• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 days ago

    I work in the development office of a tiny city that’s surrounded by a major city. It’s an enclave for the mega-wealthy. Literally every household is at least millionaires, and we have our share of billionaires.

    It’s surreal doing code enforcement on people you see in international news, or getting a call about potholes from a Hollywood director. Mundane civic stuff, but with extremely weird, powerful, entitled people.

    Also, the houses we review are insane. We were doing irrigation inspections the other day and a lot of the sprinkler system served arboretums (plural) inside the house.

    There’s one I was reviewing that has 3 bedrooms, but 14 bathrooms. Because they have galleries, a library, wine cellar bigger than most houses, the staff kitchen, etc.

    Our municipal code has separate ordinances for Guesthouses and Servant’s Quarters (not allowed to be as big if it’s servant quarters).

    We have a family that bought a 10 million dollar property to tear it down and build a private soccer field for their kids to use.

    We had a homeowner cut down a bunch of historic trees to make room for a new patio, resulting in a 6-figure fee for illegally removing the trees. We dropped off the citation, and they pulled out a checkbook and paid the fine in about a minute.

    Rich people live in a different world, and I drive there daily.

    Why do I do it? It pays half-again more than my previous city, and I occasionally get to say “no” to billionaires.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      In a fair and equitable world, communities like this would not exist, because these people would not have that wealth.

      All extreme wealth has been stolen from the working class. That’s the only way it can be obtained.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        No disagreement here. I work there for the paycheck and make no illusions about it. Everyone on the entire staff feels the same way. We’re absolute professionals, but we hold zero personal loyalty to the city or its citizens. They may be super rich and have the power to crush any of us, but as far as I’m concerned, they’re all beneath us.

        And, oddly enough, that attitude is why we’re good at our jobs. Rich assholes loving together are gonna have disputes, and having a city staff that looks down on them instead of being subservient like their household staff means we’re uniquely qualified to make them be better neighbors to each other.

        Just this week, I got into an enforcement discussion with an Oscar-nominated filmmaker. It takes a special kind of officious prick to disarm entitled assholes and their lawyers with the power of bureaucracy.

        For about 50 hours a week, I am that prick.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Driver’s in Atlanta Georgia.

    The left two lanes on i85 are for faster drivers and right of way is a real thing!

  • Krzd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Customers. Seriously, how absolutely incapable are some people. I wish I could force some of them to write down all the questions they have, make them watch a 5 minute YouTube video and then only bother me if they still need help. Jesus Christ it’s a hardware store not kindergarten where I’ll take you by the hand and tell you not to eat the crayons.

    • spacecadet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      If 2016 taught me anything it’s to not trust polls. Doesn’t matter how hard ahead Kamala is polling until your ballot is actually cast.

      It also doesn’t help that you have the “Lemmy.ml” crowd calling you a fascist if you vote for Kamala, because in their twisted world having trump win is better eomehow

      • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        To your second point, it’s because most of them hate the US and/or capitalism, and want to see it implode.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          …Without realizing that the only things that are going to fill that power vacuum are worse.

          Are there better countries than the US? Damn skippy there are. Do any of them have enough power to do anything if the US implodes? Absolutely not.

        • tibi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          That would be terrible for worldwide peace and stability. US has too much power and influence for an implosion to not cause worldwide chaos. Trump would mean US siding with other dictatorships, like Russia, China, Iran. Russia would likely succeed in Eastern Europe. Taiwan would likely be occupied by China. NATO vs an alliance made of US, Russia and China would be very uncomfortable.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    8 days ago

    Stupid doctors. Starting in the medical field, I had this notion that a doctor is this kind of universally intelligent, best-of-humanity kind of person.

    Some of them are.

    But some of them are absolute dumbasses who happen to have a photographic memory that carried them through med school… Like, full blown trumpanzee, falls for conspiracy theory bullshit, superstitious nutjob, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed idiot.

    It shouldn’t be possible. No one who makes it through med school should be mentally capable of instantly plummeting to the rock-bottom of stupid as soon as they step foot outside of their field of study (which fortunately most of those types deliver at least passable quality of care).

