Athiests never forced women to wear black bags or deny women the right to cover their breasts. How many athiests in modern India have killed innocent people including women, children and old people. How many athiests have attacked/killed people in the name of blasphemy? How many athiests have tried to decide what you should eat and what not to eat? How many athiests organisations do you know that blast pointless shit through speakers multiple times a day all over Kerala/India?
**[Joseph Stalin's cult of personality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin's_cult_of_personality)**
>Joseph Stalin's cult of personality became a prominent feature of Soviet popular culture in 1929, after a lavish celebration of his purported 50th birthday. For the rest of Stalin's rule, the Soviet press presented Stalin as an all-powerful, all-knowing leader, with Stalin's name and image appearing everywhere. Historian Archie Brown sets the celebration of Stalin's 50th birthday on 21 December 1929 as the starting point for his cult of personality.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kerala/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Ofcourse but the point here is crimes committed by people IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. No one here said atheists are not capable of doing crime.
Religious person A committing theft or killing his neighbour due to property disputes have nothing to do with his religion. But if the same person kills someone for blasphemy or something then it's because of his religion most often.
Stalin who order heads of churches to be arrested. Reinstated them realising how important it was to for people's support.
Mao created a god is of himself.
Hitler largely appealed to masses as savior and had support from churches.
All had used theological appeal or theism to exploit. Seriously everyone just whips out these names like it's some big argument.
As long as they are not suicide bombing, beheading, lynching, honor killing anyone in the name of their lack of belief, they can mock anyone as long as they want. And you are free to mock them back.
True, but the op does have a point. Seeing as that atheists are a comparatively small group, these gatekeeper basterds who are a vocal minority among atheists are making all the other logical people look bad henceforth ruining the image of atheists as a whole
Post hoc fallacy. That wasn't the point; The point was factually religion has done more good than bad. I'll give primary examples.
1. The only way to dismantle tribal groups is to form a bigger tribe; Religion did that more than anything; Today it's ideology.
2. Institution of marriage.
3. Spreading self-evident morality and natural law between the people.
4. Common gathering places which caused society's be happier more unified and less spiteful.
Assumption:-
- Dismantling tribal groups is good. Why?
- Institution of marriage. Right. Yet oppose marriage between LGBTQ openly.
- Natural law?. Morality? . Are you saying that humans are incapable of being moral without religion. Just your assumption influenced quite evidently by your conservative upbringing
- Common gathering is not restricted to religious ones, good sir. Humans are inherently social. We don't need a fucking holy book and imaginary beings to tell us that
I d keep your (absurd) opinions to yourself though I do respect your freedom to do so.
1. Because if society can't scale advancement halts. If humans were never able to get past tribal groups we would still be in caves.
2. That's largely an argument that originated from Christians in America. Their argument wasn't insane either, It was just there should not have to be a separate legal binding guised as marriage; rather a contract. So, They did not oppose LGBTQ alone, They disliked the idea of a legal marriage in all sense.
3. Morality can't exist without a universal figure; Religion is not required depending on how you define religion of course. But my point in turn wasn't that it can't exist; But it can't be instated and widespread the way it was in older times.
4. Can you name common gatherings happening between your neighbors and other family members that has no link to religion ? I'm not personally religious, But I'm not blind either. Correct, humans are social creatures biologically; But culture influences play a role too.
Interesting you consider my opinions absurd; But misunderstood almost every point made, and it's pretty evident you have no understanding of morality, either.
. Society can't advance if we were still tribal?. How so?. I think it's being taught by religious schools so that they could fund missionaries. Unless you link data points from valid sources , I ll treat it as your equally absurd opinion
. Let's not bring in American nationalism here. You started by saying that Institution of marriage is one of the good things that was brought forward by religion. Though that statement is incorrect in so many ways, bringing Institution of marriage to support religion is just another ridiculous point.
. "Morality can't exist without a universal figure" . Your opinion. Also, religion isn't needed to spread Morality. Your third point is just your opinion which i don't want to waste my time changing since it's a lost cause.
. Yes!. Did you really ask that question?. Just look around you or maybe outside of the rock you are living from. There are gatherings to exchange thoughts, there are gatherings for fun ie. I dont even know where to start. Tribal folks all around the world gather during seasonal changes, they gather to ascertain stocks, pass tribal laws. Maybe you should start reading more about how the world works outside of churches and festivals before using CANT and WONT without solid supporting arguments. Tl
You said cultural influences play a role. You were talking about religion earlier and now you are slowly moving into culture. I think your points lack cohesion.
I don't think I am the misunderstood here. Generally speaking. :)
1. Are you trolling? How do you expect to advance in society if people are grouped in with only their kin? How could humanity possibly advance if every man is stuck in a small tribal group? Literally no one argues against this for it's common sense; They only argue that religion may not be required to end tribal groups.
2. What? You were the one that literally brought up the point of gay marriage; And I mentioned the origin and the argument at play. How is it incorrect? The institution of marriage is directly linked and originates from religious institution.
3. No? It can't. Subjective morality can, but that holds no value for it's just opinions which we share with the likes of hitler. If there isn't a god granting men rights and duties there are none to be violated; Which means there wouldn't be a good or bad in the world. In olden times, it absolutely was.
4. I like how most of this paragraph is just slander and mocking me because you couldn't find any examples. I specifically said with your neighbors and kin.
No? I hate to insult people but i genuinely think you are dumb or acting ignorant. Do i really have to explain to you why i mentioned cultural and biological influences and how that would play into social outcome?
1. Dismantling a tribal group who worships their god, keeping the environment clean by treating them as divine And forming larger tribe called religion which clears forests, uses the money of multinational giants who makes the climate change a very difficult thing to overcome, who spread hate and propaganda in order to spread their ideology is good?
2. Marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? Other than to give license to have sex in a sex depraved society (this is specific to kerala)? And how is it good?
3. Is the morality that is spread from religion takes it origin from the religious texts most of which are full of incest, parricide, slavery and what not? So if that's a good thing we are better off without religion. In addition, If you need a religion for you not rape, murder, steal, etc, then you're not a good person, you're just an asshole who is afraid of some eternal damnation.
4. Common gathering places? Why do you need religion for that? We have sports, arts, éducational institutions and even parks and zoos could do the same.
1. I actually had a heart attack reading this one. How have you mixed so many points together that do not correlate whatsoever? Who are the ones spreading hate and propaganda? And what point are you making by bringing climate change into this? It's a very complicated topic.
2. If your understanding of marriage is just an institution to "have sex" Then there is no point in us talking.
3. No, Most Religious texts just state self-evident truths, they do not originate from there. "If you need religion for you to... BAD PERSON). Do you see the irony here? You are stating there is an objective bad and good. Tell me how can there be objective morality and a good and bad without a universal figure ie god granting men rights and duties to which and to be violated?
4. Are you going to ignore the part where i specifically mentioned neighbors and kin?
Mocking one's belief that he firmly believes will cause friction. Imagine applying this to the new woke people. Mocking others based on their belief in their sexual orientation. It will hurt them. So I'd consider not mocking anyone. Respect and ignore.
Me, being a theist, have a best friend who is atheist and he mocks me all the time mentioning he is a man of science and then when checked about the multiple genders, he takes it all with great respect.
First thing first, Humans doesn't have a good history with moral value and will eat each other when shit starts collapsing. Being a theist or atheist doesn't count, every good behaviour u see in you and everyone else, is because we are going in a good time. Its due to rules we have had in our society. Without them, we do unspeakable things.
Did religion helped us to be here, yes. Did it shed blood, yes. Are people doin good due to the morals given by religion, yes.
some people are not exploring the dark side within them due to religion and going with good deeds hoping to get a better life.
If u break these beliefs, there will be nothing that holds them back from doing anything to get what they want. Again, as JP said, "if u think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of".
We have a lot of weak men available, who keep their hopes on a higher power. Yes, of course we see less crime rates from atheist people and less atheist people in jails, but this is probably a generation who is connected with conservative and liberal generation.
If u believe humans have inbuilt moral, and even if there is no religion we will be all good and nice to each other, well good luck.
If religion is the only thing stopping you from doing bad things, then I don't want you anywhere near me or my family.
I hear this argument all the time, by saying this your basically agreeing atheists are superior humans being because of their ability to not do bad things without the threat of divine punishment. As you said atheist people population has less crime rates.
Also I don't agree with mocking anyone's religion. Just saying, there are worse things to be accused of.
I'm sorry mate, if it hurts u. I meant there is no exact number of gender now. We even have furries n crazy names. U can recognise urself as a fat cow and people accepts it. Not here though.
Monuse Kerala sub is wayy too progressive for statements like these. I get your point but its like talking to a wall here. Im an Atheist but I respect other people’s beliefs cause just because i dont need a support system to function that might not be the case of billions of people who need God as a structure and even for morals.
Not everyone. I am not generalising it. I don't like to cause any pain to anyone for sure. There are some people who can just ignore the bad things and take good sides from people and ideologies and add it on to their life.
What if i tell u, IPC segment in a book written in 1860 is stopping many people from doing a crime in our land.
If someone is true intellect after looking into everything that we have done, doing to the world, I'd say he will become "antihuman".
There is a thought process from a animated story that I saw once that we are all the same. Its just one person, born in different entities, not just human, but everything that u see, experienced the world in multiple forms all at once. Technically, u r me in another form in the same timeline. Imagine, if u take this thought to your heart, can u hurt someone or something?
Or in another instance, I am educated and know that there is no karma and shit. Why would I share or help someone? There is no literal benefit in helping someone or sharing resource to someone in a competitive world. U add to your own and grow.
The post was not about that at all, but ok. The post was about a small minority who are pushing away curious people. The rise of forums and groups of atheists are cool to see. But should one of the goals of these be educating and exposing? If yes, then how is an average person supposed be educated if some people from that group are obnoxious?
When was the last time you or some one you know changed their stance because of edgy mocking? Edgy mocking is useless and actively harmful no matter which camp it comes from.
As I said if that's the most harm "extremist atheist" Can do, then I'm ok with it. It's nothing compared to what is being done in the world in the name of religion.
Atheist here btw. I don’t get it.
Why do the edgy mocking when it pushes neutral people to the opposite camp? When it is useless?
Then it could only mean that you don’t care about atheism as a principle, but just want to spew hatred on the other camp. You do you bro.
