Your head must be deep in the sand if you think that's true. If your lifestyle choices cause suffering and atrocity, don't you think you have a responsibility to at least be aware of what you're complicit in?
Oh look, typical carnist cliché is getting offended because someone criticized the weird shit you do.
I didn't see anyone else pointing out how bizarre it is to fetishize bee puke.
And people hate vegans because most people want to believe they're at least "pretty good people", and the very presence of a vegan challenges that belief. If you're offended, maybe it's time to look in the mirror.
What's unhinged is people who think they have the right to confine, torture, exploit, rape, murder, and devour the flesh and/or secretions of other animals just because they're different.
Yeah I get that bugs are easy to dismiss because they're tiny, often obnoxious and treated like a nuisance, and less intelligent than other animals. But we're still talking about living beings who have their own subjective experience of life, individuality, and their own agenda. Like all animals they came into this life with us, not for us.
Commodifying living beings is unhinged. And even ignoring the moral side of things, having a preference for bee vomit is unhinged.
ITT: a bunch of stolen bee vomit fetishists. Why pay so much money for something weird, gross, and every bit as unhealthy as sugar and corn syrup? Maple syrup (while also unhealthy) tastes way better. And date sugar, whole blended dates, or molasses are healthier alternatives.
Oh cute, the vegans don't shut up cliche. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue if y'all just stopped abusing animals.
And don't forget to install Linux.
It's pretty cringe to compare the circumstances of atheism to the kinds of oppression black people, women, and lgbtq+ have. Atheism has been a source of oppression as much as atheists have been oppressed.
That's only true of institutions that are unwilling to change. Every major religion has sub-branches and other variant communities that have entirely different sets of doctrines, some more progressive than others.
Not true. As a panentheistic polytheist I feel entirely comfortable affirming (or at least being open to) the existence of literally any noncorporeal entity you can talk about. I just might not have any interest in engaging with that entity.
Yeah to be honest I just didn't feel like digging into the nuances. There is atheism (nonreligious), and there is Atheism (religious). And to be clear, that's totally fine. I have nothing against a/Atheism, only anti-theism or any other form of religious exclusivism.
Somebody else already posted the Wikipedia link here about state atheism. Atheists are no more innocent than other people.
Maybe it's radical, even unfathomable; but it's almost as if the only pathway with any chance of peace is one where enough people can come to recognize that every. single. person. has their own set of beliefs, and the only kind of accord that has any chance of working for everyone, is one that actively supports diversity of belief.
If you believe that your religion is the only valid one, and that the others need to go away, then you are as bad as an evangelical. Anti-theists are just the hypocritical mirror image of evangelicals.
As a quasi-religious person I do agree that public policy and moral imperatives should have a secular basis. For example, when people look back at this point in history they're going to see a particularly nasty stain in the way that 99% of the human population is responsible for a sort of perpetual holocaust of many other species of animal, all for nothing more than a little gluttonous sensory pleasure. That kind of morality is easily argued on a secular basis for all the substantial harms those lifestyles cause, and the sheer amount of tangible benefits for choosing a better way.
But secular policy is dangerous if it does not also support religious plurality. When one or two belief systems dominate, they invariably oppress smaller groups. Diversity of belief is a natural buffer against that.
That said, a religion does not necessarily need to base its exegesis on interpretation of arbitrarily chosen writings. One of the best things religious groups can do for themselves now days, if they want to adapt to the times and survive into the future, is embrace the scientific method in their own ways. Evolution shows us that the things that aren't willing to change and adapt die.
Maybe if atheists didn't abrasively proselytize so much, and denigrate every other faith, they'd feel more comfortable being in the open with their religion.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Windows never breaks? Uhhhhh, that's definitely not true. When I have to use Windows, I brace myself every time I have to update.
I remember some years ago there was a "malware" going around that would flash OpenWRT onto people's routers, and set them to have more secure default settings.
There should be another thing like that, but one that upgrades Windows into a Linux distro.
People tend to have their preferred water drinking container, and normally fill and drink from that container once per day. I've seen recommendations for 96 oz for adult men, and 92 oz for adult women, or even some recommendations to aim as high as 128 oz (1 gallon). So you can use this one-glass per day to hack yourself into drinking more water by choosing a canteen/growler that holds the total amount of water you're aiming to drink every day. You might not always hit the mark unless you're making an earnest effort, but having a 1 gallon drinking vessel will cause you to drink more water.
And even if that seems like an extreme amount, getting at or close to that mark every day does make a difference for your health and how you feel.
As a basic end-user I have not been too happy with my experience with flatpaks. I do appreciate that I can easily setup and start using it regardless of what distro I'm using. But based on standard usage using whatever default gui "app store" frontends that usually come with distros, it tends to be significantly slower than apt, for instance, and there seems to be connection problems to the repos pretty often as well.
Have you seen the way animals are slaughtered?
No one is free from criticism. Harmful ideas should be condemned, when they are demonstrably harmful. But theist beliefs are such a vast range and diversity of ideas, some harmful, some useful, some healing, some vivifying, and still others having served as potent drivers of movements for justice; that to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.
By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the "Pyramid of Hate", as well as the first of the "10 Stages of Genocide."
If your religion is atheism, that's perfectly valid. If someone is doing something harmful with a religious belief as justification, that specific belief should be challenged. But if you're crossing the line into bigotry, you're as bad as the very people you're condemning.
Antitheism is a form of supremacy in and of itself.
> "In other words, it is quite clear from the writings of the “four horsemen” that “new atheism” has little to do with atheism or any serious intellectual examination of the belief in God and everything to do with hatred and power.
> Indeed, “new atheism” is the ideological foregrounding of liberal imperialism whose fanatical secularism extends the racist logic of white supremacy. It purports to be areligious, but it is not. It is, in fact, the twin brother of the rabid Christian conservatism which currently feeds the Trump administration’s destructive policies at home and abroad – minus all the biblical references."
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/5/4/the-resurrection-of-new-atheism/
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/2/21/can-atheists-make-their-case-without-devolving-into-bigotry/