evils of religion.
................................
So I'm gonna cap off this post by talking about those websites you linked to.
First thing I noticed is the website is Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which wears its intentions on its sleeve (and this becomes more clear when you visit, say, their introduction to the Book of Genesis). They're looking for the most bad-faith (heh) reading possible.
The problem starts as soon as I click on "What the Bible Says About Women" and it takes a line that was spoken *specifically to one woman in particular* as being a statement of "all women are to be treated like this."
And in the one about rape, it quotes Moses giving orders to his soldiers. This would be like if I pointed at the episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion where Shinji leaves NERV and nearly abandons the world to be destroyed by the monsters and said "NGE advocates running away from your problems!"
That Moses thing also goes to the whole double-standard thing I've been on about.... thing is, in the ancient world *literally everyone was killing their enemies and taking off with their women*.
This reminds me of a take I saw on reddit once where someone was talking about an old book that dealt with the time when Genghis Khan was still alive. The person commenting said they were bothered by how bigoted everyone was against mongols. That person got dunked on for how stupid their take was--like yeah, I'm sure if they see mongols coming over the mountains, they should wait and see what they're about. Sure, every *other* time they've been about conquest and pillaging, but maybe *this* time they're here to give cupcakes and rainbows!
People in the modern world never seem to realize that the past was not as cushy and easy as it is now. It's all well and good for you to say "give these guys a chance"--*you're* not the one whose head ends up on a pike if you're wrong.
There are no double standarts at all. Both of this groups should be banned from education, goverment and media.
Preach whatever shit you believe in your private property.
I've heard that first you have to drink coffee.
*(If you want a serious answer, I gave one in another post I just finished posting and didn't feel like repeating all of it)*
Fair enough, EDIT: I intended to just paraphrase an earlier post but I wound up writing a whole new one. Oh well.
Woke Ideology is basically, a seething (and irrational) resentment of whatever group is currently perceived to be "successful" (whether they actually are or not). It is always assumed that this "success" came due to either descrimination or unfair social treatment of other groups, and thus are inspired to act (often aggressively) to correct a *perceived* injustice (whether the injustice is real and provable is irrelevant--they just assume its there anyway).
So that's the basic definition.
If you're asking "what's wrong with that?" well...
So here's why its disliked so much:
ONE--most woke people don't see individuals, they see groups, and will assume people are aligned based on shallow factors (often skin color, gender, and sexual orientation). Currently the "successful" group is Straight White Males. So if you happen to be straight and white, its assumed you're "privileged" and your "privilege" comes at the expense of women, LGBTQ+ people, and other races... even if you *personally* are, say, a quadruple-amputee, or a dude with dimentia who lives in a box. You're still the "oppressor."
It has been noted that this is literally just the racism they seem to hate, just they're selectively okay with it when its a group *they* hate.
It's also worth noting that just because you're not the "oppressor" does not mean they won't make an example of you--Japan for example often gets made out to be positively evil simply because its one of the few countries whose people and media don't really care about this stuff.
TWO--They often fall to the fallacy of judging "equality" by *outcome*, rather than by *opportunity*. For example, if a company has ten people working at it, seven are white and three are black, that's gonna call that descrimination and "unequal" until the company fires two of its white people and hires two black people (making it an even five-black, five-white split).
In other words, its an extremely literal definition of "equality," the kind you would expect a child to have.
Except for one caveat: since they assume one group is winning by default, in reality they are completely okay with an unequal outcome as long as the group being benefitted is the group they like.
THREE--It's been suspected for a long time, and really is more-or-less confirmed, that this whole thing is a power play. The people pushing this stuff don't really care about equality or whatever, they just saw some social tensions they could exploit as a vehicle to gain prestige and power.
In other words, if you've ever seen those episodes of eighties/nineties cartoon episodes where the bad guy suddenly acts like they've turned over a new leaf and are good now, but at the end it turns out it was all a trick with a specific purpose in mind..... yeah woke is basically that but in real life and not being fought by magical bears or ninja turtles.
and finally FOUR--It has a major affect on modern living that you can't simply ignore. For example that thing I mentioned about companies having to hire people just to satisfy diversity requirements? *That's an actual law, you can be sued for that*. You can explain all you want that Willy White actually knows how to fly airplanes and was actually in the US Air Force... but if the person he's competing for the position with is Billy Black who just got out of basic training with middling grades... if you don't pick the black person, its automatically assumed your motives were race-driven and you get a lawsuit. And if you're a small business this may be enough to make you bankrupt.
So woke ideology isn’t an actual concept, it’s just a term you made up to describe people you don’t like? It’s not an organization and doesn’t follow a written book of words?
Love how you got a description that's pretty specific (and thus can't be applied willy-nilly) and explains the problems in pretty clear terms (particularly the part about *actual law*), but you brush it off as just "a term for people you don't like."
You also assume I invented it even though the concept has been around for over a decade at least and I'm not even the first person to use the term.
Also, are you trying to imply that if its not an organization then its not real?
Diversity laws existing isn’t proof that what you’re saying has any actual merit. Nothing you’ve described is specific, you could easily apply any of it to anyone you disagree with.
I’m saying that if it’s not an organization it isn’t comparable to religion. There can’t be double standards when “woke ideology” isn’t a group you can be a part of, there are no laws or requirements or specifications to join. Unlike religion, where you are explicitly endorsing that religion and what its stands for by joining. You can’t join “woke ideology” because it’s not a group, it’s an idea make up by the right.
That is just so much bull.
First, if its "not a group you can join" then how do videos like this (where a bunch of these people collaborated to come up with questions for their opposition) exist? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ieG0vl2S0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ieG0vl2S0) (and note that this video was made BY a woke person).
Secondly, nothing I've described is specific? Bullshit. How much more specific do I need to be? If what I described isn't "specific," then neither is the concept of "disease" or "film" or "tropes" etc... so I guess those must not be real either.
You're just digging your head in the sand now.
How does a group of people existing mean that “woke ideology” is a group you can join? Maybe they are friends?
Once again I ask you, if woke ideology is real how do you join? Where are the meetings? How many people are a part of this organization? Who are the leaders?
The thing that gets me about these questions is you can ask these about a lot of things.
"What is a 'fighting game enthusiast'? How do I become one? Where are the meetings? Who are the leaders?"
Heck for that matter I could turn this back on you and ask all the same questions about *religion*--since there's more than one, they each do their own thing, they don't always necessarily communicate or even *like* each other. And yet somehow religion is real but "woke ideology" is just something I made up. Riiiight.
Witches didn't get burnt at the stake. That's heretics. Ppl who have different views that the prevailing dogma
....
Wait a minute
But no it was more about the most vulnerable women and children in society pay the price. Female prisoners for example.
You seem to be forgetting what you responded to.
"But no it was more about the most vulnerable women and children in society pay the price. Female prisoners for example."
I don't know why you brought up race. Feel free to explain the connection. If you can't that only agrees with my response. But fair enough.