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I do the same with lawyers. Some of the Trump lawyers have been so bad that I question the Bar exam’s ability to weed out the worst.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m not sure if there’s any field where everyone is qualified. It seems there is no perfect method for objective qualification, without letting idiots slip through the cracks.

      One of the better methods is to have a supervisor watch them in practice, but how do you qualify a supervisor? The whole cycle repeats again

      There are some really stupid doctors, scientists, electricians, architects and welders, all of which are occupations where incompetence can have dire consequences.

      There are recent cases of flawed scientific papers, used as guidance for procedures (ex: surgery), and causing potentially thousands of deaths.

      https://youtu.be/HTlKGKaOQPY?si=2oXTn6UdR0Fuxtgj

      Cases like this is what feeds anti science movements and conspiracies. In many circumstances “science” shouldn’t be trusted when there is no line between flawed science and good science.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      rock-bottom of stupid as soon as they step foot outside of their field of study

      That’d be too many people around me, from the qualified kind. I’m not a doctor though.

      Sorry, it’s impossible. It’s normal for people to be what you described. Just human.

      I mean, if you actually manage to create a working procedure for such selection, half the people in the profession will have Aspergers, always red eyes and sleep at work, and the other half will be NT, but some bloody geniuses whose abilities would rather be used in something like fundamental science.

      • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        I know a few people closely that I’d consider a genius. I only know one that went into a field where their genius mattered. He changed fundamentals of microbiology. One high school dropout, one just surviving and making decent money doing whatever they try.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          I only know one that went into a field where their genius mattered.

          That’d be one more than I know, if we don’t count relatives.

          One high school dropout,

          My tribe.

          one just surviving and making decent money doing whatever they try.

          That actually sounds nice.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s not that doctors are stupid. Quite the opposite; I strongly suspect that, by any seemingly-objective measure of intelligence, doctors are going to average significantly higher than the general population. (…And veterinary doctors even more so.) Having cognitive biases, believing in conspiracies, etc., isn’t a symptom of stupidity; it’s a side effect of being human and having emotions. You’ll find that very highly intelligent people end up being more effective at rationalizing dumbass, batshit crazy beliefs; the number of engineers, computer scientists, attorneys, etc. that are, for instance, Mormon is astounding.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    I work in a manufacturing facility where the assemblers, mechanics, machinists, and technicians, are unionized. My white collar, not unionized colleagues simultaneously express jealousy about the benefits the union members get while also saying they shouldn’t exist while also complaining their own salaries are too low and not keeping up with inflation.

    My dudes, this is what unions are for. If I worked one of the covered jobs, I would join the union in a heartbeat.

    Join them, don’t try to tear them down.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Crazy how union participation peaked in the 50s with 1/3 of the workforce in one, at a time where a man without advanced education could provide for a wife, multiple kids and own a house.

      Crazy that people aren’t rioting in the streets.

      • rekabis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        The Parasite Class. That’s what happened. These are people for whom any amount of wealth will never be enough. So they extract it out of the working class by cramming down wages, making all aspects of life precarious, and raising prices.

        We all suffer and the 0.1% accumulare more wealth than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, my white collar, salaried, not unionized brother works for a major manufacturer and constantly complains about unions. Then he’ll go on to talk about all the overtime pay he gets while traveling … not appreciating that salaried positions don’t get overtime pay (in the US), and he has the union to thank for that.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 days ago

        Nothing substantial, just parroting propaganda. Union workers are lazy. Unions are anti free market. Unions get in the way of businesses being profitable, which would in turn benefit employees.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          …And yet, if the company treats employees in a way that employees feel is fair and reasonable, then employees are extremely unlikely to choose to unionize.

          • Vanth@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 days ago

            For a short time I had the pleasure of working with a small site that treated the union as a partner and not an adversary. On the company side, it was an EH&S manager, not even the EH&S lead, who led annual negotiations with the union. There were disagreements and compromises, but both sides walked away every year feeling benefitted and ready to collaborate for another year.

