You must log in or register to comment.
Purely depends on the speaker
Yeah obviously, but that was the point. Would you shout down any speaker
If “woke” hadn’t become a political buzzword, would Elon have said what that refrain used to be? As in, would he also have said that atheists just replaced god with the worship of science? Absolute stupidity and smooth brainery regardless
Removed by mod
Yeah, with their mission trips, and their door to door no-jesus salesmanship, I hate having to deal with atheists always coming around trying to convince me that I don’t need to believe in a god at risk of burning in hell forever. Fucking atheists.
Basically, “every opinion I don’t like is a religion.”
Or, another way of looking at it is, they’re embrace of deceit and delusion means they periodically have to fabricate new imaginary dragons to slay. The problem with turning victimhood and grievance into a cult is that you need persecution for it to work. Hence, fabricating opposition. Wokeness is just a way for the elder elite to heap hate on the youth that will inevitably replace them. Constantly reminding everyone that you are a patriotic Christian is just a means to try to seize the higher ground for cultural warfare.
Wokeness is the new “politically correct” - just pure unadulterated nonsense to rile up the conspiracy theorists and Republicans (but I repeat myself). And they use it much like people were using “thanks Obama”. If one of the cult stubs their toe, they can blame it on “wokeness” and also probably yell “thanks Obama!” now probably also followed up by “Let’s Go Brandon!”.
Just try and ignore anything this antagonistic fool/troll says and your life will be better off.
The word woke lost all meaning due to far-right wingers constantly using it as a catch-all term for everything they don’t like.
Also, I love how they made it so the top 3 bad guys are atheists, agnostics (which are pretty much the same thing) and the jewish. They’re not even trying to be covert with propaganda.
Atheist are not the same thing as agnostics…
I mean they both don’t have a definitive belief there is a god, one is just more certain than the other. But for classification purposes I would say they are different.
They didn’t say they were
Lumping ‘always’ with ‘sometimes’ is cooking your results to meet your objective.
That was the most infuriating thing about this whole post to me. Elon’s braindead take is on brand and expected at this point, but that chart (or worse, the reaserch behind it) is the true crime here.
I like how they count “Nothing”, “No response”, and “Other” as being separate religions so that the chart looks nore intimidating.
It’s by a right-wing / libertarian think tank. Spinning whatever bs they want.
TIL, my belief that I have the right to call out bullshit when I see it is considered a religion now.
Certain people can not imagine multiperspectivity, let alone understand or try it.
This also ignores that shouting at someone in no way infringes on their ability to speak. It’s just something they don’t like to happen. Ironically, much like women going to abortion clinics and getting shouted down and harassed, simply based on their religious belief that abortion is wrong. But whew, let’s not apply logic to their beliefs…
Wait what’s the difference between Atheist, No response, and Nothing?
Also why is there a generic Christian but then also Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox? But then they just Muslim and not it’s different denominations? Why even have different denominations when you have the generic catch all and the Other category?
This graph categorization makes no sense!
Atheism are people who are activly against religion. Nothing are Irreligious people I assume. No Response are those who’s religious identity are unknown. Could be any of the others or none of them.
Generally: atheists are those that say there are no gods and no goddesses. Agnostics tend to be more on the fence about it, making no claim either way.
But, as a rule, neither requires that someone is “against religion”.
In the late 00s there was a New Atheism movement which was more than just not being religious, sometimes called “capital-A atheism.” People conflate that with normal atheism sometimes. That movement split in the 2010s as culture war became more of a thing.
Gnosticism and theism are two different concepts and it infuriates me that every semi educated loser conflates them.
Just so you’re aware, agnosticism and gnosticism are not the same. Wouldn’t go calling anyone semi-educated and then use the wrong term, if I were you.
Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism. It’s “not knowing” vs “knowing”. Theism and atheism is “belief” or “not believing”. Take me for instance, I’m an Agnostic Thiest. I believe there is a God, but I don’t claim to know.