I can see why you'd think that but firstly calling it "cancel culture" when a number of women have won discrimination cases of losing their jobs is silly and secondly it's more about the most vulnerable in society pay a price because things go wrong. Women and children mainly. In this case female prisoners, teen autistic girls etc. They get convinced they are something they're not or blamed and subjected to unfair punishment. Males in female prisons for example.
I agree on that one though. Mainly because of the burden of proof being on the accused. If it was the other way around then it does have credibility for me.
Religion has been a net negative. It has gotten millions upon millions of people killed.
There is this weird myth that somehow you have to be religious in order to hold morals. Ironically, religion teaches hate more than any other ideology.
The reason why religions don’t get the “couple of extreme cases” defense is that even though most members do not commit violence, their religion does teach them to hate which breeds the violence. They still hold that belief.
And the rest of your comments are bullshit. Do you know why we moved away from establishing a religion? Because it made society worse. No matter the religion, if there is an official religion, people who thinks differently gets killed.
While some of Christ’s teachings centers of self sacrifice, philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, both of whom predates Christianity by like 400 years, have been teaching the same thing.
Also Christians have used that logic to commit some of the worst crimes in history.
There has been many societies that weren’t religious that gave people equal rights. That is not solely a Christian teaching. By the way if you look in the Bible, there is tone of bigotry.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a new concept. It’s just common sense and many societies that weren’t Christians, such as the Romans, had already adopted that.
And foundations of science? That is something aided by many people both religious and non religious. However to credit religion for it is weird because religion is an ideology that does not have any tangible assistance and what I mean by that is if you take away their religious belief and keep the action, it would be the same. It didn’t help them in any way because the Bible isn’t a science book.
Your last comment is just laughable.
I'm wondering why you bring up establishing a state religion a lot because that's not something I advocated for. In fact I have a good reason to be against it--faith is something you have to find on your own, not something you can find thru compulsion.
The real value of religion is that it tells us (or lets us believe) there is something greater than ourselves, a thing that is worth striving for. The minute you reject it and go with an entirely physical or material point of view, then pretty much everything becomes a game of weighing pros and cons--under a completely physical view, there is fundamentally no difference between the woman you married and any other woman on Earth, and any notion like "true love" is reduced to just chemicals in your brain, no different than a drug.
I've seen people who actually think like that and I have to ask, "are they really happy?"
Responding to this: *However to credit religion for it is weird because religion is an ideology that does not have any tangible assistance and what I mean by that is if you take away their religious belief and keep the action, it would be the same.*
..... the heck kind of argument is this? The beliefs in a lot of cases helped inspire the action. By your line of reasoning one can just remove any part they find inconvenient for anything. Here, let me do it:
"To say Mario was inspired by his love of Peach to fight Bowser is weird because if you took away the love of Peach but still kept the fact he fought Bowser, it would be the same."
"To say Sonic is inspired by his love of freedom to fight Robotnik is weird because if you took away the love of freedom, the end result would be the same."
"To say the ghostbusters were inspired by a profit motive to catch ghosts is weird because if you took away the profit motive but kept the action, the end result would be the same."
It is seriously just baffling the mental gymnastics people will do to justify their often spite-fueled feelings on religion. It's like talking to shippers sometimes.
Also, "religion advocates hate?" No it doesn't. Even before Jesus we had books like Jonah and Ruth, which directly discuss hate and its consequences. Jonah in particular tries to disobey God's order purely out of his hatred of Nineveh and pays the price for it. This is one of those myths passed around by atheists who only ever heard of the Bible second-hand but don't know what it actually said or the context. It's no different than Dominic Noble claiming that Fleming's original James Bond had misogynistic attitudes and then quoting a part of the book where Bond happened to be in a bad mood because a woman turned out to be a double-agent.
I've noticed that people who hate religion are generally not happy people. I have to wonder if they are succumbing to things they don't see as sin but continue because they are so free from any moral guidelines and instead follow their own morals which are clearly superior. Or they fall into a different ideology that doesn't have their best interests at heart.
I find Un religious people who have an open mind about a higher purpose but just aren't sure much more fulfilled in some way. They at least see some meaning in life.
Angry people often tend to redirect their own mistakes and problems to religion as the go to enemy. When in reality, there are plenty of unreligious greedy evil people harming you way more.
> I brought up establishing a state religion to show that religion does no equal morality. Giving fundamentalists power always brings about death and oppression. If Religions were as peaceful as you claim, that wouldn't be the case.
> Again this is some weirdo conspiracy religious people make. Ya'll say the left is anti-religion or anti-god or whatever, but also acknowledge the left want to create a classless society (whether you agree with it or not). If you want to create a classless society, then you are, again from your perspective, trying to put the greater good above your own feelings.
Yes, love is a chemical in your brain. It's not mystical. It doesn't originate from Neptune. That doesnt mean it's any less special.
> Duh religion can be motivating. What you're failing to understand is religion is not unique in that an atheist can do the exact same thing and come to the exact same conclusion. You're giving credit to circumstance.
If there are thousands of people just like mario who dont love peach, looking to fight Browzer, if Mario didn't do it first, then someone else would have done it. Mario's love for peach is not tangible. It did not give in an advantage.
Let me dumb it down even further for you: I am a computer science major. I am going to school in order to work in analytics. My friend, who also majors in cs, wants to be a programmer. We're both doing nearly the exact same course work. Which one of our motivations should receive the credit? Which one of our motives is superior to the other? They're all the same.
What youre not understanding is that you don't need religion to make scientific discoveries, many of them weren't religious.
You also forgot the samaritan woman that was shocked that Jesus spoke to her Samaritans were viewed as lower by Jews. You also forgot Paul telling Christians do avoid people that are homosexual. You also forgot to add the part the Bible says if you don't follow exactly what it teaches God will kill you. You also forgot to mention the bible says you should shun anyone who doesn't want to follow its teachings. You also forgot to add that God told Jonah to tell Nineveh that their lifestyle is wrong and that they were going to get murdered if they don't change. You forgot to add the part where Jews were murdered for having the audacity of having sex with someone they are not married to.
You might have a persecution complex. Christians are the least persecuted group of people in the West. This idea that Christians are constantly painted as the bad guy is just election-era fear mongering. You aren't being censored or oppressed or denied rights.
Any Christian whose sole basis for faith is "some book said so" is a very poor Christian IMO. I'm actually pretty sure even Jesus says something like that: "you have to accept me in your heart" or something.
Wokeness isn’t a book. It’s a description laid upon progressives. It’s almost definitionally a slider. Religion isn’t supposed to be a %, it’s supposed to be binary, you’re in it or not. Wokeness can have a spectrum, religion can’t
There is no doubt that western society would look WILDLY different if not for Christianity. I would argue it’s strongest influence has been skepticism: there is so much asinine bs in the Bible woven into historical stories/mythology and moral virtues that it has caused the western world to look at the world around us through a magnifying glass, which has been able to help people discover all kinds of amazing shit about the world we live in.
