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.
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.
Yes it is.
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.
Or I could just continue using the perfectly serviceable shell I’ve got, because realistically it’s more likely to outlast the rest of the device anyway, and I’m still producing less plastic waste by abstaining from getting something I know I don’t need.
Also yeah yeah Steam Deck shells. Sorry I don’t want to waste one whole perfectly functional plastic shell just to buy even more future plastic pollution because it’s slightly cooler looking.
Retro Handhelds are helping to bring it back.
Have you seen the way animals are slaughtered?
It’s why I put it in a separate comment. It’s been scientifically shown that people often feel threatened and angry at the mere presence of vegans. What it comes down to is that most people want to believe that they’re at least mostly pretty good, but veganism challenges those narratives and highlights that the vast majority of people are very much doing things every day that are very wrong, and that they’re not living by their own standards.
I’ve only been vegan for two years, and have been learning very quickly that I need thick skin for it, and that it means every statement I make on the topic will get scrutinized by the highest standards of skepticism while every carnist can just chime in with all the same tired lies about veganism that have already been thoroughly debunked for years now.
See my other comment here.
I made a rebuttal below, but instead of having an emotionally reactionary response, I want you to consider something else instead. Is it more important to win an argument with a stranger online, or would it be better to take a bit of effort to get more deeply informed on this subject matter for your own sake - something that may actually save your life and maybe the lives of others you care about someday? We could argue about covid origins for days - it’s something that even the experts in the field have admitted might never truly be pinned down with a full degree of certainty.
But that can of worms has already been opened. H5n1 may still be prevented, as unlikely as it is that the world will embrace plant-based and vegan ways of living, in time for that. Even so, the more you know, the more you can at least protect yourself. Because even now we are on borrowed time.
https://www.surgeactivism.org/notifbutwhenbirdflu
From a purely statistical point of view, do people get bitten by bats more frequently than they come into contact with contaminated animal flesh? Maybe you live in an area plagued by an intractable bat bite infestation, but that sounds far-fetched to me.
The origins of covid-19 aren’t entirely clear, but there’s a good chance the animal markets played a decisive role. Having a wide variety of animals confined in unsanitary conditions in one place is a very effective method of incubating diseases that can infect multiple species, including humans.
“In the outbreak of SARS-CoV-1, palm civets, raccoon dogs, ferret badgers, red foxes, domestic cats, and rice field rats were possible vectors.[7] Graham and Baric wrote that human and civet infections likely stemmed from an unknown common progenitor.[67] Patrick Berche wrote that the emergences of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV appeared to be sequential processes involving intermediate hosts, co-infections, and recombination.[68] In contrast with the rapid identification of animal hosts for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV, no direct animal source for SARS-CoV-2 has been found.[69] Holmes et al. wrote that the lack of intermediate host is likely because the right animal has not been tested so far.[19] Frutos et al. proposed that rather than a discrete spillover event, SARS-CoV-2 arose in accordance with a circulation model, involving repeated horizontal transfer among humans, bats, and other mammals without establishing significant reservoirs in any of them until the pandemic.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonotic_origins_of_COVID-19
However, the main problem is that you’re thinking too narrowly. If covid was caused by a bat bite, that would still be an example of something caused by animal consumption, because animal consumption is inextricably linked with animal domestication, wildlife habitat destruction, and climate change.
“Bats are a significant reservoir species for a diverse range of coronaviruses, and humans have been found with antibodies for them suggesting that direct infection by bats is common. The zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus to humans took place in the context of exacerbating factors that could make such spillovers more likely. Human contact with bats has increased as human population centers encroach on bat habitats. [4][33] Several social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade have also increased the likelihood for the emergences of zoonosis.[34][35] One study made with the support of the European Union found climate change increased the likelihood of the pandemic by influencing distribution of bat species.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_COVID-19
Animal agriculture is the single largest driver of wild animal habitat loss, as well as being a significant driver of climate change. Both of these are significant factors in our increasing proximity to the bats who played a role in covid. Food is like cars. To know the environmental harm of cars you also have to take into account the damage caused by all the infrastructure needed to make the car. In the same way, the harms caused by what we eat also have to take into account everything that’s necessary to make the food we eat.
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.