#antitheist

[nebby-the-protogen]

stop putting hijabis in the generic progressive menagerie, it's not cute, it's not empowering, it's not a personal choice, it's a tool of opression. it serves no purpouse beyond the subjugation and objectification of women.

stop normalizing misogyny because, we, the cute harmless arabs that have to be protected by the big strong white people are the ones doing it.

islam is no better than the worst of christianity, stop wokeifying it. i live in a muslim country, born and raised, you don't know jack shit.

[oceanicmarxist]

During the Spanish revolution and the ensuing civil war, Spanish workers and peasants engaged in anti-clerical violence against the Church that spent centuries raping, molesting, murdering, beating, abusing, and oppressing them.

[raspberryfem]

not to continue to engage in the discourse but tbh the anti-atheist sentiment i hate most is that we don't care abt nature and don't have a sense of 'wonder' or whatever. i'm chock full of wonder! in fact, my lack of belief in god (/goddess/whatever spiritual way you'd put it) makes me feel MORE wonder! nobody designed our universe! the stars, the oceans, the summer rainstorms, the tiny leaf chameleons, the kitty cats, the volcanoes on mars or the great red spot of jupiter! it all happened by chance, and we are SO lucky to live in this very unlikely world where ALL of these things exist!! knowing that the whole universe could have developed and evolved differently if things were even the slightest bit different makes me so thankful for the wonders all around us!! life without intelligent design is beautiful and wondrous!!!!!!

[its-terf-or-nothin]

[voxpraxis]

lately i've been... idk if you can really call it "debating" but i've been interacting with some muslims in the comments of an instagram reel in which a young girl was speaking to a young boy (i want to emphasize that they are both children) and telling him that she wasn't allowed to speak to boys until she was married, because her parents and her religion said so. the boy was sad but replied with something like "oh, alright" and the caption & comments were all talking about how "sweet" the situation was. i commented that i didn't think it was sweet, and actually that's a horrible thing to put in a child's mind. the post never directly mentioned islam and neither did i, but everyone who's been replying to me is proselytizing islam, so. anyway, these are the points that have been thrown at me so far:

it's not wrong because both genders are forced apart from each other

in response to me saying it still enforces an extreme divide between genders and encourages them to see each other as opposites rather than equals: the separation is necessary to prevent rape

there is no rape in islam because of the separation between men and women, rape only occurs in western society because men and women are not separated (...because apparently we cannot expect men to not rape women unless they're physically kept away from them at all times)

rape does not happen between family members, it's just not a real thing, ever (incest doesn't exist?)

if you're interested in a girl you should marry her immediately, because dating leads to cheating

men and women cannot be just friends because "islam and science and psychology says so." one guy said it's because "women can't talk about cars and sports"

(i also got called a simp for saying i have female friends. can't make this shit up)

in response to me pointing out that what the girl is saying implies that she won't have any say in who her husband is: arranged marriages are better because they always work out and unlike western marriages, they never end in divorce! (i'll give you one guess why that is.)

similarly, single parent families and suicide are solely western problems

men and women are NOT equal

i need to shut up and respect it because that's their religion

islam cannot be questioned because islam says islam is true

and that's not including all the personal insults and threats i've received, in just a few days.

i will say this is one of the least challenging "debates" i've ever had, in the sense that almost no point brought against me has any logical foundation and is easily refutable. but it's one of the most frustrating because the problem is that they won't hear me at all, because islam teaches its followers to never consider anything else. it teaches them to accept exactly what they are spoon-fed as the ultimate truth. and this is by no means a problem exclusive to islam, but islam does this kind of control better than any other religion i know. people raised into islam are not taught to think in any logical terms - in fact, they're deliberately taught to avoid thinking logically. logical fallacies are the rule. so not only can they barely form a coherent argument in favour of their beliefs, but they have absolutely no clue how illogical they sound sometimes. when i point out a lapse in logic in something they've said, the response i get is "no, that's true because islam says it's true." no other explanation required. at least, i've sometimes heard people of other religions attempt to use logic or science to prove their beliefs, but with the muslims in these comments, those are unnecessary things to be absolutely avoided - it's like they don't even understand why i'd bother to use them. you can't use logic to get through to them because they've been taught to avoid logic and cling to the mantra of islam-is-true-because-islam-says-so.

[shroobles]

Christmas is a stolen pagan holiday anyways.

[frightnightindustries]

Hey. LGBT+ Christian here. Don't do this. All of this came from left leaning spaces.

(TW for a lot of bigotry under the cut)

Do you know how shitty this feels? Honestly, if you do this, fuck you.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

“I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

-- Christopher Hitchens

[greenevergreens]

Practically very time I see any JW propaganda I genuinely wonder how anyone can say that "all religious beliefs should be respected" because you simply can't do that while also not disrespecting other people's religious beliefs or erasing people's basic human rights.

For example, to fully respect the Christian faith, I'd have to disrespect all other religions, to fully respect JWs I'd have to disrespect the existence and humanity of LGBT people.

A belief being religious does NOT make it any more deserving of respect than literally any other belief system.

If someone's religion tells them to occasionally fast as part of their religion, I will respect that, that's their choice and their right. However if that same religion demands I as a LGBT person am not allowed to exist openly and to marry someone of the same gender, or to get HRT and surgery to transition I don't respect that one fucking bit.

