Christianity is not a homogenous group, of course. Actively spreading the word is only part of some of the churches. I do agree it’s a very obnoxious part of any religion. And unfortunately it’s a winning strategy. The actively spreading branches of any religion tend to actually be able to gain more believers by their missionary practice, so the “telling people what to believe” continues with no change in sight.
Comment on [deleted]
reliv3@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoI agree with this sentiment, but Christianity is partly defined by “spreading the word of god”. So “telling people what to believe” is par for the course (think missionaries).
Curious though, why do you not refer to yourself as atheist? Non-religious is actually not very specific. Non-religious can mean Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or Atheist.
angrystego@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Soluna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Really I prefer the word secular for myself, and for me that means I am comfortable within my own ignorance. Scientifically, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god/gods, afterlife, etc. They are unfalsifiable, and therefore inproveable either way. So I just say I am comfortable not knowing. I neither assert the existence of god or the nonexistence of god, because I have no way to know either is true. That, and as I stated previously I just don’t like some of the connotations aetheism has gotten. Long ago I used to be a very loud, annoying, self-proclaimed atheist. But eventually I realized that just as there is no way to prove theism, there is no way to prove atheism. That, and I recognized that in my efforts to “spread” atheism and debunk religion I’d basically become what I was originally trying to “fight against,” essentially. Now I should be clear that I very much do still massively criticize those who try to exercise their religion onto others. I’m trans so I’m very used to it at this point. But I know plenty of religious people from all kinds of different religious backgrounds who practice in a way that is accepting of all people and does not impact those who do not share their faith, and I really see no problem with that.
reliv3@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
From your description, it sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some faith to be an Atheist. Personally, I agree with your points, so I’d be more of an Agnostic Atheist too; but I am somewhat convinced that science has decent evidence which disproves the old and new testament god. I believe our scientific understanding of our universe suggests god would not give a shit whether it was worshipped and it would not be some moral judge. It’s consciousness (if we can even call it that) would be so far beyond what humans could comprehend that our puny human morales and ethical dilemmas would be irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, I still think human morales and ethics are important, because us Agnostic Atheists don’t need the fear of divine retribution to do the right thing.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs in such detail. I appreciate it. Sorry to hear about your experience with those forcing their religion on you due to being transgendered. I am cisgendered, but I like to consider myself an ally. I have a lgbtq+ flag flying in my classroom (I’m a teacher) and I already had to give a student a stern talk for telling me that “god loves you” after looking at my flag
Soluna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
First off, thank you for having that flag in the classroom. It does more than you know for showing people that they can be accepted.
As for religion, I suppose my point and the biggest question really goes back to the big bang. Science can explain or at the very least approximate just about everything with the exception of the Big Bang. i.e., why does something exist instead of nothing? And I’ve heard the perspective — even from people who follow Abrahamic religions — that the only time God interfered was with the Big Bang, and that this was the actual “let there be light” moment. And that since then, we’ve been left to our own devices. What I find intriguing is that this interpretation does not really contradict anything in science. Personally, I see a striking symmetry between the Big Bang singularity (nigh instantaneous explosion of matter, energy, and information from seemingly nowhere) and the singularity at the center of black holes (nigh infinitely drawn out implosion where matter, energy, and information go seemingly nowhere), making in my mind a very strong case that the two are connected; that perhaps black holes create their own universes and we are but one of those universe offshoots. However, despite being succinct and elegant, this is also improvable and unfalsifiable. Faith in that this is how the universe began is, in my mind, no different than the faith that the Big Bang was started by none other than God.
(One could probably also make some argument about indeterminable quantum phenomena being of divine origin, but that goes even further outside the scope of the initial discussion hahaha).