Am atheist. Am not actively against religion. If it makes your life better and is also benefiting others (or at least its not a negative), have at it. I do not give a shit.
Atheist is literally “not theist” which would include nothing, none, agnostic (the belief that it’s impossible to determine the existence or absence of, in this context, God). It could even be argued that people who believe in God but do not participate in theistic practices (eg lapsed Catholics) are atheists. It does not require or even imply some position against religion.
This isn’t accurate though. In the most semantic, etymological sense perhaps. But atheism is widely understood to be the disbelief in deities. Agnosticism and atheism are very different. One is a position of belief (I cannot prove god doesn’t exist, but I don’t believe it to be so) and one is a position of ignorance (I cannot prove god does exist or doesn’t exist). Words, meanings and definitions are defined by who is interpreting them. This therefore means that the definition is whatever the majority believes it to be. You may as well be looking at a field of flowers and describing them as gay. It may have been the appropriate term once, but it is not now. And we live now. The etymology of the term is not the same as the meaning of the term. Sitting there and prescribing that your interpretation of the term is the correct interpretation reminds me a lot of the tale of King cnut.
Positive/strong atheism is the subvariant of atheism that actively asserts there is no deity. Many atheists are negative atheists and are better defined by their lack of focus on religion - whether for, against, or otherwise - in their daily lives.
In my experience negative atheism is popular where the culture is not predominantly religious, whereas positive atheism is more common in fundamentally religious societies (although it is not necessarily publicly expressed) where secular thought is in the minority.
Atheism and Agonistism are under the umbrella of Irreligion or Non-Religious. They are seperate identies.
You can be atheist agnostic - you don’t actively participate in religion or worship but believe it is fundamentally unknowable if there is or is not a god, you can also be theistic agnostic (though this is rare in the modern lexicon) which would be where you do participate in religion (or religious practices) but still believe it to be unanswerable. To be gnostic is to believe it is knowable (and perhaps that one does know), it too can be either theist or atheist in nature.
Aww, did someone get peer reviewed?
Holy meaningless buzzwords batman
deleted by creator
Getting infuriated over this stupid prick’s bullshit, mildly or otherwise, just isn’t worth it.
I love that he did a 100% 180 on everything he “believed in”, from being pro science, atheist, and left leaning to anti science, christian, and conservative troll and none of his followers batted an eye. He does what he thinks is popular, what will keep him talked about. Nuts to that.
I suppose it’s real easy without any actual values or ethics whatsoever.
you oddly misspelled ‘fascist’ as ‘conservative’.
Turns out, they’re synonyms. *shrug*
He’s a narcissist to the extreme. The only thing he believes in is himself. And how sad a god it is.
Conservatives give him the love his father never did.
They’re the same picture
Ahh yes a graph without citation of research, lovely
Let’s go a step further and analyze exactly what this graph is saying:
There’s only about a 20% distribution difference in the “never” sections between Christians and atheists. So on average, 4/5 atheists would answer the exact same as Christians. All this graph says is that Christians are barely more tolerant than people who identify as atheist. Barely is the key word. If anything, this graph proves that tolerance levels don’t fluctuate that much for the individual between differing religions.
But Bible thumpers need any win they can get, so they don’t read the data for what it is, they just see one bar longer than the other and declare victory.
I made a comment below, this is from a conservative research group funded by the remaining Koch brother, among other conservatives.
“Ree my free speech”
like “states right” states right to do what motherfucker?!
“It wasn’t about slavery!”
Texas’ articles of secession name slavery as a main cause twelve times. Georgia’s calls abolitionism “heresy” and Mississippi, bless them, referred to it with “a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization,” before going even further with such quotes as
[The US government] refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
Which I am only leaving here because somebody wrote that, meant it, and sent it off, and it is insane to read.
Fortunately for Mississippi, their constituents can’t.
