this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
246 points (94.6% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

813 readers
599 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's really more a cult than a religion. As much as "hahah all religions are cults LoL", there is a distinct difference between them.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Drag isn't a sociologist, but drag is pretty sure the set of cults is contained within the set of religions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right. All cults are, ostensibly, religions. That doesn't mean that it works in the other way. Not all religions are cults.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, so if Trumpism is a cult, it must be a religion. And it's a religion that isn't concerned with the creation of the universe, the afterlife, or how to live well. So your definition of religion based on it answering unknowns can't be right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a reason I said "ostensibly". Cults co-opt the religious umbrella in order to manipulate. They rely on the same kinds of psychology that religions do, often touch on the same kinds of topics. Trumpism is more a cult of personality than a proper religious cult.

Either way, to equate any kind of spiritually and religion with one of the most obvious examples of someone heading a cult is at BEST disingenuous. I'm not here to talk about cults. Cults suck, they're the opposite of what I described earlier. Intensely external, entirely about control.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trumpism definitely has the worship and belief in the supernatural, insofar as most religions do. Drag thinks it's a religion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's fine. Drag can believe it to be a religion. Still not one relevant at all to the views I stated above.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay well since we couldn't agree on a definition that encompasses all religions, drag is going to continue believing there's no such thing as religion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's fine. Any effort to perfectly categorize everything based on some kind of ruleset tends to fail. Most real world things don't really fall neatly into boxes like we want them to. Looking at species and gender as the two obvious examples.

We have yet to settle on an actual definition for "species" that works in every case. It was originally "can produce reproductively viable offspring" but a myriad of species break this rule. Then there's dogs. Every pet dog belongs to the species Canis Familiaris. It takes one look at a beagle and a great dane, for instance, to see where that doesn't exactly feel right.

Gender (or sex, even) is another example where categorization fails. For the longest time, we had two of each, and anything else was aberrant. Then we saw that there were enough odd cases that a third "intersex" category was added and wildly accepted. Today, we see so many different expressions of gender and sex that the categories of "male" and "female" have largely lost the meaning they have. They're just not useful descriptors of what we actually see.

Almost every attempt at categorization will end up with edge cases where we just have to make an arbitrary distinction. If you want that to be the nail in the coffin to say "religion's don't exist" then fine. Neither do music genres. Gender. Species. Or we can have an actual discussion on these topics, settle on a functional meaning for this conversation (as I tried to do multiple times) and actually exchange ideas, learn, and grow.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Genre, gender, and species don't exist either, but there are uses to pretending they do. There's actually a use to pretending religion exists too. It's to prevent religious discrimination. Protecting beliefs from persecution is the reason to keep the idea of religion around.

This post isn't quite in the spirit of that goal, though, so drag thinks OP shouldn't be allowed to have a definition of religion. Only people who aren't going to use the idea to do harm should have it. As far as antitheists are concerned, religion doesn't exist.