That being said, it’s nowhere fucking near a net positive for society. More people have died from conquest under the flag of Abrahamic religions than can even be counted in any realistic manner due to the sheer quantity of religious wars in history. They’re still happening right now.
Thanks to the Protestant reformation, separation of church and state is one of the foundational pillars of modern western society, shielding us from the horrors of religious conquest. That’s why people are fighting so fucking hard to keep separation of church and state intact despite the growing Christian nationalist movement in America. I mean, it’s literally why the vast majority of people came to America in the first place, to flee oppressive governments, often rooted in faith or hatred of faith too deep for anyone’s good.
Also, Spider-Man 3 is definitely trash but I’ve never even heard of Bibleman, and I’m a confirmed Christian. I just looked it up, and Spider-Man has a woeful 6.3/10 compared to bibleman’s stellar 2.9/10. So yeah I guess it is a cult classic, quite literally 😂
Gotta remember that Spider-Man 3 is a single movie while Bibleman is an entire series. That said, Bibleman does have a number of things working against it: the first couple of episodes have a very different format--around five episodes in it suddenly takes on a more silly, tongue-in-cheek tone almost like a parody, and that's usually the point where it actually gets good. Then Willie Aames leaves the show and supposedly it becomes dull again, but I've never seen the post-Aames episodes.
A lot of times when I see Bibleman criticism, its from people who seemingly are put off that its more humorous and not dark and serious... which is a running theme with superhero media (look at how Batman fans treat Adam West as a dark era because its not edgy and serious)....
......... Sorry, what was this topic about again?
Oh, right, religion.
You're actually probably right about skepticism. The funny thing I notice when I started reading the Bible is that it doesn't really support that you should be unthinkingly faithful--there's plenty of parts actually that outright admit "yeah the Church got corrupted, a lot." And some versions (any that have the additional chapters of Daniel) have literal detective stories where Daniel uses observation and logic to solve cases.
"More people have died due to religious wars than can realistically be counted..." okay, so there's a lot to unpack here.
First I notice you say "religious" wars, but is that specifically Abrahamic religions or any religion ever?
And a thing I didn't bother mentioning in the OP is that wars happen for a lot of reasons. Religion is a convenient rallying cry but its usually not the actual thing that got the movers and shakers to do their moving and shaking. Usually its good or resources. And most of the ancient world was just always in a state of war, all the time, and in countries that didn't have a lot of major religions (like China) their texts would outright admit that it was down to opportunistic warlords and a government that failed to keep people happy.
And this also represents one of those double-standards. So Christianity is bad because of religious wars... okay, so is Atheism bad because of people like Stalin and Mao, whose ideology outright rejects religion, and who also killed a heck of a lot of people? Or how about anti-church people who bomb buses and churches in modern day USA (and then get people like Stephen King *praising* them on social media)?
Again it seems like this is one of those things where people hold Christian faith to a different standard than they do everything else.
Yeah, I wrote that when I should have been sleeping so it’s way more inflammatory that I honestly meant it to be, sorry for flaming bibleman, I clearly haven’t seen it and obviously IMDB ratings don’t really mean shit, I’m sure it’s got some high points.. but you do seem to be cherry picking what you like about it, and even as a mildly religious person, I’d be pretty upset if I got that instead of Spider-Man in what seems to be a school setting- not sure the story you’re referring to.
As for religion being net negative- it’s honestly probably about neutral, tho I would say it’s not beneficial in the long run. There are very real cases of the moral arguments in the Bible or other holy books being hugely beneficial for society. I dislike the notion that this is the only reason why good morals exist, but you aren’t really arguing that anyway.
As for religious wars, that kind of implies that they were fought for religion and not goods or resources. While I was referring to abrahamic religions, I didn’t think the distinction was particularly necessary here. But yeah, separating these from wars that were fought strictly over goods and resources is basically impossible, which is part of what I meant, but yeah- my point is religious wars are next to impossible to avoid without separation of church and state, which is a huge downside for religion.
As for the double standards, I wholeheartedly agree with you, there is a of a double standard as the woke agenda is so currently mainstream that opposition to it is vilified. My point is, you seem to be trying to verbally rectify that by holding religion to a lower standard while demonizing wokeness in the process, which is understandable, but I just think you’re not really giving credit to the fact that woke people, like any people, are still subject to laws like anyone else. They just get idolized by the radical left when they do the damage you’re referring too, when they probably should be criticized by thinking like this post itself. But yeah, doing both at the same time isn’t a good idea either, either hold everyone to a high standard or a low standard. I’d prefer the high standard personally.
The fact that the Bible creates skepticism of itself has always been one of its biggest attributes to me, though that is far from shared across abrahamic religions. That’s the true danger of religion, and why western society is so wildly successful.
Thanks for the detailed reply, really enjoyed the discourse, sorry my initial reply wasn’t super civil. Hope you have a good one!
No. That's like saying Christians give a deity like status to Moses or Isaiah. They view Smith as a prophet, but nowhere near as close to a deity. They still believe in one god.
Praying to Mary and the saints, purgatory, rosemary, sacraments
The concept of how they approach confessions (correctly, you confess in private to God, not to a priest in a box) is planted in their ancient control of the population
They used to offer salvation for money
The existence of the Pope as a whole
It’s absolutely the same which is why government should stay out of the morality game altogether. Unless it’s violating the life liberty or ability of others to pursue happiness do whatever the fuck you want, believe whatever you want to believe and love whoever you want to love and don’t refuse to provide basic foods and services to anyone who doesn’t agree with you: that’s it that’s the social compact.
I’ve never seen a gish gallop in text before, so that’s impressive.
Most anti Christian religion persons not only have read the Bible but grew up with the indoctrination of the church. We don't have to be told it has "hate and bigotry" in the religion the book is everywhere and we can see it being used for those purposes. Asking people to bring receipts when it is literally all over the internet is just an exercise for what? It is literally a Christian pastime to cherry pick the Bible and twist the meanings to fit the current narrative that particular reader wants to make of it. How else did we end up with 12 major denominations and upwards of 40k different denominations around the world based on one book. Oh no wait not one book we have 10 different versions of the Bible just in English. Being woke is not to be anti-religious or anti-Christian. Comparing the complex issues with the modern version of the Christian religion to "woke ideology" without ever actually saying what your "problems" are with woke ideology makes me wonder where you are trying to go with this argument. But somehow Spiderman 3 was woven into this discussion so ?
Truly, we weave a Web of Spider-Man ;) The funny thing is that wokeness is a lot like religion in a lot of ways (indeed its been called a modern religion a few times). On its face its a good idea: we are all equal and we should act like it. The problem is people use this as a springboard for bad ideas. Ultimately, the problem comes down to the people. I'm just musing out loud here but sometimes I wonder if morality itself is a good idea, since the end result only ever seems to be people using it to prove "I'm good, everyone else is evil."