            Well, Corporate can do better than that. They sent in HR to run things this year. Everything is an aggressive conflict. EH&S dude was immediately recruited to a company down the road and left. Cue HR’s surprised Pikachu face when all goodwill with the union disappeared overnight and the union is just as ready to play hardball.

            I am glad I got to see one example of a company and union working together for mutual benefit. I think there will be vanishingly few situations like this throughout the rest of my career

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              I think that there are probably a lot of small companies that run in a more collaborative way. I also think that the probability of labor abuses increases along with the size of a company; once the owner/president doesn’t personally know everyone that works there, the odds of shitty things goes up sharply. Not that small companies don’t also have shitty owners, but it’s usually hard to be an asshole directly to someone’s face, unless you’re a raging narcissist or sociopath.

    • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      I am productive for less than an hour a day. I don’t do anything. I have nothing to do. I drive for an hour each way to sit and do absolutely nothing so I can feed and house my family.

      Some days I have to convince myself not to drive my truck into something at 85 mph. No person is meant to live like this.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Can’t you do something yoh like for the rest of the time? (I don’t mean LITERALLY the other 7 hours xD) Like reading, learning to draw, learn Thai on duolingo etc.

        • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I try. I can’t really look like I’m not working or I’ll get in trouble. Sometimes I read, but that gets boring after a while.

          • loveluvieah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            I relate to you. I only have about 2ish hours of actual work a day on average, and I have to drag it out all day just to look busy. I never expected that it would feel soul sucking to have so little work but still be chained to your desk. I thought I was lucky! (And I certainly am in someways)

            The irony is that when I first started, I was efficient and would read when I didn’t have anything to work on. But my boss didn’t like to see me reading, so he would give me more work. The issue is that there is only so much he can do at a time, so it resulted in me finishing assignments, and him being so overloaded he wouldn’t get to them until weeks or months later. Now I just pretend to be busy, so he doesn’t feel like he needs to give me more, and I’m not having to remind him of documents in review that are weeks old.

            Sorry for the rant, I am currently sitting here pretending to be busy while slowly dying inside.

            • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              I agree! I’ve spent years perfecting the art of looking busy, and that makes my free time more enjoyable. Although there still are rough days.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          My last job was like that. I was needed for about an hour a week. I just sat and listened to podcasts all day every day.

          My current job, I do about an hour a day, and outperform all of my colleagues. Luckily I’m at home most of the time and just lay in bed watching things all day with my cats. When I have to go into the office, it’s painful.

        • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 days ago

          That’s a fantastic question. The company is foreign owned and it’s just a sales office. The CEO is a fantastical liar that hides things well, and firing a bunch of people would not look good for him. As long as we are making a profit, no one really analyzes how much fat could be trimmed. I don’t even care if it were me to get laid off either. Actually, please lay me off.

        • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          It’s fairly common. We have a team of 11 people that does the work of half a person. The 8 person team I’m on now does less work than I did by myself 2 years ago on a different team between those 2 teams, there are also 4 managers

    • crunchrecalls@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 days ago

      Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door–that way Lumberg can’t see me, heh–after that I sorta space out for an hour. I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I’m working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too. I’d say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

    • MySkinIsFallingOff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      Some days, like once every two years, you actually do it by accident; you come in, get shit done all day, and you get like a months amount of work done.

      And then you get all nervous that someone might find out and set new expectations for you, so you have to kind of spread out the results of the work you did on that miracle day.

    • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Could I have my beliefs respected, considering that I’m not like those bigots who do harm to others? I have no reason to shit you for being an atheist, so please just learn to respect my values, thank you. /lh

      P.S.: what I mean it’s that I respect your perspective, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insult mine. Simple as that.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s not group psychosis or mental illness, true, but it is divorced from reality. Sadly, the human mind is capable generating demonstrably, obviously erroneous beliefs without suffering from significantly abnormal psychology.

        Religion is a set of extremely successful myths, which have survived mainly by convincing people that you can’t be a good person without them, which frequently involves disparaging people of other beliefs as bad/evil.