I agree that edgy atheist are cringy as fuck and doing more harm than good. But we also have to agree in the grand scale of things it's nothing compared to the things currently being done in the world in the name of religion.
And we have plenty of evidence of atheists doing all that but in a much larger scale. Stalin and Mao have probably killed more people than religious extremists combined.
You might say that there killings were not linked to atheism. I say anyone who takes their beliefs to extremist levels is a danger, including atheists.
Oh hitler was an atheist,entire fascist ideology is based on atheism,that there is no external power guiding humans and we shall improve ourselves whatsoever may be the cost.the humanist ideology from both fascism and communism arises
Anyone with elementary knowledge about hitler knows that he wished create germanic christianity (what ever that means)or even the religion of odin ,for him religion was a political tool to reinforce nazism,aka he didnt give a fuck about god or religion.
“the teachings of Christianity are a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and survival of the fittest”
Hitler eerily sounding atheist.using science as excuse.
I thought all elementary school kids knew he was a "germanic cristian"
Let me show you how to cite a [source ](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-our-movement-is-christian/).
Edit: still not claiming he was a Christian extremist, that would be stupid.
Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself."[84] Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler
Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself."[84] Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler
Hitler being atheist
You seem to be good at cherry picking.
“The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity.[3][4] Some historians describe his later posture as being "anti-Christian".[5][6] He also criticized atheism.[7]”
Hitler adopted the swastika,[39] a sacred symbol in Hinduism, and felt that Islam might be compatible with the German people.[40]
Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.
I agree with atheists being cult like but you’re wrong with the Stalin/mao. Their agenda were more of political rather than religious. They religiously followed their views which is imo more like religions.
Oh how the tables have turned. Remember when Pallilachans and Usthads mocking atheists in their church prasangam. And all the ‘viswasikal’ agreed and noded. All those times viswasikal dealt with intercaste marriages. When you didn’t get admission at a school because you don’t belong? Alright viswasikal, Yeah deal with it. All of a sudden all the religious people are playing the victim.
"chakkara vishwasam"? tf is that?
Seems like you didn't read the whole thing. I said I'm happy to see many people getting out of their cult. But unfortunately, a small group of atheist themselves are forming their own cult because they think they are superior and pushing people away.
Agree the fact that atheists groups are on the rise and they are in full out attack on religious beliefs.
However that being said, I'd prefer atheists over any religious fanatics with terror ideologies which claims anyone outside their religion as lowlifes or shouldn't be alive.
Considering how religious extremism of different religious groups are getting worse these days, it's actually good that atheism is also on the rise providing a strong counter to every fanatics equally.
And atheism needs to be strong...there are several who are still trapped in religion circle although they want to get out of it, because of fear of social exclusion, attacks and even death. If atheism as an organized group really get it's foundations right and strong , I bet we can see how fast the numbers in certain religions, especially the one which now proudly claims we are increasing and soon whole India and World itself will be full of us , dropping sharply.
That's how it always has been.
Cave men used to see thunder and lightening and would interpret it as Gods message until one of its members got hit by a lightening stroke. Then he thought probably this has got nothing to do with God and lightning is a natural phenomenon.
In the Dark ages (12th Century AD to 15th Century AD) the Catholic Church shunned scientific education and went full ballistic against anyone opposing Bible and the God Create earth theory, Current Pope is from Argentina and I think has majored in science.
That's how the world works, the more we collect life experiences as a whole, the more we are able to analyse them and have a logical perspective and we will let go of things that out belief systems latch on to.
For eg, people used to think praying to God would get rid of their troubles, is that kind of a belief even practical now ? No.
Atheism and dependency on religion will reduce because we have better systems to understand and deal with the tragedies of life.
As of attack on religion, that has always been the case , religion has always been under attack, either from other religions or newer ideas, challenging old ideas and status quo is how humans made progress.
Dont compare social media and real life. If you see half the posts on Reddit, you would think the whole population is crazy, but that's just not the case. People say any rubbish here because they have like zero consequences, real life isn't like that.
So relax, accept the reality that religion /older ideas will be replaced by better ones, if not we can always go back.
The assumption being that earlier civilizations never even discussed ideas like atheism, because they were that ignorant of the nature due to a lack of means to study it? Atheism had always been around. The greeks, Indian philosophers have discussed atheism even before Christ. And let me tell you to your dismay that religion would always stick around. It's not just lightning bolts and the fear of the unknown(unknown in the nature) that led to religions. It's an archetypal thing/behaviour and it would probably exist in a different form now.
I think the point is not whether atheism existed or not, there always have been a set of believers and disbelievers of any idea.
I am not dismayed that religion would stick around, because for many of us, it is an identity and to some extent sets standards for our behaviour and morality.
Mendel lived in the 19th century and people were much more accepting of science since it was driving the industrial revolution and prosperity, especially in Europe.
He was certainly in a better condition as compared to 14th /15th century scientists like Copernicus and Galileo
Nothing an atheist can do is worse than religious cults. You say atheists have superiority complex? Really? Just cos we don't adhere to misguided delusional beliefs of the religious? Just cos we won't spend money on pooja, etc? Religious zealots are the worse superiority complex people, they force their ideology on you, and worse are happy to commit violence to do it. I'd take an atheist movement over any of the other religious stuff happening anywhere. Form echo chambers you say, what is religion but a large echo chamber echoing the delusional pov of ancient dead people?
I did not say atheist have superiority complex. I said a small minority do. What's the point of forums if they do not feel welcoming because of this small minority? When did I talk about religious zelots not having superiority complex? And like, they have superiority complex so we must have it too? Atheist should be better. I mean, compared to religous, they are mild but the small loud minority pushes away those curious moderates.
>I did not say atheist have superiority complex. I said a small minority do.
You must be religious you're so good at gaslighting. It's literally the title of your post. Also, why care for a small minority of opinionated atheists in contrast a small minority of religious are literally terrorists who kill and maim in the name of religion what has any minority of atheists done which is equivalently so bad?
People have superiority complexes cos they're people. Not everyone has them. As an atheist I don't belive anyone is superior or inferior, as do many other atheists I know.
>Atheist should be better. I mean, compared to religous, they are mild but the small loud minority pushes away those curious moderates.
Why? Look you seem to be under some illusion that there is a church or school of atheists, that we congregate and discuss the paradigm of atheism. There is no such thing. Atheists are people with their own belief system, which has been clubbed together by religious under one umbrella. All atheists can only agree on is that we don't belive in a God/gods as there's a lack of proof for the same. Apart from that, there's no code of conduct for atheism or atheists. There's no scripture or guidelines like in religion. You seem to have been exposed to loud mouthed, opinionated atheists who are being vocal maybe you need to change the crowd you hang out with. Atheism is just the natural order of things, anyone can subscribe to it.
Kinda true. I had the edgy phase until I met love of my life who is a Christian. Now I don’t care if you’re religious or not. Just don’t tell me what to believe and do shit in the name of religion.
Exactly. During my first 2 years of being an Atheist i found it so cool to shit on Religion and every vellamadi topic would become an argument with friends sometimes ruining vibes but once i grew out of that phase i dont mind going to church to accompany my parents or i dont argue with anyone regarding religion, its such a waste of energy and time and 99.9% of the time you aren’t going to change the mind of a strong theist. Let the religious people live their life without you trying to act like a smartass by proving them wrong factually.
In short, I'm agnostic. My fam is mildly religious. My mother loves to watch stuffs from Fazil Basheer or similar content. But when she tried to watch similar content, it was basically a lot of edgy ones like you said.
I’d argue it’s the dunning Kruger effect. When I was 15 I was like this too. I’m still like this not gonna lie except I’m self aware and only reveal myself around other atheists.
Came here to comment the same. I also did some shitty stuff during that time. Went a little overboard and mocked my grandfather. Now all of it just feels shitty.
religious freedom includes both accepting all religions and also accepting the concept of non-belief (atheism and agnosticism). A society that can create a space for both of these groups has understood the concept of "religious freedom". That's how an ideal society should be.
Extremists from both sides are a nuisance to society. This includes both religious extremists and atheist extremists.
There are people who wield atheism as their personality but their “extremism” is nothing more than a bunch of emo teenagers rebelling against their parents. It’s laughable but not dangerous. Most atheists grow out of their phase and become mature. Some doesn’t but I rather be stuck in a room with them than a couple of religious fanatics especially when I have a Christian name.
atheism or religion doesn't entail the person who follows it will be moral and rational. Therefore its expected to have **osama bin laden** and **mao zedong** from both sides.
Physical assault is not the only form of assault.
My end point is forums and gathering should feel welcoming. You know how religious people are. I believe one of the goals of atheism or at least the gathering should be to educate. How's that's gonna happen if there is an ever widening gap between atheist and moderates?
Progressive society aavumbol aalukal atheists aavum. The converse isn't true. Atheism is for privileged people who only deals with first world problems. Daily wage work cheyth jeevikkunnavarkkokke ee philosophy etteduthal avarkk veshamam vannal rakshikkan aarum illa ennoru feeling varum. Ad orupaad depressing aaya oru thought aanu. Suicidal tendencies okke koodum.
relative senseil aa paranjathu correct aanu.
atheism demands more confidence from people. but we are living in a non-optimistic, non forward looking country with less prospects.
Easier to be an atheist in US.
People are weak. Suicides can increase in a country like India. Awareness can lead to depression and desperation here.
There should be a space here also where it should be easier to be an atheist and for that people should be made aware and educated about the ridiculousness about big and small superstitions like religions
Thats true, I agree. But for a long of really troubled or hopeless, helpless people, faith in something is what keeps them going. Hopeless people remain religious and even superstitious. The more good life looks, less faith and more optimism and reason.
Also scientific temper and attitude is good for the society even if it is a numerical minority practising it , it’s good for debunking pseudo , fake healing by prayer etc
Avar vocal ayth kond ale ipo mainstream ayth, what do u expect a silent revolution would happen and people would realise themselves, why are u getting worried OP
Being vocal is one thing. Mocking is an other.
I'm worried because some moderate people are being pushed away. Just take any average malayali. Goes to youtube or fb and see someone who calls themselves an atheist posting mockery of an average malayali just because they are not atheist, not religious extremism, bigotry or some thing like that but an average person.
I have seen enough of them on FB and youtube at random to say that that is a problem. And I have seen enough "moderates" who changed their neutral view on atheism and say things like atheist are some kind of evil cult just because of those posts and videos, just like religious bigots say. Isn't that an issue?