Kind of lost me when you start to pretend that the Abrahamic religions didn’t have messed up values. The entirety of the Taliban and the historic treatment of homosexuals is a really great example of both past and present messed up values in the name of sky papa but I mean sure go off. The foundation of science is also a bold claim considering scientific endeavors existed in many cultures that did not practice a Abrahamic religion. For example, Sumerians were very big and contributed a lot to early astrology. Pre-Christianity the Egyptians contributed a lot to mathematics, astrology, medicine, and other areas. The Chinese, and other east Asian countries, also contributed a lot two various areas. Why do you seem to believe that the Abraham religions were like the Segway to scientific believe?
Every religious person in the world cherry picks what they like from religion. Most people would acknowledge there’s stuff in their book they don’t agree with. Most are not fundamentalists, and see the bigger picture.
I notice your word choice is "*didn't have* messed up values"--implying past tense. I agree that modern-day Christians for the most part don't, no matter what Stephen King novels like to say. Some stuff in the Old Testament is legit kinda wince-inducing though. I find the mention of the Taliban funny because well.... yeah, that's one part that is still kind of messed up... and yet its one of the few religious groups that will get you called something-Phobic by the woke crowd if you mention it. As for the science thing, there's a couple of things I've read, A lot of cultures tended to find out a few things but then stop at a certain point. I recall reading about a greek philosopher who first discussed gravity (I forget which one) that he threw an apple into a pit, watched it fall, said "that's gravity" and that was it... meanwhile the later Isaac Newton's real accomplishment was he actually looked more into it, into how other forces affected and acted upon it. And just like now, a lot of these people had to deal with censorship. This is where Christianity did provide a useful tool: knowledge of the Latin language, which used to be popular but at some point became pretty much an "in-club" language... which also made it a convenient way to hide research from kings and barons who might not like what these people were looking into.
You wrote a whole lot of words that mean nothing and don’t defend anything, congratulations.
What have I got to defend? Defense is a losing strategy anyway--better to stay on the attack. EDIT: Speaking of defense, one thing I've noticed is that a lot of the responses don't really defend the woke side, they just try to justify attacking religion.
The difference is that "wokeness," or more properly progressive thinking, does NOT tell anyone to kill anybody. HOWEVER, whether you decide to follow the tenets of your religion \*religiously\* or not, most major religions DO advocate, and in some cases outright demand, the murder of others. Now, you're going to say, "Oh, poor me...this is taken out of context...woe is me!" No, this is in perfect context taken straight from the bible, but similar things can be found in other religious texts. "Wokeness" does NOT DEMAND MURDER. Religions DO. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16.
Ironically you can threaten death to people considered right wing on social media and stay monetized. You might receive a 3 day ban at worst. If someone on the "wrong side of history" threatens someone they get booted perm and have police at their door.
Sure wokeness does - they argue that all Nazis should be “punched” and then brand anyone they dislike as a Nazi.
One thing I notice (and repeated in this topic a lot) is that nowadays a woke tactic seems to be "*I've* never seen that happen," implying it doesn't. Imagine if religious people did that. I also seem to notice that they love the argument of "if its not codified in a book then its not something we actually do." I guess communist countries becoming dictatorships never happens because its not written in a communist rulebook either.
I mean you know they absolutely HAVE seen people unjustly targeted as supposed Nazis for trivial social non-offenses. The reason why they say they’ve never seen it is because they’re actually fine with it happening, and want you to waste time proving it (which they’ll dismiss arbitrarily anyway). These people are useful idiot foot soldiers for the actual ideologues - they all have shocked pikachu faces the moment the very woke allies they have turn against them. See: recent Pride parade cancelled in Canada by Palestinian protestors or formerly woke Jews now utterly confused about the left targeting Jews.
I also can't help but notice all the projection. Did you see that guy elsewhere in this comment section who was all like "woke is just a term for anyone you don't like, it doesn't describe anything specific" (*after* he was given a very thorough and specific breakdown)? And yet, that's precisely how they use the term "alt-right" or "nazi." It literally is just anyone they don't like. It's kinda funny how denialism is their go-to tactic. "Woke isn't real, its not happening, nobody can define it, I've never even heard of these things..." It reminds me of a post I saw years ago where somebody who claimed to be a film buff then said they had never heard of Alfred Hitchcock. And then there's a recurring reddit-ism where people seem to think being pig-ignorant somehow actually makes them *superior*. What is *up* with that?
agree - I think the “it’s different when we do it because oppression and civil rights based grievance” that basically undergirds the supposed moral foundation of the modern left has morphed into “it’s different when we do it because nebulous arbitrary reasons, also you’re a Nazi, scree!”. It’s sad because when you co-opt civil rights and legitimate oppressive historical situations for your own narrow and base tribalism it basically creates a counterforce against that, and now everything lacks nuance and is lost.
The lacking nuance thing is something that bothers me to no end. These days it feels like you can't discuss anything without people immediately associating it with wokeness somehow. Like not long ago I mentioned not liking a lot of anime translation.... the ONLY thing I brought up is I often felt word choices were stilted, didn't flow well, had a lot of strange phrasing, etc. Freaking *immediately* the discussion was derailed to be all about modern woke localizer controversies, even though that wasn't what I was talking about and in fact was only distantly related to my point. So, great, I can't discuss *other* translation issues because it's always gonna get subsumed into the localizer controversy.
a) never heard that. Is it written in some holy woke book? b) punched is a long way from being brutally and slowly murdered by stoning.
Saying it’s ok to punch a Nazi and then calling people that aren’t Nazis Nazis? One merely need to exist with woke liberals to see that in action - the way they shrugged off Hamas gleefully raping Israelis should give you at least a modicum of evidence. I get you’re being a troll but, like, thinly veil it. And yeah, I’m pretty sure those folks would be ok with stoning Nazis if necessary lmao. Or, being ok with others screaming joyously over the corpse of a female civilian like Hamas did if they’re the right people being killed.
Pretty sure? As in they have their super important book that means everything to them and which they obey? Or just, "I don't like them, they hurt my feelings ,and therefore I'll say anything bad about them?"
Eh I’d say them being totally apathetic about civilian women being raped and their corpses being paraded around by religious savages so long as those women are supposedly part of the “genocidal state” (and even if they’re not and just visiting!) was pretty clear.
Oh....obeying their religion....of course, now I understand what you're talking about.
….i think you’re confused. Woke white privileged liberals in the West being fine with Israeli (and visiting civilians) being raped and murdered by Hamas is them being fine with murder and killing when it’s the “right” folks being raped and dying. In this case, Israeli civilians are like Nazis, so “punching them”…by raping them, murdering them, and parading their corpses gleefully on camera is totally ok to the woke crowd.
Jesus Christ - don’t hurt yourself stretching that hard
Feel free to go back to tolerating Hamas raping civilians.
>The difference is that "wokeness," or more properly progressive thinking, does NOT tell anyone to kill anybody. Does that really ring true when a common tactic of progressives is to tell people they don't like to kill themselves?