        In other words, a really shitty worldview.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            But they’re not persistent delusions. Delusions are, by definition, NOT cultural in origin. This is something that gets pretty well drilled into you when you study abnormal psychology. There’s a difference between someone’s brain malfunctioning and them simply being possessed of outdated cultural beliefs or traditions. It’s why religious beliefs aren’t considered mental illness, but still believing in Santa Claus when you’re an adult would be.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              that’s just them special casing it so that they can avoid calling it a mental illness.

              It’s a persistent delusion fed to you by your parents, your parents feeding you it doesn’t change that it’s a delusion.

              If someone raised their children to believe the tooth fairy was real and that everyone was going to lie and say that it wasn’t and that you have to believe anyway, that’d be a delusion, but religion is special because…? the only difference is that more people are doing it.

              The only reason for the cultural exclusion is because they don’t want to define religion as a delusion, not because it isn’t one. It meets EVERY single other criteria.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                No, the reason religion is excluded is because delusions aren’t supposed to reflect cultural conditioning. Delusions are, by their very definition, an abnormal brain process. Cultural beliefs are not abnormal brain processes, no matter how irrational they are.

                Please understand that this exception is accepted by the entire field of psychology. If you disagree with it, you have 200 years of psychological debate and study to contend with. Don’t pretend you’ve read enough to claim you have grounds to disagree with something the entire field of psychology considers a settled issue. No matter how much you wish religion is a mental illness, it’s not. Sadly, the irrationality of religion is fully explainable within the bounds of normal human psychology.

                • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  No, the reason religion is excluded is because delusions aren’t supposed to reflect cultural conditioning. Delusions are, by their very definition, an abnormal brain process. Cultural beliefs are not abnormal brain processes, no matter how irrational they are.

                  That’s what i’m saying, the reason that cultural beliefs aren’t allowed to be delusions is simply because they don’t want to make religion a delusion. It’s common, so, it’s not a delusion. That’s the end of the reasoning. Should we really say that anything that’s commonly believed isn’t a delusion? I think that’s an exception made for a logical reason, it defends the field of psychology from culture, but cultures can share delusions.

                  Please understand that this exception is accepted by the entire field of psychology. If you disagree with it, you have 200 years of psychological debate and study to contend with. Don’t pretend you’ve read enough to claim you have grounds to disagree with something the entire field of psychology considers a settled issue. No matter how much you wish religion is a mental illness, it’s not. Sadly, the irrationality of religion is fully explainable within the bounds of normal human psychology.

                  The reason this exception exists is precisely as i’ve said, they’ve special cased it because they don’t want to define religion/cultural beliefs as mental illnesses. The very reason for this exception is because they don’t want it to count, not because it doesn’t meet every single other (much more important might I add) criteria.

                  they’re essentially going “yeah, these are delusions, but uh, enough people believe them and we don’t want to piss them off so here’s an exception”

                  I personally don’t think that’s valid at all, but I can see why they’d do it.

                  Just because a delusion is normal to have, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a delusion.

            • rekabis@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              religious beliefs aren’t considered mental illness

              You’re right — it’s actually brain damage and cognitive impairment.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                Damage to the prefrontal cortex resulting in cognitive inflexibility can result in a myriad of fixed beliefs—they’re not necessarily religious in nature.

                And religious fundamentalism is a particular type of extreme religious belief; most people don’t hold to fundamentalism but are nonetheless religious, so the study doesn’t account for anywhere near all religiosity and certainly doesn’t refute the point that religious faith isn’t a form of mental illness.

                I want to make something clear here: I’m an atheist and an antitheist, but I’m also a therapist and it really irks me when atheists try to conflate mental disorders with religion. It’s an example of atheists fueling their distaste for religion by giving in to amateurish ignorance about psychology. Learn what the fuck you’re talking about before trying to make claims that go against what all of the experts in a field of study agree upon. Honestly, atheists ought to know better.

          • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            It was poignant, and you reacted to it like a sore loser, so yes, it was objectively clever

          • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            Smarter than you? yes. Absolutely. You like to hunker down and talk to yourself with a very stern look on your face. You call it praying. You also like to let some old pedo effers dressed up in costumes waving a barely relevant internally inconsistent book of outdated medeival tribal ideas tell you what to do. You think accepting it without question at all, no matter how crazy it is-- faith-- is somehow a virtue. You’re a slave in a cult.