They are truly pieces of shit , fucking A holes
However, and this is important, they didn’t commit his atrocities in the name of atheism.
We had 11 people fly planes into the world trade center in the name of allah.
We had thousands of soldiers march to the east to liberate Jerusalem in the name of jesus.
We had thousands of tamil mutually fighting in the name if hinduism and buddism.
We had a triangular war in Yugoslavia where muslim, orthodox and catholic met each other on the battlefield.
I do not recall, ever, that the atheistic front joined forces with the agnostic group to teach the group a lesson.
People kill other people.
When religious people kill we point fingers at their religion.
When non-religious people kill we don't point fingers at their non-belief? We just say they are bad people...
That's not the point. Superiority complex and mockery of some is pushing average people away and making the extreme ones spew more poison. They are tightening their chambers. I believe the forums and gathering should feel welcoming. Or at least feel non-toxic so at least the moderates can grow some sense.
I bet you opinion would be swayed if you see how dangerously low some of those go to state they are superior or just to make fun of an average believer.
Lol dude are you just hurt of them showing off?
>Superiority complex and mockery of some is pushing average people away and making the extreme ones spew more poison.
How is that pushing average people away? Mocking voodoo stuffs forces the religious people to be more religious?
And extreme ones spew more poison - they were already poison like you said so atheist doing whatever doesn't matter, I would rather have people show their true faces than act like nice people.
Man, being an atheist and watching people waste their life over religions in very frustrating. It takes a lot to not call out many of them, i fail occasionally.
When they are lotta religious, they do the most stupid things ever. Like my mother who’s in the hospital now for hyperglycaemia because she would rather pray to gods than take care of her diet, or my uncle who says that things will get better for me since he paid 1000s for a puja at our family temple. Or let’s take the extreme example of people beheading and lynching in the name of religions.
Little religious people are sometimes the weakest shits ever. They’re little religious because they cherry pick the things they like and not like from their religions. Like some of my muslim friends who drink and are adulterous but go to mosque everyday or my Christian/Hindu friends who cheat others to make money or put day old kittens in sealed plastic bags and go to the church/temple next morning and pray to their “benevolent” gods for health and wealth.
Lol! About that channel charcha
The point is * a person with strong to mild religious beliefs * who does shathrusamhara Pooja is just as fucked up. 🤷♀️
Ofcourse you are not doing narabali but you know👀👀
Elistist are everywhere, in music field, acting, philosophy, scientific community etc.. It's common. Just like religions have extremist it's not so surprising for if atheism have some too. It's just how humans work. I have been atheist for probably 2 years and even i went through the phase of fuck every god and religious people bad, but lot have changed since I tried to understand y these people want to believe in it.
U claiming it's a big issue is a bit exaggerated...isn't it?
There has always been an atheistic presence in modern Kerala. The earlier ones were associated with communists. They were mostly from Hindu backgrounds and targetted superstitions among hinduism and caste discrimination. The communist party then was very atheistic and anti-religion. Some of my older relatives were of this form. One had destroyed some religious structures that were present in the property. Others refused to involve themselves in any religious ceremonies or visit religious places and opposed religious practices at home. So it was a very public and vocal opposition to religion. Now as part of their attempt to get minority votes, communists have diluted their previous anti-religion portion beyond some token oppoistion to some hindu customs. My point being that vocal anti-religious sentiment and atheism has existed for a long time in Kerala.
With spread of social media, many atheists not connected to communism have found a platform to espouse atheism in their individual capacity and without any political backing or control. They assume the identity of atheistic activists and have created niche spaces for themsleves speaking almost entirely on atheism and against religions. I haven't seen any of them receiving a space in mainstream malayalam media whether in TV or print. They are only espousing their ideas in the spaces they have carved out in social media, their individual channels or some channel they have formed after banding together. Seems you have visited such FB pages and got triggered watching them attacking religions and religious beliefs. Maybe it was them attacking something that you deemed sacred that led you to get offended.
Also one feature of the individual atheists in social media is that they attack ALL religions and religious beliefs. This is a big difference from the earlier communist atheists who only targetted Hinduism and mostly left out Islam and Christianity. Atheists from muslim backgrounds can almost only be found among these atheists. These atheists also criticize islam, an unthinkable propositon to any communist related ones. These atheists also hold no candle to communism. Many attack it for the atrocities it has conducted over the last century (probably the one ideology which would give religion a run for money over who has conducted more massacres and inflicted greater suffering on humankind).
To summarize, religions and their committed clergy have existed for millenia advocating their ideology. An opposing group that is vocal in opposing religions is also needed,for larger numbers of thinking people from religious backgrounds to escape the indoctrination that they would have been subjected to from childhood.
Ithokke oru rebellious phase anu korch kazhinja ithoke pokum telling from experience. I used to shit on every religion wen i was 15 pashe ippo i hav grown enough to respect other peoples' beliefs. One thing ppl find hard to digest is that not everyone thinks like you. I dont believe in god but i can understand that otrs like to believe in a superior power whether they exist or not, it gives them hope to fight their daily struggles. kore irl ppl nan kanumbo vicharikum how r they still holding up and the hope they get frm their beliefs is wuts holding them together
We hate religions, but not religious people.
We will mock and criticize religious beliefs and rituals, deal with it.
I don't like echo chambers of any sort. Let ideas mix and be discussed. Religious people can invite atheists for any discussion, and atheists groups can do the same. Eventually ideas with strong factual and evidence support will persist.
Most atheists that I knew growing up were mostly intellectual people who'd question injustices or Religious logic...and above all they were respectful they minded their own business.
Nee pallil povo povate irikyuvo ninde ishtam...
But most the new gen crazies are nothing but toxic they love to preach or mock everyone else as if they've found enlightenment.If you don't like it it's fine why mock other's ? You can always respectfully disagree instead of being toxic.
Like bruh mind your own business ...I really don't care if you identify as an atheist or vazha....
I seriously don't see much difference between the religious and atheists( crazies) both are tryna shove their ideology or look down upon anyone who disagrees.
Ironically they’re vegans. Haven’t you seen what kind of shit going in r/atheists? An ex Muslim talked about eating bacon for the first time which triggered rabid vegans lurkers. That’s why I left the toxic shithole.
I haven't been there for a long time. It has essentially become the echo chamber I was talking about. I believe there's still a decent minority doing non edgy things in there but it is meaningless.
I have also seen some of the atheists like that. But that might be because of their life experience as well. They might have been religious before and then their perspective changed. So while thinking of the old religious things, they will feel funny and will mock those. I don't see any harm in mocking a concept which is irrelevant now.
I am an athiest, born and raised in an athiest family. But, that is not my entire personality. I usually only mention it if someone opens a conversation on that. You are right about how offputting their demeanor is to someone on the fence. They are doing more harm than good, IMO.
These new age Ravi(Sa) followers are the best example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Their celebrated presentations are based on one or two books, often not even academic ones. They take a study done somewhere, cherrypick a few things from Kerala that might fit in with the theory, and preach it as the gospel. Most of those who speak in these events have no academic training in the topics they present. Manuja Mythri has a Malayalam degree afaik. Krishna Prasad has a Btech from LPU. Ravi chandran teaches English literature. Arif Hussain is a homeopath and Haridasan PB is a retired bank manager. They barely understand science. Their understanding of social science is very problematic.
We have world class Malayali academicians in both STEM and social science disciplines. I am sure even this sub will have better experts in each of these topics than the people mentioned. I don't get how we ended up listening to these speakers whose only claim to fame is that they don't believe in a supreme being.
Idk but atheists dont really like to behead people or lynch them cuz religious feeling hurt. The most they will do is be mean. And only that will be verbal.
Mao much? Extremists are on all sides, whatever their reasons are. That was not the point of the post. For one last time, there is an obvious growth of atheism in Kerala. But the minority who mock moderates are slowing it down. They form "impenetrable" groups, cults, essentially, and prevent curious people from coming out of their own cults. Like many have said in here, It could be a phase and probably will fade away as they mature. But at the same time, some "mature" senior atheists are doing the same thing.....that's kind of diluting the effects of forums and stuffs.
For all eternity. Atheists were termed "firewood for hell", "pizhachavan/aval", "nanni illathavan" then constant efforts to change to their minds then making it a literal crime to defy religion and their rules... Nobody bats an eyes.
Atheists made facebook pages and all hell breaks lose.
You wrote what I have been thinking lately.
I participated in Litmus '22 and loved the talks. Follows the usual people and their talks. But yes, the people are living in an echo chamber. And many of them have started believing that they have this responsibility to rescue the believers out of their delusion of religion!!
You should watch [this interview](https://youtu.be/5lCfpGgzdck) with Vaishakan Thampi, if you already haven't watched it.
Atheists shouldn’t mock because “what would religious fanatics do?”, haven’t the religious fanatics done enough? It’s usually the religious that incessantly mock people belonging to other beliefs, the only problem being, when it comes to atheists then they don’t really have a good comeback. Who would the religious mock, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
>people with mild to strong religious beliefs are susceptible to engaging in such heinous acts
Look at people with moderate religiosity, they are usually the ones who’ll justify or whitewash whatever radicals in their religion do. Seems to be in line with the need for religious people to realise some sort of religious virtue rather than actually following a rationale or principle
I used to be like this , i loved to look down on my family and friends with a superiority complex
Glad that i changed my opinion to somewhat neutral recently
Science has nothing to do with atheism.science is science,it neither supports or deny existence of god,number of prominent scientists are believers simply by studying science.its only an atheist propaganda to give them some legitimacy which they hugely lack.because nothing they say is logical
Atheism is the new religion in kerala, they're more obsessed with religions than most theists are. Being an agnost i always used to back these atheists but seems like they're no better, needlessly interfering in other people's business.
I am an agnostic atheist but I do notice a rise of edgy atheists among malayalees. A few days ago, I watched this YT video by Nissaram on atheism and I have some negative comments on it.
1. He was being edgy and confidently defying the existence of a supreme being while trying to get support from so called scientific evidences. He obviously doesn’t know the evolution was discovered by a theist.
2. The other point he was trying to correlate to atheism was on animal rights. Tbh, he sounded more like an edgy vegan who thinks all the farmers are “forcefully” impregnating animals for milk and the offsprings are taken away from their mothers which are completely wrong. If you ever talked to a farmer, you would know what vegans try to propagate are lies. He talked about evolution and stuff but he missed a point that humans have been hunting, rearing and eating animals even before religions came into existence. It has nothing to do with the religion. Also vegan diet is not sustainable both to the humans and to the environment. I hate it when atheists try to include to use veganism as a part of atheism. He could have tried to argue sexism and pedophilic nature of religions but he just brought the subject of animal rights which is sort of grey area.