If someone's religion says they aren't allowed to eat or drink specific foods/drinks, that's fine, I respect that, that's their choice. However if someone's religion says that I someone who is not part of their religion shouldn't be allowed to eat or drink the things they aren't allowed to eat or drink, I don't respect that. I am not bound by the rules of YOUR religion.

Let me repeat that, I am not bound by the rules of your religion.

I know that's not exactly what the video is about, but it just got me thinking about that.

And while I personally believe the world would be far better off if religion wasn't a part of it, I can accept that religion is here to stay and will very likely NEVER go away. However with that being said, it's continued existence doesn't mean I have to validate or respect the beliefs that come with it, especially when those beliefs are harmful to others.

[missbaphomet]

I cannot stand beside any belief or organization that limits human rights and freedoms, or demands adherence to harmful practices, be they financial, medical, or otherwise.

It's not about faith. It's about power. It's about control. It's about money. They don't give a fuck about you or your family, they only care of you can provide a dollar amount and can bring in others that can as well. It's all about the bottom line, and making it go up.

[atheist-forever]

Priests, nuns and the pope are all people of low morals.

Catholics in general are people of low morals.

[pouryourselfacupoffuckrightoff]

The only church that illuminates is burning. I’m stealing that.

my most antitheist opinion is that hell is like. a cartoonishly evil thing to believe in and insanely abusive to teach children about

[oceanicmarxist]

1929 cover of Bezbozhnik u Stanka, the magazine of the League of Militant Atheists in the U.S.S.R. Cover depicts industrial workers tipping Jesus into a garbage disposal while another smashes a church bell with a big hammer.

[dss-master]

Mark 2:26 "Abiathar high priest" passage does not contradict with 1 Samuel 21:1

A lot of atheist skeptics, even the famous Bart Ehrman, an atheist New Testament manuscripts scholar, would like to mention the supposed Bible contradiction of 1 Samuel 21:1 with Mark 2:26. Mark 2:26 reads

"How was it that he went into the House of God during the lifetime of Abiathar the high priest and ate the Bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for anyone but the priests to eat, and gave some of it to his companions?”

The atheist skeptics or any skeptic in particular but lets call them "the skeptics" will jab at this noting how Abiathar was in fact not the high priest who gave David (the "he" in this verse) the bread of the presence. But rather it was Ahimelech who did.

Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. Ahimelech was high priest at the time. Sons of the high priest usually help the high priest preform ritual duties, and sons thus tend to be priests themselves. Only priests are allowed to be in the Taberknackle or in the Temple.

Now to the solution.

Mark 2:26 only says "during the life of..." which is true, because Abiathar was Ahimelech son, and was alive during the time Ahimelech was alive.

However later in this verse, it then says "Abiathar the high priest..." the word "the" grammatically indicates a singular. As if Abiathar was the high priest of the time.

However, singular use of titles are common in Biblical literature. For instance, David in the New Testament was called David the king. Was there only one king?

No. It is a title to specify who this David was. People back then could have same names you know. This Abiathar son of Ahimelech was not the only Abiathar in existence. Jesus here in Mark 2:26 was specifying who this Abiathar was by saying "Abiathar the high priest," because everybody knows who Abiathar is. The succeeding high priest of King David after Ahimelech the first high priest during the time of David was killed.

So the only question remaining is, why didn't Jesus just say David ate the bread given by the high priest Ahimelech, instead of David ate the bread of the presence that occurred during the time of who we know as Abiathar as the high priest?

The reason why was because Ahimelech did not adhere to the law as well as his son Abiathar. Abiathar was known as a renowned priest for his adherence to the law. Adherence to the law is one of the most important things during the time of the second temple to Jews. This was because Jewish thinking of the law was if bad things happened, which did for centuries to the Jews, from the division of Israel into Judah and Samaria, to the Babylonian exile, to captivities of captivities as nations moved in and out, the Jews saw their solution to this issue by turning to the law, becoming more and more pious for the Torah. So a high priest who holds to the law more than another high priest who does not, is considered more revered.

So when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Mark 2, he decided to chose a more renowned and law abiding figure to fully detail the account of David eating the bread. Describing figures from the past, usually when doing so associates them with another figure from the past. Like an example would be in Hosea 1:1, "A message from the LORD came to Beeri’s son Hosea during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Joash’s son Jeroboam, who was king of Israel."

This sort of language of acquanticing a specific figure with another figure living during the same time was common Jewish rhetoric. And so Jesus did the same here.

Final note. Some Bibles translate verse 26 as "was the high priest." This translation was the translation Ehrman in fact used when he was in seminary. However, this reading is entirely unnecessary. The renowned manuscript scholar and even long time good friends with Ehrman since seminary, Daniel B. Wallace, states this reading is unnecessary, and a better translation would be "during the lifetime of Abiathar the high priest."

In conclusion, there is no contradiction in Mark 2:26 and 2 Samuel 21:1.

[voxpraxis]

[video of two muslim women in full-coverage outfits]

commenter 1: sister your dress needs to be longer, your feet should be covered

commenter 2: sister your dress is too long, it is dragging on the floor

commenter 3: sisters neither of your outfits are proper hijab

commenter 4: sisters being on social media is immodest and distracting

verdict: you can't win

[oceanicmarxist]

we'll do it again.

The medieval Saint Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine, shortly before it was demolished by the Soviets in 1935. X