            May your all powerful sky fairy strike me down if I’m telling any untruths here.

          • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Reality is but a quip. If only it were that simple. Ignorance is bliss. Not equally nor any other fashion. There is belief in fairy tales and there is not.

      • Agrivar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        The only thing atheists should stop doing is tolerating the nonsense of the religidiots.

      • untorquer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean, it’s the community that keeps people around. The rules and dogma push people who aren’t being served well by the community out.

        So in group this is natural to say. But external, directed at religious peoples, it’s not going to do the work of bringing them into your community. It’s not welcoming and it serves to push people to build walls rather than promote a change in thinking.

        So i think you’re right in the context of being in community with a believer, but the comment wasn’t about that to begin with.

        Alternatively, it’s hard to see how much religion is pushed until you’re outside of it. It’s like the opposite of getting a new (to you) car or phone. When you are, all of a sudden you realize how saturated everything is with it. It’s like living off the end of the runway of an international hub airport, there’s no rest.

        • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          7 days ago

          I don’t deny there’s an element of groupthink within the Christian community that keeps its participants ensnared in the system while also alienating potential partakers, but adding the word ‘psychosis’ - like the user i responded to did - is rather disrespectful of the Christian position. You’d be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.

          Classifying belief in Christianity as psychosis simply shows one’s ignorance as they think one can only be religious if they’re “insane” which is just not the case since there are many who participate in Christianity with perfectly reasonable reasons.

          I’m an atheist, but i think it’s high time, as atheists, we stopped making these stupid ad hominem attacks towards differing ideas.

          • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            is rather disrespectful of the Christian position.

            Why is the christian position worthy of any respect al all? Labeling any idea thats “religion” as automatically worthy of reverence is simply privelage speaking, at best. At worst its deep stupidity protecting itself from analysis. You’re in a cult buddy. One that has inconsistent medieval ideas and a pedophilia problem. The fact that we even need to remind you of those absolute facts doesnt speak well of you.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              It deserves its respect because it is largely practiced and is defended by many intellectuals. I’m an atheist just like you playing devil’s advocate. So let’s stop with the ad hominem

              • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                OK fair enough on the ad homs, you are right on that and I apologize. I would challenge you on the idea that religion been examined as rigorously and freely as every other philosphical ideas. Faith is belief without question, is it not? And the christian bible is a bit of a joke-- most if not all “holy” books are. But they are held up as a standin for morality and we are demanded to respect them, and not ask too many questions about them, usualyl at threat of violence or other coercions. Isnt history littered with the bodies of scientists and philosophers who werent allowed to inconvenience the church?

                It amazed me that when you find religious strife, atheists are often singled out for the worst punishments.
                I think its summarized pretty well with this quote of Bakker’s: “Theres nothing the ignorant prize more than the ignorance of others.”

                I think if people should generally mind their own business unless something directly impinges on their individual freedom to live. That includes not making rules about how women should use their bodies. Let women decide that themselevs, or you’re being a tyrant. (I am an old white guy). Christianity doesnt beleive in that, and refuses to honestly examine it. Dogma and whatever the oldest white guy in a funny hat says trumps rational discourse every time.

                the only “god” we should be worshipping is ourselves as entities that are constituent of a human society that differentiates us from the other animals. In my opinion, everything else is someone trying to use you or get you to adopt their worldview. This forces us to be our own masters and own the outcomes we create in the world. And to treat each other better.

                What do you think?

                • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Firstly, thank you for wishing to engage in peaceful discourse. And yes, I do agree with you on the fact that religion should be challenged just like any other philosophy. My point about according it respect was simply due to how the other users i responded to earlier resorted to ad hominems and not valid criticisms of the religion itself. Like i said, I don’t believe religion (especially Christianity) can be just thrown to the side as “group psychosis” considering how widespread it is and how much it’s defended by many intellectuals.