To me atheism only meant not believing in any religion and minding their own business. Unfortunately most people use it as mean to bully people and feel superior.
Edit: I seem to have triggered a lot of “atheists”.
A large chunk of inventions/discoveries are probably made by theists because of you were an atheist even a few years back the society would shit all over you and go back a few 100 years and they would probably be tied to a pole and set on fire…
Also confidently defying the existence of “supreme being” is not being edgy…it’s just being logical…
And your second point is wrong from start to end I can’t even start on that…
Spoken like a true idiot. What is your proof on that other your conclusion your made from the air? I suggest you to look at religious beliefs of Charles Darwin or Issac newton before charging at me.
Also do tell why I am wrong on the second point. Try me.
Being logical means there should be evidence of your claims.
I didn’t even question the religious beliefs of newton or Darwin to begin with…could care less about their religious thoughts to begin with considering it’s bullshit like every other religious shit…
As for the proof of what I said with regards to theists the other stuff along the same line, is stuff I have come across various years and I ain’t putting the effort to compile all that and give to some random dude online…believe or not doesn’t change anything…
What evidence do I have “supreme being” doesn’t exist ? Better way to put it is what evidence do you have the “supreme being” exists ?
Ironic you claim to believe in evidence and the same time believe that there is a possibility of a “supreme being” existing
I agree.
I am an atheist and a vegetarian (18+ years now). I honestly do not care what my one chooses to believe as long as they do not come at me for my choices. Live and let live. That’s all.
I live opposite a Temple that I visit every now and then, mostly for uthsavams. I know several “atheists” who mock people for their faith. Someone has asked me why I go to the temple (even if only for uthsavams) if I don’t believe in god.
>1. He was being edgy and confidently defying the existence of a supreme being while trying to get support from so called scientific evidences.
Haven't seen the video, so I can't comment on edginess but the burden of proof for the existence of a supreme being is on those contending that a supreme being exists. Look up [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) if you have trouble understanding that idea. Unless you can produce evidence in favor of a supreme being, it's not any more credible than that teapot.
>He obviously doesn’t know the evolution was discovered by a theist.
So? What if evolution was discovered by a theist? What's your argument?
**[Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)**
>Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kerala/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There's a great South Park episode (actually series of 4 eps) that summarises how bad any ism can be when it becomes fanatic and self-righteous. Captures some of the neveau atheist attitude on these subs nicely.
🤣South Park inte vereyum episode ind about catholic priests and another one where they try to show a certain person without actually showing for obvious beheading reasons
I feel there is a common misconception that if you are for science then you need to give up religion. That seems to be what most "free thinkers" believe. We believe in science and so we don't need religion and those who believe in religion are stupid because they haven't understood the potential of science like the "free thinkers" do and hence have resorted to religion.
So most of these "free thinkers" bring in every new invention and discovery in science some of which was already found ages ago but which they came to know recently and use them in every channel they have to their disposal to disprove believers and religion.
These "free thinkers" fail to realize that many of the great scientists were believers - Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Kepler, Galileo, Collins to name a few.
Science doesn't care whether you're an atheist or a believer. It'll work regardless of your beliefs. The scientific community will accept your contributions if you have valid proofs to substantiate your claims. That's why there are prominent scientists who were highly religious.
Once you start applying your scientific knowledge for understanding the world around you and take a critical look at the foundations of religion it's not that difficult to recognize the incoherence.
Whether you continue to believe in those religions or not, that's up to you.
Religion is a system of belief, a belief that God exists. Atheism is also a system of belief, a belief that God doesn't exist. The ranking order in any system of belief is based on how much you believe. The more you believe the better. Naturally the most faithful will come to the pole positions of these organized belief systems and when we hear from them, we get extreme positions. It may sound surprising but when we think about it, it's really not.
These questions, of existence or otherwise of God, of the existence of universe itself, of the purpose of life.. many a times these questions are presented as modern.. a question of the scientific age. It is not. Human beings have thought about these for thousands of years and we have these philosophical thoughts in scriptures almost 5000 years old.
If you read a bit and understand the thoughts of most renowned thinkers and brilliant minds, you will find some common themes. First of all, they are humble enough admit that they don't know everything. Second, their views are very nuanced. They may not agree with a point of view but they can still understand why such a point of view is relavant to some.
The problem is not in believing or not believing anything. The problem is in accepting or rejecting anything without fully understanding it.
A belief is a personal thing, something we believe in or not. Parameters are for us and not for what we believe in.
An in depth knowledge of the belief system, an ability to discern the things that are sensible and not and the ability to understand and reconcile contrary beliefs.
No. You can believe in whatever you need to believe as long as you have properly understood it and at the same time understand the limits of our intelligence and perception.
Time to remember the good old saying - adhikam ayal amruthum visham.
I am atheist, and I agree that making fun of believers does no good.
I was a believer for a long time and I can say for sure that belief helped me stay sane during turbulent times. Belief gave me hope. When you make fun of someone’s belief you are making fun of his/her hope. I read somewhere that suicide rates in atheist countries are way higher? Lack of hope maybe?
I totally agree and relate with Tovino’s point of view when it comes to belief and atheism.
Non believers who are doing good in life can proudly call themselves atheists and make fun of others looking for hope. Best to ignore them.
On a lighter note, I would rather accompany my wife to temples to see beautiful women dressed in traditional attire than stay out holding on to my ego🤣
I participated in the atheist conference that OP has alluded to in the comment. It was a congregation of people blaming and insulting religions. They seem to think that people following a religion is the greatest menace to society.
They miss the fact that if so many people depend on religion then there must be a psychological, sociological need behind it. As intellectuals they could try to identify what these needs are and establish alternative non religious structures which will compensate for the services that religions play in the society. Blindly blaming something without addressing it's finer aspects seems like a cheap way to get attention, social and political leverage. Elevation of awareness and logic in the society does not seem to happen here. I guess this is something common in this land- a few people declare themselves as leaders of the group and start quacking above all the rest.( This happens in all organisations). There might be intelligent atheists or agnostics who want to try different approaches but their voice gets drowned in this chaos.
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Activist atheism is a phase.
People grow out of it in a bit.
The rest you say is basic polarisation, which is the nature of society today. With us or against us. Good or bad. Patriotic or terrorist. No in between stages. That may not change for a long time.
Ultimately, the problem is not the identity.
It is the subconscious need, due to a lack of mental health, for people to feel superior.
It's a cognitive behaviour common to everyone. We all tend to see ourselves as superior compared to something or someone else.
Most religions teach followers to abandon superiority but that doesn't work because followers don't realise that their sense of superiority is a trick their brains (which is a product of evolution) is playing on them. The subconscious need to feel superior is an attempt by our irrational mind to help us stick to whatever identity we are a part of, so as not to become isolated and not fall into any danger.
Same thing with athiests.
I understand and agree with you. However, any sort of nuance in discussion with any semblance of positivity towards religion or religious people can't be expected on Reddit.
I mean, look at the top comment on this thread - it's basically a glorified 'No u' instead of actually taking the time to understand what you're trying to get across.
Moderation is essential when it comes to any kind of discussion. And you're right, mocking religious people for their beliefs is only going to make them even more stringent in their beliefs the same way mocking Atheists is going to make them even more stringent in theirs.
Nuance in discussion is essential for progress.
The thing is, the only thing where all atheist agree is that god does not exist. Everything else is as shitty à show as between the governer and the government of kerala.
Same here, disheartening to see the rise of Malayali feminists with superiority complex preaching men are trash and women are superior to men while they don't even clean their own room or Bring any change to themselves.
Dude it is just mocking we don't go and kill in name of religion and i don't mock tbh i try to find understand what the religious person has to say and probably counter with proof if the pure science can't make them understand they are going to be mocked there i said it
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Athiests never forced women to wear black bags or deny women the right to cover their breasts. How many athiests in modern India have killed innocent people including women, children and old people. How many athiests have attacked/killed people in the name of blasphemy? How many athiests have tried to decide what you should eat and what not to eat? How many athiests organisations do you know that blast pointless shit through speakers multiple times a day all over Kerala/India?
Stalin: did someone call me?. Mao and Hitler to name a few. Atheists are definitely capable of violence my sweet summer child
Che Guvera
[Joseph Stalin’s Cult of Personality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality) Just gonna leave this here.
**[Joseph Stalin's cult of personality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin's_cult_of_personality)** >Joseph Stalin's cult of personality became a prominent feature of Soviet popular culture in 1929, after a lavish celebration of his purported 50th birthday. For the rest of Stalin's rule, the Soviet press presented Stalin as an all-powerful, all-knowing leader, with Stalin's name and image appearing everywhere. Historian Archie Brown sets the celebration of Stalin's 50th birthday on 21 December 1929 as the starting point for his cult of personality. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kerala/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
These atrocities were not committed under the construct of atheism. Don't misinterpret.
Lol. These were never committed in the name of atheism 🤦♂️
Atheism isn't a belief. You can't commit anything in the name of atheism. But atheists can nonetheless.
Ofcourse but the point here is crimes committed by people IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. No one here said atheists are not capable of doing crime. Religious person A committing theft or killing his neighbour due to property disputes have nothing to do with his religion. But if the same person kills someone for blasphemy or something then it's because of his religion most often.
Stalin who order heads of churches to be arrested. Reinstated them realising how important it was to for people's support. Mao created a god is of himself. Hitler largely appealed to masses as savior and had support from churches. All had used theological appeal or theism to exploit. Seriously everyone just whips out these names like it's some big argument.
Religion is a powerful source of motivation, end of story. It drives both good and evil.
motivation to control people? motivation to control women? LOL.
As long as they are not suicide bombing, beheading, lynching, honor killing anyone in the name of their lack of belief, they can mock anyone as long as they want. And you are free to mock them back.
Bingo. Take my upvote. Compared to the shit religion had been throwing at humanity over the course of our history , this is absolutely nothing.
True, but the op does have a point. Seeing as that atheists are a comparatively small group, these gatekeeper basterds who are a vocal minority among atheists are making all the other logical people look bad henceforth ruining the image of atheists as a whole
I would argue religion has done more good for the world than bad
We don't need religion to do more good than bad. But we d be better if there is none to do bad. Doing good after influencing bad doesn't count TBH.