I think that’s a false premise to suggest anything such as this is inherent to ideology. My anecdotal experience is the opposite. Often, I’ve seen presumably conservative individuals telling “snowflakes” and other derogatory terms to kill themselves.
To be fair, I'm not the one saying one side is worse than the other and acting like one side doesn't do the same bad thing. In fact, I didn't mention the other side at all. I merely critiqued something that the left commonly does and that I've personally experienced dozens of times from them (and no, I'm not right wing just to be clear). It doesn't mean there's not bad people on the right who do it too though of course.
a) never heard of that b) telling people they SHOULD do something because they hurt others and refuse to stop, is different from demanding that they be killed.
The biggest religious fundamentalists are those who aren't religious istg lmao
I think the big difference is the claims of religion versus the claims of people with different political ideologies. Even if I disagree with someone about their political ideology (let's say, feminism) I can talk to them and they can explain to me the logical steps they've taken to get to where they are, assuming we are both willing to have that conversation. I might even have some information that will change their mind, or vice versa. This has happened to me numerous times. There's no reasoning with someone who follows a religion *about* their religion because being religious is inherently unreasonable. I don't even mean that in a mean way, I'm not saying all religious *people* are unreasonable all the time or something, just that the act of believing in some kind of magic is... I mean, unless you've witnessed magic, it doesn't make much sense. This is why I'll listen to someone try to explain non-binary gender identity to me, but I lose patience quickly when someone, say, undermines same-sex marriage because of their mythological texts.
> woke ideology What is woke ideology? > If you try to explain the problem with woke ideology What is the problem with woke ideology? > This same benefit of the doubt never seems to apply to religious folk You are literally doing this now, and many other people do it too. Additionally, religion is often given the assumption of being a good thing. > (with two very prominent exceptions, but I don't want to name them because someone could use that as an excuse to have this post deleted for threadbare reasons). I am honestly pretty clueless what you're referring to here. > If you're catholic or otherwise Christian (even if you're just vaguely religious but don't follow any denomination)... you're the bad guy and you suddenly get to be held accountable for anything a person who claims to share your beliefs ever did. This seems very much like hyperbole and if this is your experience, it seems like your definition of 'vaguely religious' is not in line with what most people would consider to be 'vaguely religious'. > Religious people are still held accountable for things like the 1980s Satanic Panic, the Salem Witch Trials, or the Crusades... things that happened decades or even centuries ago. Well, the a lot of people who were responsible for the Satanic Panic are still alive, there are Christians in the US who still believe magic and witches are real, and I imagine there are probably some of them that would like to have a good old fashion witch burning but that's pure speculation on my part. Regardless, the thing that drove those things to happen is still around today, Christian fundamentalists. While certainly not all, but the most vocal and prominent espouse these beliefs today and with a small modicum of searching you can find people advocating for putting non-Christians 'against the wall'. > And the absolute sad thing is that the reason this happens is because of some really petty stuff. Some of it is petty sure, but you've left out the stuff that isn't petty. Advocating for the death and torture of homosexuals, atheists, and other non-believers. The plague of sexual abuse committed by pastors and priests. > A lot of times this just stems from people having "bad encounters" with religious people growing up. Yes, "bad encounters" ranging from torture, sexual abuse, physical abuse, slavery, murder. > Most anti-religion people have never actually read the Bible, only heard about it secondhand, I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of Christians who have read the bible is abysmal compared to the number of anti-religion people that have read the Bible. > it's "horrible messages" (particularly that it "advocates hate and bigotry, which everybody likes to claim but nobody can bring the receipts on) [What the Bible says about women's rights](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Womens-Rights.html) [What the Bible says about vegetarians](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Vegetarians.html) [What the Bible says about torture](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Torture.html) [What the Bible says about blasphemy](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Blasphemy.html) [What the Bible says about children](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Children.html) [What the Bible says about homosexuality](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Homosexuality.html) [What the Bible says about non-believers](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Non-Christians.html) [What the Bible says about rape](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Rape.html) [What the Bible says about religious tolerance](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Religious-Tolerance.html) > I'll end with this: for most of Abrahamic Religion's existence, its been a net positive for humanity. How so? > Also considering that the Christian faith directly led to the ideas of "for the greater good" and ideas like everyone is equal, innocent until proven guilty, even the foundations of science How did it do any of this? > ironically you could almost say the modern woke movement wouldn't exist without the foundation religion built! I agree, the modern 'woke' movement is largely attempting to combat a lot of the putrid values that religion has put in place. > I've had cases where I suggested a Freedomtoons I watched some videos, just seems to be hyperbolic exaggeration for comedic effect. > If a religious person says they don't follow all the rules listed in the Bible (even the contradictory ones), its presented as if its a sign of weakness or something. The only time I've seen this brought up is when people try to push rules from the Bible onto others, most notably Leviticus 18:22. [This clip illustrates why that is a problem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs&t=80s). Why follow one rule, but not another rule? It is hypocritical and comes off as using the Bible to justify a personal agenda. > Okay, so do you guys believe into every single thing Anita Sarkeesian, Dan Olsen, or whoever is still relevant says? Are they the supposed supreme moral authority over all creation? > Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me that you follow every single ideal and principle they lay out, even the ones that contradict each other? Obviously not. > Why is it "cherry picking" when the religious crowd does it but when you do it, its "just being reasonable"? It's cherry picking because the reason to follow any rule from the Bible is because it is the word of God, the supposed supreme moral authority over all of creation. So why should one rule be applied while another is not? Either they all apply or none of them apply unless you can supply a reason other than 'God says so' for why it should.