                  On the point of personal freedom (women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, sexual rights, etc), I 100% agree with your stance on Christianity infringing on those freedoms; especially considering the increasing liberalisation of society - which is a good thing - but i don’t personally think it’s a great rebuttal to Christianity’s validity. Like i said in another comment, Christianity is an absolutist philosophy, that means that regardless of the changing times or your personal feelings, its laws remain immutable. Does that mean that the Christian God is a jerk? Probably. But it’s what you’d have to deal with if he did exist.

                  Personally, i think the strongest argument against a God is simply the fact that he’s unpresent. As i believe about 90% of people are atheists simply because they don’t feel his presence. Every other argument is supplementary.

          • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.

            You’d be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.

            The thing is, the second you let in a Nazi, it becomes a Nazi bar.

            Also, yes we all know how indoctrination works.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.

              Once again, you’re committing the same mistake as before. You’d be surprised to learn that the discourse concerning this is more nuanced than before.

              Also, non-acceptance of LGBTQ groups isn’t actually a disproof of religion. I mean think about it. Christianity is an absolutist doctrine, that means that regardless of what you feel or how the times have changed, Christian law remains absolute. If an all powerful being deems it so that homosexuality is a sin, then all power to him really. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the reality you’re presented with if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists.

              • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                a disproof of religion

                You’ve got the burden of proof turned around. Its not on us to diprove the existence of your mythical skyfairy. Its not our job to respect it in any way either. Feel free to start a religion that worships toe-jam if you want to. No one cares. What if I told you that lower intelligence correlates to higher religious fervor?

                • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I’m not religious. Stop saying my mythical skyfairy. Also, you have to show me a source for your last claim and even if your last claim is true, correlation IS NOT causation.

              • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                7 days ago

                I answered a simple question with a simple answer. You proved the point better than I ever could have. Now tell us how to think and talk again.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            By not adhering to the doctrines of the people believing in the one true God of course!

            🤡

            Seriously, fuck these regressive idiots.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 days ago

          You are technically correct that most people that call themselves atheists are agnostics. But that’s a little like saying that .999999999999999999 is 1; it’s close enough that it’s not going to make a difference in almost all cases.

          If you have empirical, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that a god exists, then most atheists will change their opinion. A person that believes in a god believes despite a complete lack of evidence.

          It’s not that an atheist is saying, “I know your religion is wrong”; it’s much closer to, "you have not presented any falsifiable evidence that your religion is correct.

          There is currently no way to know.

          It’s true that you can’t prove a negative. On the other hand, no evidence exists that would tend to prove that a god exists. The lack of evidence is quite damning, particularly since people have been trying to demonstrate the existence of a god for well over 8000 years. Miracles have almost entirely ceased in the age of forensics, modern medicine, and photography; it’s almost like they only exist when they can’t be documented.

        • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I agree with you

          No

          People should absolutely be free to practice any religion they want in the US.

          No, Scientol0gy is criminal

          People shouldn’t be able to shove religion in your face or the opposite of athiests trying to shove non-religion in everyone’s face.

          No, The majority of atheists I am aware of keep it to themselves. The majority or Christians try to convert everyone they meet.

          A true athiest is just as “delusional” as a true religious person. Both believe their idea is right on “beliefs.” No proof God or gods exist or not.

          No, you’re speaking as a believer. A god would need to be proven first in order to be disproven.

          Most “athiests” are agnostic athiests, not gnostic athiest.

          Here we go telling people what to think again.

          World would be a better place if “athiests” went more by agnostics.

          Saying you agree there is a possibility of a god or not and denying the existence wholeheartedly are two different things.

          Saying you’re athiest to a religious person is saying “I know your religion is wrong”. Saying you’re agnostic to a religious person is saying “I don’t know, but I don’t necessarily agree with you.”

          Yup

          There is currently no way to know. That is a fact, a hard truth. Thinking you have a way to know one way or the other is “crazy”

          You can’t prove a negative, that’s a fact. Therein lies the fundamental flaw with theists, belief and opinion are not equal to facts.

          The simple truth you cannot accept is understanding fact from fiction.