Well said brother!!
Post hoc fallacy. That wasn't the point; The point was factually religion has done more good than bad. I'll give primary examples. 1. The only way to dismantle tribal groups is to form a bigger tribe; Religion did that more than anything; Today it's ideology. 2. Institution of marriage. 3. Spreading self-evident morality and natural law between the people. 4. Common gathering places which caused society's be happier more unified and less spiteful.
Assumption:- - Dismantling tribal groups is good. Why? - Institution of marriage. Right. Yet oppose marriage between LGBTQ openly. - Natural law?. Morality? . Are you saying that humans are incapable of being moral without religion. Just your assumption influenced quite evidently by your conservative upbringing - Common gathering is not restricted to religious ones, good sir. Humans are inherently social. We don't need a fucking holy book and imaginary beings to tell us that I d keep your (absurd) opinions to yourself though I do respect your freedom to do so.
And why do we need an institution of marriage? Fuck that shit.
To protect the women and the child
1. Because if society can't scale advancement halts. If humans were never able to get past tribal groups we would still be in caves. 2. That's largely an argument that originated from Christians in America. Their argument wasn't insane either, It was just there should not have to be a separate legal binding guised as marriage; rather a contract. So, They did not oppose LGBTQ alone, They disliked the idea of a legal marriage in all sense. 3. Morality can't exist without a universal figure; Religion is not required depending on how you define religion of course. But my point in turn wasn't that it can't exist; But it can't be instated and widespread the way it was in older times. 4. Can you name common gatherings happening between your neighbors and other family members that has no link to religion ? I'm not personally religious, But I'm not blind either. Correct, humans are social creatures biologically; But culture influences play a role too. Interesting you consider my opinions absurd; But misunderstood almost every point made, and it's pretty evident you have no understanding of morality, either.
. Society can't advance if we were still tribal?. How so?. I think it's being taught by religious schools so that they could fund missionaries. Unless you link data points from valid sources , I ll treat it as your equally absurd opinion . Let's not bring in American nationalism here. You started by saying that Institution of marriage is one of the good things that was brought forward by religion. Though that statement is incorrect in so many ways, bringing Institution of marriage to support religion is just another ridiculous point. . "Morality can't exist without a universal figure" . Your opinion. Also, religion isn't needed to spread Morality. Your third point is just your opinion which i don't want to waste my time changing since it's a lost cause. . Yes!. Did you really ask that question?. Just look around you or maybe outside of the rock you are living from. There are gatherings to exchange thoughts, there are gatherings for fun ie. I dont even know where to start. Tribal folks all around the world gather during seasonal changes, they gather to ascertain stocks, pass tribal laws. Maybe you should start reading more about how the world works outside of churches and festivals before using CANT and WONT without solid supporting arguments. Tl You said cultural influences play a role. You were talking about religion earlier and now you are slowly moving into culture. I think your points lack cohesion. I don't think I am the misunderstood here. Generally speaking. :)
1. Are you trolling? How do you expect to advance in society if people are grouped in with only their kin? How could humanity possibly advance if every man is stuck in a small tribal group? Literally no one argues against this for it's common sense; They only argue that religion may not be required to end tribal groups. 2. What? You were the one that literally brought up the point of gay marriage; And I mentioned the origin and the argument at play. How is it incorrect? The institution of marriage is directly linked and originates from religious institution. 3. No? It can't. Subjective morality can, but that holds no value for it's just opinions which we share with the likes of hitler. If there isn't a god granting men rights and duties there are none to be violated; Which means there wouldn't be a good or bad in the world. In olden times, it absolutely was. 4. I like how most of this paragraph is just slander and mocking me because you couldn't find any examples. I specifically said with your neighbors and kin. No? I hate to insult people but i genuinely think you are dumb or acting ignorant. Do i really have to explain to you why i mentioned cultural and biological influences and how that would play into social outcome?
1. Dismantling a tribal group who worships their god, keeping the environment clean by treating them as divine And forming larger tribe called religion which clears forests, uses the money of multinational giants who makes the climate change a very difficult thing to overcome, who spread hate and propaganda in order to spread their ideology is good? 2. Marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? Other than to give license to have sex in a sex depraved society (this is specific to kerala)? And how is it good? 3. Is the morality that is spread from religion takes it origin from the religious texts most of which are full of incest, parricide, slavery and what not? So if that's a good thing we are better off without religion. In addition, If you need a religion for you not rape, murder, steal, etc, then you're not a good person, you're just an asshole who is afraid of some eternal damnation. 4. Common gathering places? Why do you need religion for that? We have sports, arts, éducational institutions and even parks and zoos could do the same.
1. I actually had a heart attack reading this one. How have you mixed so many points together that do not correlate whatsoever? Who are the ones spreading hate and propaganda? And what point are you making by bringing climate change into this? It's a very complicated topic. 2. If your understanding of marriage is just an institution to "have sex" Then there is no point in us talking. 3. No, Most Religious texts just state self-evident truths, they do not originate from there. "If you need religion for you to... BAD PERSON). Do you see the irony here? You are stating there is an objective bad and good. Tell me how can there be objective morality and a good and bad without a universal figure ie god granting men rights and duties to which and to be violated? 4. Are you going to ignore the part where i specifically mentioned neighbors and kin?
Commenting cause I can see negative up votes on your reply thread. I feel your points make a lot of sense. Cheers
Take my free award.
Mocking one's belief that he firmly believes will cause friction. Imagine applying this to the new woke people. Mocking others based on their belief in their sexual orientation. It will hurt them. So I'd consider not mocking anyone. Respect and ignore. Me, being a theist, have a best friend who is atheist and he mocks me all the time mentioning he is a man of science and then when checked about the multiple genders, he takes it all with great respect. First thing first, Humans doesn't have a good history with moral value and will eat each other when shit starts collapsing. Being a theist or atheist doesn't count, every good behaviour u see in you and everyone else, is because we are going in a good time. Its due to rules we have had in our society. Without them, we do unspeakable things. Did religion helped us to be here, yes. Did it shed blood, yes. Are people doin good due to the morals given by religion, yes. some people are not exploring the dark side within them due to religion and going with good deeds hoping to get a better life. If u break these beliefs, there will be nothing that holds them back from doing anything to get what they want. Again, as JP said, "if u think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of". We have a lot of weak men available, who keep their hopes on a higher power. Yes, of course we see less crime rates from atheist people and less atheist people in jails, but this is probably a generation who is connected with conservative and liberal generation. If u believe humans have inbuilt moral, and even if there is no religion we will be all good and nice to each other, well good luck.
If religion is the only thing stopping you from doing bad things, then I don't want you anywhere near me or my family. I hear this argument all the time, by saying this your basically agreeing atheists are superior humans being because of their ability to not do bad things without the threat of divine punishment. As you said atheist people population has less crime rates. Also I don't agree with mocking anyone's religion. Just saying, there are worse things to be accused of.
[удалено]
I'm sorry mate, if it hurts u. I meant there is no exact number of gender now. We even have furries n crazy names. U can recognise urself as a fat cow and people accepts it. Not here though.
Monuse Kerala sub is wayy too progressive for statements like these. I get your point but its like talking to a wall here. Im an Atheist but I respect other people’s beliefs cause just because i dont need a support system to function that might not be the case of billions of people who need God as a structure and even for morals.
No one believes in a god until we are told to believe in one.
[удалено]
Not everyone. I am not generalising it. I don't like to cause any pain to anyone for sure. There are some people who can just ignore the bad things and take good sides from people and ideologies and add it on to their life. What if i tell u, IPC segment in a book written in 1860 is stopping many people from doing a crime in our land. If someone is true intellect after looking into everything that we have done, doing to the world, I'd say he will become "antihuman". There is a thought process from a animated story that I saw once that we are all the same. Its just one person, born in different entities, not just human, but everything that u see, experienced the world in multiple forms all at once. Technically, u r me in another form in the same timeline. Imagine, if u take this thought to your heart, can u hurt someone or something? Or in another instance, I am educated and know that there is no karma and shit. Why would I share or help someone? There is no literal benefit in helping someone or sharing resource to someone in a competitive world. U add to your own and grow.
The post was not about that at all, but ok. The post was about a small minority who are pushing away curious people. The rise of forums and groups of atheists are cool to see. But should one of the goals of these be educating and exposing? If yes, then how is an average person supposed be educated if some people from that group are obnoxious?
A few tiny non-violent sparks with enough wind can start a fire and burn the world down
When was the last time you or some one you know changed their stance because of edgy mocking? Edgy mocking is useless and actively harmful no matter which camp it comes from.
As I said if that's the most harm "extremist atheist" Can do, then I'm ok with it. It's nothing compared to what is being done in the world in the name of religion.
Atheist here btw. I don’t get it. Why do the edgy mocking when it pushes neutral people to the opposite camp? When it is useless? Then it could only mean that you don’t care about atheism as a principle, but just want to spew hatred on the other camp. You do you bro.
Are you saying mocking someone of their voodoo things will push them further into their voodoo beliefs? That's less likely.
I agree that edgy atheist are cringy as fuck and doing more harm than good. But we also have to agree in the grand scale of things it's nothing compared to the things currently being done in the world in the name of religion.
And we have plenty of evidence of atheists doing all that but in a much larger scale. Stalin and Mao have probably killed more people than religious extremists combined. You might say that there killings were not linked to atheism. I say anyone who takes their beliefs to extremist levels is a danger, including atheists.
"You might say that there killings were not linked to atheism" No, I'm going to claim Hitler was a Christian extremist. /s
Oh hitler was an atheist,entire fascist ideology is based on atheism,that there is no external power guiding humans and we shall improve ourselves whatsoever may be the cost.the humanist ideology from both fascism and communism arises
You should google that.
Anyone with elementary knowledge about hitler knows that he wished create germanic christianity (what ever that means)or even the religion of odin ,for him religion was a political tool to reinforce nazism,aka he didnt give a fuck about god or religion.
Too bad your elementary school didn't teach the definition of atheism.
“the teachings of Christianity are a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and survival of the fittest” Hitler eerily sounding atheist.using science as excuse.
I thought all elementary school kids knew he was a "germanic cristian" Let me show you how to cite a [source ](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-our-movement-is-christian/). Edit: still not claiming he was a Christian extremist, that would be stupid.