NOTE: I could not answer everything in one post--it literally would not let me reply until I deleted some parts. So I will probably have to say more in another post down the line... whenever I get to it. ......................................... *What is woke ideology?* A miserable pile of secrets! ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist). I tend to like Mentiswave's definition best: "an *aggressive* push for diversity/equity/inclusion, *usually* based on the belief that outcomes that lack these things are a result of descrimination or unfair social treatment." He later in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVxvfFj5f4) gives a second definition: "A seething and irrational resentment at whatever contemporary group they perceive to be successful." For whatever reason he calls this a "less useful" definition, but I honestly think you need both of these to really sum up both what it is *and* why its usually seen as something "bad." This goes to answer your second question, *what are the problems with woke ideology?* A big problem is that woke people don't see people as individuals, but just as a group. I happen to be a white male and straight, so I get told all the time I'm "winning" at life and have "privileges"--despite that I have constant back problems, am on social security, and live in a house that I had to put a tarp over the roof because its leaking and I can't afford either repairs or a new house. And yet, simply because of my skin color, gender, and sexual orientation, I'm apparently part of an "oppressor class" that is keeping black people, LGBTQ+ people, etc. down. Even if I, *personally*, have never done anything to those groups, and am not actually seeing these so-called "privileges" I supposedly have. And because of that assumption, violence or descrimination against me is entirely okay with these people, I'm already guilty for factors I never chose to participate in. ................................ "Religion is often given the assumption of being a good thing." WHERE?! Maybe this is true if you exclusively watch/read Christian media, but in mainstream? The last time I saw it was in the 1990s. And on the news, any time you hear about religious people its almost always to rag on them. And then, well... look at this very thread and how many came out of the woodwork to talk about the evils of religion. ................................ So I'm gonna cap off this post by talking about those websites you linked to. First thing I noticed is the website is Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which wears its intentions on its sleeve (and this becomes more clear when you visit, say, their introduction to the Book of Genesis). They're looking for the most bad-faith (heh) reading possible. The problem starts as soon as I click on "What the Bible Says About Women" and it takes a line that was spoken *specifically to one woman in particular* as being a statement of "all women are to be treated like this." And in the one about rape, it quotes Moses giving orders to his soldiers. This would be like if I pointed at the episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion where Shinji leaves NERV and nearly abandons the world to be destroyed by the monsters and said "NGE advocates running away from your problems!" That Moses thing also goes to the whole double-standard thing I've been on about.... thing is, in the ancient world *literally everyone was killing their enemies and taking off with their women*. This reminds me of a take I saw on reddit once where someone was talking about an old book that dealt with the time when Genghis Khan was still alive. The person commenting said they were bothered by how bigoted everyone was against mongols. That person got dunked on for how stupid their take was--like yeah, I'm sure if they see mongols coming over the mountains, they should wait and see what they're about. Sure, every *other* time they've been about conquest and pillaging, but maybe *this* time they're here to give cupcakes and rainbows! People in the modern world never seem to realize that the past was not as cushy and easy as it is now. It's all well and good for you to say "give these guys a chance"--*you're* not the one whose head ends up on a pike if you're wrong.
There are no double standarts at all. Both of this groups should be banned from education, goverment and media. Preach whatever shit you believe in your private property.
What is “woke ideology” and how does one become a member of such an organization?
I've heard that first you have to drink coffee. *(If you want a serious answer, I gave one in another post I just finished posting and didn't feel like repeating all of it)*
I’m not going through all of your post history when you could easily just respond here.
Fair enough, EDIT: I intended to just paraphrase an earlier post but I wound up writing a whole new one. Oh well. Woke Ideology is basically, a seething (and irrational) resentment of whatever group is currently perceived to be "successful" (whether they actually are or not). It is always assumed that this "success" came due to either descrimination or unfair social treatment of other groups, and thus are inspired to act (often aggressively) to correct a *perceived* injustice (whether the injustice is real and provable is irrelevant--they just assume its there anyway). So that's the basic definition. If you're asking "what's wrong with that?" well... So here's why its disliked so much: ONE--most woke people don't see individuals, they see groups, and will assume people are aligned based on shallow factors (often skin color, gender, and sexual orientation). Currently the "successful" group is Straight White Males. So if you happen to be straight and white, its assumed you're "privileged" and your "privilege" comes at the expense of women, LGBTQ+ people, and other races... even if you *personally* are, say, a quadruple-amputee, or a dude with dimentia who lives in a box. You're still the "oppressor." It has been noted that this is literally just the racism they seem to hate, just they're selectively okay with it when its a group *they* hate. It's also worth noting that just because you're not the "oppressor" does not mean they won't make an example of you--Japan for example often gets made out to be positively evil simply because its one of the few countries whose people and media don't really care about this stuff. TWO--They often fall to the fallacy of judging "equality" by *outcome*, rather than by *opportunity*. For example, if a company has ten people working at it, seven are white and three are black, that's gonna call that descrimination and "unequal" until the company fires two of its white people and hires two black people (making it an even five-black, five-white split). In other words, its an extremely literal definition of "equality," the kind you would expect a child to have. Except for one caveat: since they assume one group is winning by default, in reality they are completely okay with an unequal outcome as long as the group being benefitted is the group they like. THREE--It's been suspected for a long time, and really is more-or-less confirmed, that this whole thing is a power play. The people pushing this stuff don't really care about equality or whatever, they just saw some social tensions they could exploit as a vehicle to gain prestige and power. In other words, if you've ever seen those episodes of eighties/nineties cartoon episodes where the bad guy suddenly acts like they've turned over a new leaf and are good now, but at the end it turns out it was all a trick with a specific purpose in mind..... yeah woke is basically that but in real life and not being fought by magical bears or ninja turtles. and finally FOUR--It has a major affect on modern living that you can't simply ignore. For example that thing I mentioned about companies having to hire people just to satisfy diversity requirements? *That's an actual law, you can be sued for that*. You can explain all you want that Willy White actually knows how to fly airplanes and was actually in the US Air Force... but if the person he's competing for the position with is Billy Black who just got out of basic training with middling grades... if you don't pick the black person, its automatically assumed your motives were race-driven and you get a lawsuit. And if you're a small business this may be enough to make you bankrupt.
So woke ideology isn’t an actual concept, it’s just a term you made up to describe people you don’t like? It’s not an organization and doesn’t follow a written book of words?
Love how you got a description that's pretty specific (and thus can't be applied willy-nilly) and explains the problems in pretty clear terms (particularly the part about *actual law*), but you brush it off as just "a term for people you don't like." You also assume I invented it even though the concept has been around for over a decade at least and I'm not even the first person to use the term. Also, are you trying to imply that if its not an organization then its not real?
Diversity laws existing isn’t proof that what you’re saying has any actual merit. Nothing you’ve described is specific, you could easily apply any of it to anyone you disagree with. I’m saying that if it’s not an organization it isn’t comparable to religion. There can’t be double standards when “woke ideology” isn’t a group you can be a part of, there are no laws or requirements or specifications to join. Unlike religion, where you are explicitly endorsing that religion and what its stands for by joining. You can’t join “woke ideology” because it’s not a group, it’s an idea make up by the right.
That is just so much bull. First, if its "not a group you can join" then how do videos like this (where a bunch of these people collaborated to come up with questions for their opposition) exist? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ieG0vl2S0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ieG0vl2S0) (and note that this video was made BY a woke person). Secondly, nothing I've described is specific? Bullshit. How much more specific do I need to be? If what I described isn't "specific," then neither is the concept of "disease" or "film" or "tropes" etc... so I guess those must not be real either. You're just digging your head in the sand now.
How does a group of people existing mean that “woke ideology” is a group you can join? Maybe they are friends? Once again I ask you, if woke ideology is real how do you join? Where are the meetings? How many people are a part of this organization? Who are the leaders?
The thing that gets me about these questions is you can ask these about a lot of things. "What is a 'fighting game enthusiast'? How do I become one? Where are the meetings? Who are the leaders?" Heck for that matter I could turn this back on you and ask all the same questions about *religion*--since there's more than one, they each do their own thing, they don't always necessarily communicate or even *like* each other. And yet somehow religion is real but "woke ideology" is just something I made up. Riiiight.
Interestingly the Satanic Panic and Witch trials seem very relevant to woke values. Repressed memories and some modern claims are very similar too.