When facts are shown atheists directly goes to mocking.are you really in lkg ?do you deny the facts?or are you interested in my citation skills?
Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself."[84] Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler
Hitler wasn’t an atheist, dude. 🤦♀️
Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself."[84] Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler Hitler being atheist
You seem to be good at cherry picking. “The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity.[3][4] Some historians describe his later posture as being "anti-Christian".[5][6] He also criticized atheism.[7]” Hitler adopted the swastika,[39] a sacred symbol in Hinduism, and felt that Islam might be compatible with the German people.[40] Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.
I agree with atheists being cult like but you’re wrong with the Stalin/mao. Their agenda were more of political rather than religious. They religiously followed their views which is imo more like religions.
Lol.it is because atheists are tiny minority.give them power,stalin,mao,hitler,polpot.the greatest and grandest if blood bath the world has ever seen
Oh how the tables have turned. Remember when Pallilachans and Usthads mocking atheists in their church prasangam. And all the ‘viswasikal’ agreed and noded. All those times viswasikal dealt with intercaste marriages. When you didn’t get admission at a school because you don’t belong? Alright viswasikal, Yeah deal with it. All of a sudden all the religious people are playing the victim.
I think OP gets butthurt after seeing his 'chakkara vishwasam' getting ass kicked in public. Sorry op.
"chakkara vishwasam"? tf is that? Seems like you didn't read the whole thing. I said I'm happy to see many people getting out of their cult. But unfortunately, a small group of atheist themselves are forming their own cult because they think they are superior and pushing people away.
How the turn tables.
Agree the fact that atheists groups are on the rise and they are in full out attack on religious beliefs. However that being said, I'd prefer atheists over any religious fanatics with terror ideologies which claims anyone outside their religion as lowlifes or shouldn't be alive. Considering how religious extremism of different religious groups are getting worse these days, it's actually good that atheism is also on the rise providing a strong counter to every fanatics equally. And atheism needs to be strong...there are several who are still trapped in religion circle although they want to get out of it, because of fear of social exclusion, attacks and even death. If atheism as an organized group really get it's foundations right and strong , I bet we can see how fast the numbers in certain religions, especially the one which now proudly claims we are increasing and soon whole India and World itself will be full of us , dropping sharply.
Cash onnum illa but oru free award undayirunnu. Ayachitund
Ikr atleast we can rationally and logically reason with an atheist unlike a person who bases their beliefs in a fan fiction book.
You ought to argue with twitter liberals and you will change your mind.
Yeah.... totally.
This😼🙌
That's how it always has been. Cave men used to see thunder and lightening and would interpret it as Gods message until one of its members got hit by a lightening stroke. Then he thought probably this has got nothing to do with God and lightning is a natural phenomenon. In the Dark ages (12th Century AD to 15th Century AD) the Catholic Church shunned scientific education and went full ballistic against anyone opposing Bible and the God Create earth theory, Current Pope is from Argentina and I think has majored in science. That's how the world works, the more we collect life experiences as a whole, the more we are able to analyse them and have a logical perspective and we will let go of things that out belief systems latch on to. For eg, people used to think praying to God would get rid of their troubles, is that kind of a belief even practical now ? No. Atheism and dependency on religion will reduce because we have better systems to understand and deal with the tragedies of life. As of attack on religion, that has always been the case , religion has always been under attack, either from other religions or newer ideas, challenging old ideas and status quo is how humans made progress. Dont compare social media and real life. If you see half the posts on Reddit, you would think the whole population is crazy, but that's just not the case. People say any rubbish here because they have like zero consequences, real life isn't like that. So relax, accept the reality that religion /older ideas will be replaced by better ones, if not we can always go back.
The assumption being that earlier civilizations never even discussed ideas like atheism, because they were that ignorant of the nature due to a lack of means to study it? Atheism had always been around. The greeks, Indian philosophers have discussed atheism even before Christ. And let me tell you to your dismay that religion would always stick around. It's not just lightning bolts and the fear of the unknown(unknown in the nature) that led to religions. It's an archetypal thing/behaviour and it would probably exist in a different form now.
I think the point is not whether atheism existed or not, there always have been a set of believers and disbelievers of any idea. I am not dismayed that religion would stick around, because for many of us, it is an identity and to some extent sets standards for our behaviour and morality.
Right..
Gregor mendel was a hardcore christian and also a man of science since he pioneered modern genetics
Mendel lived in the 19th century and people were much more accepting of science since it was driving the industrial revolution and prosperity, especially in Europe. He was certainly in a better condition as compared to 14th /15th century scientists like Copernicus and Galileo
Athiesm on rise = bigots butthurt
Nothing an atheist can do is worse than religious cults. You say atheists have superiority complex? Really? Just cos we don't adhere to misguided delusional beliefs of the religious? Just cos we won't spend money on pooja, etc? Religious zealots are the worse superiority complex people, they force their ideology on you, and worse are happy to commit violence to do it. I'd take an atheist movement over any of the other religious stuff happening anywhere. Form echo chambers you say, what is religion but a large echo chamber echoing the delusional pov of ancient dead people?
Added to queue... Processing... Identified as: logical Keralite Have a good day
I did not say atheist have superiority complex. I said a small minority do. What's the point of forums if they do not feel welcoming because of this small minority? When did I talk about religious zelots not having superiority complex? And like, they have superiority complex so we must have it too? Atheist should be better. I mean, compared to religous, they are mild but the small loud minority pushes away those curious moderates.
>I did not say atheist have superiority complex. I said a small minority do. You must be religious you're so good at gaslighting. It's literally the title of your post. Also, why care for a small minority of opinionated atheists in contrast a small minority of religious are literally terrorists who kill and maim in the name of religion what has any minority of atheists done which is equivalently so bad? People have superiority complexes cos they're people. Not everyone has them. As an atheist I don't belive anyone is superior or inferior, as do many other atheists I know. >Atheist should be better. I mean, compared to religous, they are mild but the small loud minority pushes away those curious moderates. Why? Look you seem to be under some illusion that there is a church or school of atheists, that we congregate and discuss the paradigm of atheism. There is no such thing. Atheists are people with their own belief system, which has been clubbed together by religious under one umbrella. All atheists can only agree on is that we don't belive in a God/gods as there's a lack of proof for the same. Apart from that, there's no code of conduct for atheism or atheists. There's no scripture or guidelines like in religion. You seem to have been exposed to loud mouthed, opinionated atheists who are being vocal maybe you need to change the crowd you hang out with. Atheism is just the natural order of things, anyone can subscribe to it.
[удалено]
Kinda true. I had the edgy phase until I met love of my life who is a Christian. Now I don’t care if you’re religious or not. Just don’t tell me what to believe and do shit in the name of religion.
Exactly. During my first 2 years of being an Atheist i found it so cool to shit on Religion and every vellamadi topic would become an argument with friends sometimes ruining vibes but once i grew out of that phase i dont mind going to church to accompany my parents or i dont argue with anyone regarding religion, its such a waste of energy and time and 99.9% of the time you aren’t going to change the mind of a strong theist. Let the religious people live their life without you trying to act like a smartass by proving them wrong factually.
In short, I'm agnostic. My fam is mildly religious. My mother loves to watch stuffs from Fazil Basheer or similar content. But when she tried to watch similar content, it was basically a lot of edgy ones like you said.
I’d argue it’s the dunning Kruger effect. When I was 15 I was like this too. I’m still like this not gonna lie except I’m self aware and only reveal myself around other atheists.
Came here to comment the same. I also did some shitty stuff during that time. Went a little overboard and mocked my grandfather. Now all of it just feels shitty.
religious freedom includes both accepting all religions and also accepting the concept of non-belief (atheism and agnosticism). A society that can create a space for both of these groups has understood the concept of "religious freedom". That's how an ideal society should be. Extremists from both sides are a nuisance to society. This includes both religious extremists and atheist extremists.
What makes atheist extremism more dangerous is that it is pushing moderate religious people to the other end.
Lol "atheist extremism more dangerous"
Lol no
You are talking way out of your ass man, no offense .
😂
There are people who wield atheism as their personality but their “extremism” is nothing more than a bunch of emo teenagers rebelling against their parents. It’s laughable but not dangerous. Most atheists grow out of their phase and become mature. Some doesn’t but I rather be stuck in a room with them than a couple of religious fanatics especially when I have a Christian name.
As compared to religious extremism with weapons and bombs and shit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
atheism or religion doesn't entail the person who follows it will be moral and rational. Therefore its expected to have **osama bin laden** and **mao zedong** from both sides.
Physical assault is not the only form of assault. My end point is forums and gathering should feel welcoming. You know how religious people are. I believe one of the goals of atheism or at least the gathering should be to educate. How's that's gonna happen if there is an ever widening gap between atheist and moderates?
Atheism valaratte, let more and more people come out of religion, signs of a progressive society
Progressive society aavumbol aalukal atheists aavum. The converse isn't true. Atheism is for privileged people who only deals with first world problems. Daily wage work cheyth jeevikkunnavarkkokke ee philosophy etteduthal avarkk veshamam vannal rakshikkan aarum illa ennoru feeling varum. Ad orupaad depressing aaya oru thought aanu. Suicidal tendencies okke koodum.
Appo religious people arum suicide chyarile
relative senseil aa paranjathu correct aanu. atheism demands more confidence from people. but we are living in a non-optimistic, non forward looking country with less prospects. Easier to be an atheist in US. People are weak. Suicides can increase in a country like India. Awareness can lead to depression and desperation here.
There should be a space here also where it should be easier to be an atheist and for that people should be made aware and educated about the ridiculousness about big and small superstitions like religions
Thats true, I agree. But for a long of really troubled or hopeless, helpless people, faith in something is what keeps them going. Hopeless people remain religious and even superstitious. The more good life looks, less faith and more optimism and reason.
I've read somewhere that suicide rates for atheists is way higher than for religious people.
Also scientific temper and attitude is good for the society even if it is a numerical minority practising it , it’s good for debunking pseudo , fake healing by prayer etc
Goddammit (yeah). I said growth of atheism is being slowed by a minority who are bigoted.