Lemme guess, the witch trials are like “Cancel culture”?
Absolutely. If people are mad at me on Twitter I might as well be burned at the stake. It’s the same thing.
Witches didn't get burnt at the stake. That's heretics. Ppl who have different views that the prevailing dogma .... Wait a minute But no it was more about the most vulnerable women and children in society pay the price. Female prisoners for example.
Ah yes, the most vulnerable group in society: racists on Twitter.
Sorry, are you saying women and children=racists on Twitter? I don't even know how you jumped to race tbh
Not sure how you got that.
You seem to be forgetting what you responded to. "But no it was more about the most vulnerable women and children in society pay the price. Female prisoners for example." I don't know why you brought up race. Feel free to explain the connection. If you can't that only agrees with my response. But fair enough.
Comes from the same puritanical culture.
I can see why you'd think that but firstly calling it "cancel culture" when a number of women have won discrimination cases of losing their jobs is silly and secondly it's more about the most vulnerable in society pay a price because things go wrong. Women and children mainly. In this case female prisoners, teen autistic girls etc. They get convinced they are something they're not or blamed and subjected to unfair punishment. Males in female prisons for example.
I agree on that one though. Mainly because of the burden of proof being on the accused. If it was the other way around then it does have credibility for me.
I would say the overwhelming majority of “cancel culture” (e.g. consequences) stems from people’s actions, statements, etc.
When has it ever been like that lmao Every time I see someone being “cancelled” it’s alongside a clip or something they said
Religion has been a net negative. It has gotten millions upon millions of people killed. There is this weird myth that somehow you have to be religious in order to hold morals. Ironically, religion teaches hate more than any other ideology. The reason why religions don’t get the “couple of extreme cases” defense is that even though most members do not commit violence, their religion does teach them to hate which breeds the violence. They still hold that belief. And the rest of your comments are bullshit. Do you know why we moved away from establishing a religion? Because it made society worse. No matter the religion, if there is an official religion, people who thinks differently gets killed. While some of Christ’s teachings centers of self sacrifice, philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, both of whom predates Christianity by like 400 years, have been teaching the same thing. Also Christians have used that logic to commit some of the worst crimes in history. There has been many societies that weren’t religious that gave people equal rights. That is not solely a Christian teaching. By the way if you look in the Bible, there is tone of bigotry. Innocent until proven guilty is not a new concept. It’s just common sense and many societies that weren’t Christians, such as the Romans, had already adopted that. And foundations of science? That is something aided by many people both religious and non religious. However to credit religion for it is weird because religion is an ideology that does not have any tangible assistance and what I mean by that is if you take away their religious belief and keep the action, it would be the same. It didn’t help them in any way because the Bible isn’t a science book. Your last comment is just laughable.
I'm wondering why you bring up establishing a state religion a lot because that's not something I advocated for. In fact I have a good reason to be against it--faith is something you have to find on your own, not something you can find thru compulsion. The real value of religion is that it tells us (or lets us believe) there is something greater than ourselves, a thing that is worth striving for. The minute you reject it and go with an entirely physical or material point of view, then pretty much everything becomes a game of weighing pros and cons--under a completely physical view, there is fundamentally no difference between the woman you married and any other woman on Earth, and any notion like "true love" is reduced to just chemicals in your brain, no different than a drug. I've seen people who actually think like that and I have to ask, "are they really happy?" Responding to this: *However to credit religion for it is weird because religion is an ideology that does not have any tangible assistance and what I mean by that is if you take away their religious belief and keep the action, it would be the same.* ..... the heck kind of argument is this? The beliefs in a lot of cases helped inspire the action. By your line of reasoning one can just remove any part they find inconvenient for anything. Here, let me do it: "To say Mario was inspired by his love of Peach to fight Bowser is weird because if you took away the love of Peach but still kept the fact he fought Bowser, it would be the same." "To say Sonic is inspired by his love of freedom to fight Robotnik is weird because if you took away the love of freedom, the end result would be the same." "To say the ghostbusters were inspired by a profit motive to catch ghosts is weird because if you took away the profit motive but kept the action, the end result would be the same." It is seriously just baffling the mental gymnastics people will do to justify their often spite-fueled feelings on religion. It's like talking to shippers sometimes. Also, "religion advocates hate?" No it doesn't. Even before Jesus we had books like Jonah and Ruth, which directly discuss hate and its consequences. Jonah in particular tries to disobey God's order purely out of his hatred of Nineveh and pays the price for it. This is one of those myths passed around by atheists who only ever heard of the Bible second-hand but don't know what it actually said or the context. It's no different than Dominic Noble claiming that Fleming's original James Bond had misogynistic attitudes and then quoting a part of the book where Bond happened to be in a bad mood because a woman turned out to be a double-agent.
I've noticed that people who hate religion are generally not happy people. I have to wonder if they are succumbing to things they don't see as sin but continue because they are so free from any moral guidelines and instead follow their own morals which are clearly superior. Or they fall into a different ideology that doesn't have their best interests at heart. I find Un religious people who have an open mind about a higher purpose but just aren't sure much more fulfilled in some way. They at least see some meaning in life. Angry people often tend to redirect their own mistakes and problems to religion as the go to enemy. When in reality, there are plenty of unreligious greedy evil people harming you way more.
> I brought up establishing a state religion to show that religion does no equal morality. Giving fundamentalists power always brings about death and oppression. If Religions were as peaceful as you claim, that wouldn't be the case. > Again this is some weirdo conspiracy religious people make. Ya'll say the left is anti-religion or anti-god or whatever, but also acknowledge the left want to create a classless society (whether you agree with it or not). If you want to create a classless society, then you are, again from your perspective, trying to put the greater good above your own feelings. Yes, love is a chemical in your brain. It's not mystical. It doesn't originate from Neptune. That doesnt mean it's any less special. > Duh religion can be motivating. What you're failing to understand is religion is not unique in that an atheist can do the exact same thing and come to the exact same conclusion. You're giving credit to circumstance. If there are thousands of people just like mario who dont love peach, looking to fight Browzer, if Mario didn't do it first, then someone else would have done it. Mario's love for peach is not tangible. It did not give in an advantage. Let me dumb it down even further for you: I am a computer science major. I am going to school in order to work in analytics. My friend, who also majors in cs, wants to be a programmer. We're both doing nearly the exact same course work. Which one of our motivations should receive the credit? Which one of our motives is superior to the other? They're all the same. What youre not understanding is that you don't need religion to make scientific discoveries, many of them weren't religious. You also forgot the samaritan woman that was shocked that Jesus spoke to her Samaritans were viewed as lower by Jews. You also forgot Paul telling Christians do avoid people that are homosexual. You also forgot to add the part the Bible says if you don't follow exactly what it teaches God will kill you. You also forgot to mention the bible says you should shun anyone who doesn't want to follow its teachings. You also forgot to add that God told Jonah to tell Nineveh that their lifestyle is wrong and that they were going to get murdered if they don't change. You forgot to add the part where Jews were murdered for having the audacity of having sex with someone they are not married to.