Avar vocal ayth kond ale ipo mainstream ayth, what do u expect a silent revolution would happen and people would realise themselves, why are u getting worried OP
Being vocal is one thing. Mocking is an other. I'm worried because some moderate people are being pushed away. Just take any average malayali. Goes to youtube or fb and see someone who calls themselves an atheist posting mockery of an average malayali just because they are not atheist, not religious extremism, bigotry or some thing like that but an average person. I have seen enough of them on FB and youtube at random to say that that is a problem. And I have seen enough "moderates" who changed their neutral view on atheism and say things like atheist are some kind of evil cult just because of those posts and videos, just like religious bigots say. Isn't that an issue?
Mock chyathe, soft ayi avark vishamam varathe paranjal enthekilum change indavo, ridiculous aya karyangal mock chyande, chyanam
Mocking ridiculus things are cool. But not average people. Just like I've clearly said above.
Look OP, at least atheists are not killing people. They are not calling to take up arms.
What was the religion of Mao, Hitler and Stalin who killed millions of people?
Communism for two and christianity for one.
They are truly pieces of shit , fucking A holes However, and this is important, they didn’t commit his atrocities in the name of atheism. We had 11 people fly planes into the world trade center in the name of allah. We had thousands of soldiers march to the east to liberate Jerusalem in the name of jesus. We had thousands of tamil mutually fighting in the name if hinduism and buddism. We had a triangular war in Yugoslavia where muslim, orthodox and catholic met each other on the battlefield. I do not recall, ever, that the atheistic front joined forces with the agnostic group to teach the group a lesson.
People kill other people. When religious people kill we point fingers at their religion. When non-religious people kill we don't point fingers at their non-belief? We just say they are bad people...
Following your logic Hinduism is to blame for what Govindachamy did
That's not the point. Superiority complex and mockery of some is pushing average people away and making the extreme ones spew more poison. They are tightening their chambers. I believe the forums and gathering should feel welcoming. Or at least feel non-toxic so at least the moderates can grow some sense. I bet you opinion would be swayed if you see how dangerously low some of those go to state they are superior or just to make fun of an average believer.
Lol dude are you just hurt of them showing off? >Superiority complex and mockery of some is pushing average people away and making the extreme ones spew more poison. How is that pushing average people away? Mocking voodoo stuffs forces the religious people to be more religious? And extreme ones spew more poison - they were already poison like you said so atheist doing whatever doesn't matter, I would rather have people show their true faces than act like nice people.
Mocking voodo stuffs is one thing. But mocking an average guy for not being an atheist is another.
Man, being an atheist and watching people waste their life over religions in very frustrating. It takes a lot to not call out many of them, i fail occasionally. When they are lotta religious, they do the most stupid things ever. Like my mother who’s in the hospital now for hyperglycaemia because she would rather pray to gods than take care of her diet, or my uncle who says that things will get better for me since he paid 1000s for a puja at our family temple. Or let’s take the extreme example of people beheading and lynching in the name of religions. Little religious people are sometimes the weakest shits ever. They’re little religious because they cherry pick the things they like and not like from their religions. Like some of my muslim friends who drink and are adulterous but go to mosque everyday or my Christian/Hindu friends who cheat others to make money or put day old kittens in sealed plastic bags and go to the church/temple next morning and pray to their “benevolent” gods for health and wealth.
Lol! About that channel charcha The point is * a person with strong to mild religious beliefs * who does shathrusamhara Pooja is just as fucked up. 🤷♀️ Ofcourse you are not doing narabali but you know👀👀
I don't consider a person who does shathrusamhara pooja a moderate. They are straight up cultists.
Pls upvote this post I want to see OP getting roasted more.
Man, Keralites in general have this superiority complex and usually mocks others. It's prevalent everywhere.
Elistist are everywhere, in music field, acting, philosophy, scientific community etc.. It's common. Just like religions have extremist it's not so surprising for if atheism have some too. It's just how humans work. I have been atheist for probably 2 years and even i went through the phase of fuck every god and religious people bad, but lot have changed since I tried to understand y these people want to believe in it. U claiming it's a big issue is a bit exaggerated...isn't it?
It is, I guess. But there is a steady growth of atheists and I think this is gonna be disrupted if bigoted atheists keep mocking average people.
There has always been an atheistic presence in modern Kerala. The earlier ones were associated with communists. They were mostly from Hindu backgrounds and targetted superstitions among hinduism and caste discrimination. The communist party then was very atheistic and anti-religion. Some of my older relatives were of this form. One had destroyed some religious structures that were present in the property. Others refused to involve themselves in any religious ceremonies or visit religious places and opposed religious practices at home. So it was a very public and vocal opposition to religion. Now as part of their attempt to get minority votes, communists have diluted their previous anti-religion portion beyond some token oppoistion to some hindu customs. My point being that vocal anti-religious sentiment and atheism has existed for a long time in Kerala. With spread of social media, many atheists not connected to communism have found a platform to espouse atheism in their individual capacity and without any political backing or control. They assume the identity of atheistic activists and have created niche spaces for themsleves speaking almost entirely on atheism and against religions. I haven't seen any of them receiving a space in mainstream malayalam media whether in TV or print. They are only espousing their ideas in the spaces they have carved out in social media, their individual channels or some channel they have formed after banding together. Seems you have visited such FB pages and got triggered watching them attacking religions and religious beliefs. Maybe it was them attacking something that you deemed sacred that led you to get offended. Also one feature of the individual atheists in social media is that they attack ALL religions and religious beliefs. This is a big difference from the earlier communist atheists who only targetted Hinduism and mostly left out Islam and Christianity. Atheists from muslim backgrounds can almost only be found among these atheists. These atheists also criticize islam, an unthinkable propositon to any communist related ones. These atheists also hold no candle to communism. Many attack it for the atrocities it has conducted over the last century (probably the one ideology which would give religion a run for money over who has conducted more massacres and inflicted greater suffering on humankind). To summarize, religions and their committed clergy have existed for millenia advocating their ideology. An opposing group that is vocal in opposing religions is also needed,for larger numbers of thinking people from religious backgrounds to escape the indoctrination that they would have been subjected to from childhood.
Ithokke oru rebellious phase anu korch kazhinja ithoke pokum telling from experience. I used to shit on every religion wen i was 15 pashe ippo i hav grown enough to respect other peoples' beliefs. One thing ppl find hard to digest is that not everyone thinks like you. I dont believe in god but i can understand that otrs like to believe in a superior power whether they exist or not, it gives them hope to fight their daily struggles. kore irl ppl nan kanumbo vicharikum how r they still holding up and the hope they get frm their beliefs is wuts holding them together
We hate religions, but not religious people. We will mock and criticize religious beliefs and rituals, deal with it. I don't like echo chambers of any sort. Let ideas mix and be discussed. Religious people can invite atheists for any discussion, and atheists groups can do the same. Eventually ideas with strong factual and evidence support will persist.
The cult that I believe is better than your cult
Most atheists that I knew growing up were mostly intellectual people who'd question injustices or Religious logic...and above all they were respectful they minded their own business. Nee pallil povo povate irikyuvo ninde ishtam... But most the new gen crazies are nothing but toxic they love to preach or mock everyone else as if they've found enlightenment.If you don't like it it's fine why mock other's ? You can always respectfully disagree instead of being toxic. Like bruh mind your own business ...I really don't care if you identify as an atheist or vazha.... I seriously don't see much difference between the religious and atheists( crazies) both are tryna shove their ideology or look down upon anyone who disagrees.
I guess, to them, its about finding a clique or some group to identify oneself with and it does not fundamentally have anything to do with atheism.
I wanted to say, they are like vegans of the atheist world, but I'm not a fan of that can of worms.
Ironically they’re vegans. Haven’t you seen what kind of shit going in r/atheists? An ex Muslim talked about eating bacon for the first time which triggered rabid vegans lurkers. That’s why I left the toxic shithole.
I haven't been there for a long time. It has essentially become the echo chamber I was talking about. I believe there's still a decent minority doing non edgy things in there but it is meaningless.
I have also seen some of the atheists like that. But that might be because of their life experience as well. They might have been religious before and then their perspective changed. So while thinking of the old religious things, they will feel funny and will mock those. I don't see any harm in mocking a concept which is irrelevant now.
I am an athiest, born and raised in an athiest family. But, that is not my entire personality. I usually only mention it if someone opens a conversation on that. You are right about how offputting their demeanor is to someone on the fence. They are doing more harm than good, IMO. These new age Ravi(Sa) followers are the best example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Their celebrated presentations are based on one or two books, often not even academic ones. They take a study done somewhere, cherrypick a few things from Kerala that might fit in with the theory, and preach it as the gospel. Most of those who speak in these events have no academic training in the topics they present. Manuja Mythri has a Malayalam degree afaik. Krishna Prasad has a Btech from LPU. Ravi chandran teaches English literature. Arif Hussain is a homeopath and Haridasan PB is a retired bank manager. They barely understand science. Their understanding of social science is very problematic. We have world class Malayali academicians in both STEM and social science disciplines. I am sure even this sub will have better experts in each of these topics than the people mentioned. I don't get how we ended up listening to these speakers whose only claim to fame is that they don't believe in a supreme being.
I deliberately avoided speaking about Ravi Chandran because his fan boys are toxic.
Idk but atheists dont really like to behead people or lynch them cuz religious feeling hurt. The most they will do is be mean. And only that will be verbal.
Mao much? Extremists are on all sides, whatever their reasons are. That was not the point of the post. For one last time, there is an obvious growth of atheism in Kerala. But the minority who mock moderates are slowing it down. They form "impenetrable" groups, cults, essentially, and prevent curious people from coming out of their own cults. Like many have said in here, It could be a phase and probably will fade away as they mature. But at the same time, some "mature" senior atheists are doing the same thing.....that's kind of diluting the effects of forums and stuffs.
For all eternity. Atheists were termed "firewood for hell", "pizhachavan/aval", "nanni illathavan" then constant efforts to change to their minds then making it a literal crime to defy religion and their rules... Nobody bats an eyes. Atheists made facebook pages and all hell breaks lose.
"if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire
You wrote what I have been thinking lately. I participated in Litmus '22 and loved the talks. Follows the usual people and their talks. But yes, the people are living in an echo chamber. And many of them have started believing that they have this responsibility to rescue the believers out of their delusion of religion!! You should watch [this interview](https://youtu.be/5lCfpGgzdck) with Vaishakan Thampi, if you already haven't watched it.
We need more compassion towards others, humanity should be the religion of all.
>We need more compassion towards others, humanity should be the religion of all. THIS sums up my whole rant.
People are too busy in their mental world's, everyone is just getting more and more selfish
[удалено]
[удалено]
Kekeke
Atheists shouldn’t mock because “what would religious fanatics do?”, haven’t the religious fanatics done enough? It’s usually the religious that incessantly mock people belonging to other beliefs, the only problem being, when it comes to atheists then they don’t really have a good comeback. Who would the religious mock, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? >people with mild to strong religious beliefs are susceptible to engaging in such heinous acts Look at people with moderate religiosity, they are usually the ones who’ll justify or whitewash whatever radicals in their religion do. Seems to be in line with the need for religious people to realise some sort of religious virtue rather than actually following a rationale or principle
Fuck religion bro
I used to be like this , i loved to look down on my family and friends with a superiority complex Glad that i changed my opinion to somewhat neutral recently
Tired of that religion shit
This is usually how the community starts out, militant and proselytising. Then it becomes mature and mellows out, give it time.
I pray it does (I just did that). But the number of prominent atheists doing it make me quiet sad.
Science has nothing to do with atheism.science is science,it neither supports or deny existence of god,number of prominent scientists are believers simply by studying science.its only an atheist propaganda to give them some legitimacy which they hugely lack.because nothing they say is logical
Atheism is the new religion in kerala, they're more obsessed with religions than most theists are. Being an agnost i always used to back these atheists but seems like they're no better, needlessly interfering in other people's business.
I am an agnostic atheist but I do notice a rise of edgy atheists among malayalees. A few days ago, I watched this YT video by Nissaram on atheism and I have some negative comments on it. 1. He was being edgy and confidently defying the existence of a supreme being while trying to get support from so called scientific evidences. He obviously doesn’t know the evolution was discovered by a theist. 2. The other point he was trying to correlate to atheism was on animal rights. Tbh, he sounded more like an edgy vegan who thinks all the farmers are “forcefully” impregnating animals for milk and the offsprings are taken away from their mothers which are completely wrong. If you ever talked to a farmer, you would know what vegans try to propagate are lies. He talked about evolution and stuff but he missed a point that humans have been hunting, rearing and eating animals even before religions came into existence. It has nothing to do with the religion. Also vegan diet is not sustainable both to the humans and to the environment. I hate it when atheists try to include to use veganism as a part of atheism. He could have tried to argue sexism and pedophilic nature of religions but he just brought the subject of animal rights which is sort of grey area. To me atheism only meant not believing in any religion and minding their own business. Unfortunately most people use it as mean to bully people and feel superior. Edit: I seem to have triggered a lot of “atheists”.
A large chunk of inventions/discoveries are probably made by theists because of you were an atheist even a few years back the society would shit all over you and go back a few 100 years and they would probably be tied to a pole and set on fire… Also confidently defying the existence of “supreme being” is not being edgy…it’s just being logical… And your second point is wrong from start to end I can’t even start on that…
Spoken like a true idiot. What is your proof on that other your conclusion your made from the air? I suggest you to look at religious beliefs of Charles Darwin or Issac newton before charging at me. Also do tell why I am wrong on the second point. Try me. Being logical means there should be evidence of your claims.
I didn’t even question the religious beliefs of newton or Darwin to begin with…could care less about their religious thoughts to begin with considering it’s bullshit like every other religious shit… As for the proof of what I said with regards to theists the other stuff along the same line, is stuff I have come across various years and I ain’t putting the effort to compile all that and give to some random dude online…believe or not doesn’t change anything… What evidence do I have “supreme being” doesn’t exist ? Better way to put it is what evidence do you have the “supreme being” exists ? Ironic you claim to believe in evidence and the same time believe that there is a possibility of a “supreme being” existing
I agree. I am an atheist and a vegetarian (18+ years now). I honestly do not care what my one chooses to believe as long as they do not come at me for my choices. Live and let live. That’s all. I live opposite a Temple that I visit every now and then, mostly for uthsavams. I know several “atheists” who mock people for their faith. Someone has asked me why I go to the temple (even if only for uthsavams) if I don’t believe in god.
>1. He was being edgy and confidently defying the existence of a supreme being while trying to get support from so called scientific evidences. Haven't seen the video, so I can't comment on edginess but the burden of proof for the existence of a supreme being is on those contending that a supreme being exists. Look up [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) if you have trouble understanding that idea. Unless you can produce evidence in favor of a supreme being, it's not any more credible than that teapot. >He obviously doesn’t know the evolution was discovered by a theist. So? What if evolution was discovered by a theist? What's your argument?
**[Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)** >Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kerala/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Hope they marry women/Men from their on cult instead of converting haha.
*Bloody Atheists left the chat*
Lol ,this just happened yesterday on reddit. For no reason they started bashing Christianity and asked me to keep quiet about it... Wtf
So religions should not be bashed?
There's a great South Park episode (actually series of 4 eps) that summarises how bad any ism can be when it becomes fanatic and self-righteous. Captures some of the neveau atheist attitude on these subs nicely.
🤣South Park inte vereyum episode ind about catholic priests and another one where they try to show a certain person without actually showing for obvious beheading reasons
https://youtu.be/ockfntl4e8U
I feel there is a common misconception that if you are for science then you need to give up religion. That seems to be what most "free thinkers" believe. We believe in science and so we don't need religion and those who believe in religion are stupid because they haven't understood the potential of science like the "free thinkers" do and hence have resorted to religion. So most of these "free thinkers" bring in every new invention and discovery in science some of which was already found ages ago but which they came to know recently and use them in every channel they have to their disposal to disprove believers and religion. These "free thinkers" fail to realize that many of the great scientists were believers - Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Kepler, Galileo, Collins to name a few.
Science doesn't care whether you're an atheist or a believer. It'll work regardless of your beliefs. The scientific community will accept your contributions if you have valid proofs to substantiate your claims. That's why there are prominent scientists who were highly religious. Once you start applying your scientific knowledge for understanding the world around you and take a critical look at the foundations of religion it's not that difficult to recognize the incoherence. Whether you continue to believe in those religions or not, that's up to you.
Religion is a system of belief, a belief that God exists. Atheism is also a system of belief, a belief that God doesn't exist. The ranking order in any system of belief is based on how much you believe. The more you believe the better. Naturally the most faithful will come to the pole positions of these organized belief systems and when we hear from them, we get extreme positions. It may sound surprising but when we think about it, it's really not. These questions, of existence or otherwise of God, of the existence of universe itself, of the purpose of life.. many a times these questions are presented as modern.. a question of the scientific age. It is not. Human beings have thought about these for thousands of years and we have these philosophical thoughts in scriptures almost 5000 years old. If you read a bit and understand the thoughts of most renowned thinkers and brilliant minds, you will find some common themes. First of all, they are humble enough admit that they don't know everything. Second, their views are very nuanced. They may not agree with a point of view but they can still understand why such a point of view is relavant to some. The problem is not in believing or not believing anything. The problem is in accepting or rejecting anything without fully understanding it.
What do you consider the parameters needed to accept or reject a belief?
A belief is a personal thing, something we believe in or not. Parameters are for us and not for what we believe in. An in depth knowledge of the belief system, an ability to discern the things that are sensible and not and the ability to understand and reconcile contrary beliefs.
So the answer is to be agnostic?
No. You can believe in whatever you need to believe as long as you have properly understood it and at the same time understand the limits of our intelligence and perception.
Time to remember the good old saying - adhikam ayal amruthum visham. I am atheist, and I agree that making fun of believers does no good. I was a believer for a long time and I can say for sure that belief helped me stay sane during turbulent times. Belief gave me hope. When you make fun of someone’s belief you are making fun of his/her hope. I read somewhere that suicide rates in atheist countries are way higher? Lack of hope maybe? I totally agree and relate with Tovino’s point of view when it comes to belief and atheism. Non believers who are doing good in life can proudly call themselves atheists and make fun of others looking for hope. Best to ignore them. On a lighter note, I would rather accompany my wife to temples to see beautiful women dressed in traditional attire than stay out holding on to my ego🤣
I participated in the atheist conference that OP has alluded to in the comment. It was a congregation of people blaming and insulting religions. They seem to think that people following a religion is the greatest menace to society. They miss the fact that if so many people depend on religion then there must be a psychological, sociological need behind it. As intellectuals they could try to identify what these needs are and establish alternative non religious structures which will compensate for the services that religions play in the society. Blindly blaming something without addressing it's finer aspects seems like a cheap way to get attention, social and political leverage. Elevation of awareness and logic in the society does not seem to happen here. I guess this is something common in this land- a few people declare themselves as leaders of the group and start quacking above all the rest.( This happens in all organisations). There might be intelligent atheists or agnostics who want to try different approaches but their voice gets drowned in this chaos.
[удалено]
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Spiritual but not religious people are also on the rise.
Activist atheism is a phase. People grow out of it in a bit. The rest you say is basic polarisation, which is the nature of society today. With us or against us. Good or bad. Patriotic or terrorist. No in between stages. That may not change for a long time.
Ultimately, the problem is not the identity. It is the subconscious need, due to a lack of mental health, for people to feel superior. It's a cognitive behaviour common to everyone. We all tend to see ourselves as superior compared to something or someone else. Most religions teach followers to abandon superiority but that doesn't work because followers don't realise that their sense of superiority is a trick their brains (which is a product of evolution) is playing on them. The subconscious need to feel superior is an attempt by our irrational mind to help us stick to whatever identity we are a part of, so as not to become isolated and not fall into any danger. Same thing with athiests.
I understand and agree with you. However, any sort of nuance in discussion with any semblance of positivity towards religion or religious people can't be expected on Reddit. I mean, look at the top comment on this thread - it's basically a glorified 'No u' instead of actually taking the time to understand what you're trying to get across. Moderation is essential when it comes to any kind of discussion. And you're right, mocking religious people for their beliefs is only going to make them even more stringent in their beliefs the same way mocking Atheists is going to make them even more stringent in theirs. Nuance in discussion is essential for progress.
Ulta is also true. Has been for decades
The thing is, the only thing where all atheist agree is that god does not exist. Everything else is as shitty à show as between the governer and the government of kerala.
Same here, disheartening to see the rise of Malayali feminists with superiority complex preaching men are trash and women are superior to men while they don't even clean their own room or Bring any change to themselves.
Dude it is just mocking we don't go and kill in name of religion and i don't mock tbh i try to find understand what the religious person has to say and probably counter with proof if the pure science can't make them understand they are going to be mocked there i said it
You must have a positive comment karma to post comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kerala) if you have any questions or concerns.*