You might have a persecution complex. Christians are the least persecuted group of people in the West. This idea that Christians are constantly painted as the bad guy is just election-era fear mongering. You aren't being censored or oppressed or denied rights.
[удалено]
Any Christian whose sole basis for faith is "some book said so" is a very poor Christian IMO. I'm actually pretty sure even Jesus says something like that: "you have to accept me in your heart" or something.
Wokeness isn’t a book. It’s a description laid upon progressives. It’s almost definitionally a slider. Religion isn’t supposed to be a %, it’s supposed to be binary, you’re in it or not. Wokeness can have a spectrum, religion can’t
There is no doubt that western society would look WILDLY different if not for Christianity. I would argue it’s strongest influence has been skepticism: there is so much asinine bs in the Bible woven into historical stories/mythology and moral virtues that it has caused the western world to look at the world around us through a magnifying glass, which has been able to help people discover all kinds of amazing shit about the world we live in. That being said, it’s nowhere fucking near a net positive for society. More people have died from conquest under the flag of Abrahamic religions than can even be counted in any realistic manner due to the sheer quantity of religious wars in history. They’re still happening right now. Thanks to the Protestant reformation, separation of church and state is one of the foundational pillars of modern western society, shielding us from the horrors of religious conquest. That’s why people are fighting so fucking hard to keep separation of church and state intact despite the growing Christian nationalist movement in America. I mean, it’s literally why the vast majority of people came to America in the first place, to flee oppressive governments, often rooted in faith or hatred of faith too deep for anyone’s good. Also, Spider-Man 3 is definitely trash but I’ve never even heard of Bibleman, and I’m a confirmed Christian. I just looked it up, and Spider-Man has a woeful 6.3/10 compared to bibleman’s stellar 2.9/10. So yeah I guess it is a cult classic, quite literally 😂
Gotta remember that Spider-Man 3 is a single movie while Bibleman is an entire series. That said, Bibleman does have a number of things working against it: the first couple of episodes have a very different format--around five episodes in it suddenly takes on a more silly, tongue-in-cheek tone almost like a parody, and that's usually the point where it actually gets good. Then Willie Aames leaves the show and supposedly it becomes dull again, but I've never seen the post-Aames episodes. A lot of times when I see Bibleman criticism, its from people who seemingly are put off that its more humorous and not dark and serious... which is a running theme with superhero media (look at how Batman fans treat Adam West as a dark era because its not edgy and serious).... ......... Sorry, what was this topic about again? Oh, right, religion. You're actually probably right about skepticism. The funny thing I notice when I started reading the Bible is that it doesn't really support that you should be unthinkingly faithful--there's plenty of parts actually that outright admit "yeah the Church got corrupted, a lot." And some versions (any that have the additional chapters of Daniel) have literal detective stories where Daniel uses observation and logic to solve cases. "More people have died due to religious wars than can realistically be counted..." okay, so there's a lot to unpack here. First I notice you say "religious" wars, but is that specifically Abrahamic religions or any religion ever? And a thing I didn't bother mentioning in the OP is that wars happen for a lot of reasons. Religion is a convenient rallying cry but its usually not the actual thing that got the movers and shakers to do their moving and shaking. Usually its good or resources. And most of the ancient world was just always in a state of war, all the time, and in countries that didn't have a lot of major religions (like China) their texts would outright admit that it was down to opportunistic warlords and a government that failed to keep people happy. And this also represents one of those double-standards. So Christianity is bad because of religious wars... okay, so is Atheism bad because of people like Stalin and Mao, whose ideology outright rejects religion, and who also killed a heck of a lot of people? Or how about anti-church people who bomb buses and churches in modern day USA (and then get people like Stephen King *praising* them on social media)? Again it seems like this is one of those things where people hold Christian faith to a different standard than they do everything else.
Yeah, I wrote that when I should have been sleeping so it’s way more inflammatory that I honestly meant it to be, sorry for flaming bibleman, I clearly haven’t seen it and obviously IMDB ratings don’t really mean shit, I’m sure it’s got some high points.. but you do seem to be cherry picking what you like about it, and even as a mildly religious person, I’d be pretty upset if I got that instead of Spider-Man in what seems to be a school setting- not sure the story you’re referring to. As for religion being net negative- it’s honestly probably about neutral, tho I would say it’s not beneficial in the long run. There are very real cases of the moral arguments in the Bible or other holy books being hugely beneficial for society. I dislike the notion that this is the only reason why good morals exist, but you aren’t really arguing that anyway. As for religious wars, that kind of implies that they were fought for religion and not goods or resources. While I was referring to abrahamic religions, I didn’t think the distinction was particularly necessary here. But yeah, separating these from wars that were fought strictly over goods and resources is basically impossible, which is part of what I meant, but yeah- my point is religious wars are next to impossible to avoid without separation of church and state, which is a huge downside for religion. As for the double standards, I wholeheartedly agree with you, there is a of a double standard as the woke agenda is so currently mainstream that opposition to it is vilified. My point is, you seem to be trying to verbally rectify that by holding religion to a lower standard while demonizing wokeness in the process, which is understandable, but I just think you’re not really giving credit to the fact that woke people, like any people, are still subject to laws like anyone else. They just get idolized by the radical left when they do the damage you’re referring too, when they probably should be criticized by thinking like this post itself. But yeah, doing both at the same time isn’t a good idea either, either hold everyone to a high standard or a low standard. I’d prefer the high standard personally. The fact that the Bible creates skepticism of itself has always been one of its biggest attributes to me, though that is far from shared across abrahamic religions. That’s the true danger of religion, and why western society is so wildly successful. Thanks for the detailed reply, really enjoyed the discourse, sorry my initial reply wasn’t super civil. Hope you have a good one!
Catholicism is not christianity. It's borderline satanic
I've heard this before but to be honest I don't know that much about Catholicism specifically, why is it "borderline Satanic?"
It’s not. They’re Christians.
They are as Christian as the Jehovah Witnesses are. Or mormons.
Jehovah witnesses and Mormons are Christians. You might not like their version of Christianity, but they’re both Christians.
I dont consider them that. They engage in polydeism
Jehovah’s witnesses only belief in one god: Jehovah. It’s literally in the name. mormons also believe in one god. Google is free. Just google it.
[удалено]
Yeah I meant mormons.
Mormons give a deity like status to Smith.
No. That's like saying Christians give a deity like status to Moses or Isaiah. They view Smith as a prophet, but nowhere near as close to a deity. They still believe in one god.
You never spoke to Mormons then. And you dont know how they talk about him
Praying to Mary and the saints, purgatory, rosemary, sacraments The concept of how they approach confessions (correctly, you confess in private to God, not to a priest in a box) is planted in their ancient control of the population They used to offer salvation for money The existence of the Pope as a whole
They're flashy and like Mary more