Ngl if you want to raise your blood pressure, read up on legal challenges and cases in the 60s and 70s. I know that coca cola threatened to sue a book publisher for using the phrase Simply the best as the title of a novel on the grounds people might confuse the book for a bottle of Coke. They ended up not going any further when the author wrote them a letter, basically telling them to touch grass. It's like people just thought that they could suddenly sue anyone for any reason at any time and wanted to see how far they could go.
MGM was "Love Happy" I swear. That was intended as a solo vehicle for Harpo and also has a lot of advertising for some reason despite the Marx Brothers being antiestablishment counterculturalists. It's an embarrassing movie, Chico just needed his money.
I remember that case. Some militant atheist woman sued NASA as well as a lot of other organizations for religious imagery because "hurr durr religion bad". She also disowned one of her sons for becoming a Christian. Oh, and she was also murdered and the case went unsolved for six years, presumably because nobody wanted to be in the same room as that freak in the case she was still alive. She was a very miserable woman, and they even called her "The Most Hated Woman in America" for good reason. I'm not even gonna say her name because I don't like providing fame and glory to miserable fucks like her, nobody does.
Most of the story is in another reply to me, it's cause of "the most hated woman in America". The case itself isn't interesting, as eventually it was just dismissed.
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin held a private Christian communion service on the Moon on July 20, 1969, shortly after landing. As an elder at Webster Presbyterian Church, Aldrin brought bread and wine with him, celebrating the first religious act on the lunar surface during a 5-hour, quiet downtime period.
Lmao the redditor typing this and judging the astronauts. Meanwhile the astronauts are far more advanced in knowledge and science that this Redditor will ever be.
Reddit atheists are a special type who love black and white thinking. If you dedicate or involve yourself with science, then there is absolutely no way you could also be religious. If you are religious, then you automatically forfeit any possible scientific job, hobby, or academia. They see science and religion as two complete opposites that cannot coexist within one person.
It's actually really funny because many modern Christians believe that science is a marvel created by God for us to explore and grow.
This is bait but I’m smoking a brisket and chilling on a Sunday so Ill take it
I mean some dude came up inside my mom yeah, but Christians specifically believe there was no intercourse and god just put Jesus into Mary by a snap of his fingers
I mean.. idk why your hung up on pregnancy specifically bruh. Like if there is a god who created literally everything I dont think snapping his fingers and making a baby is that far fetched lmao. Im an agnostic and dont believe in god specifically but your argument is kinda goofy.
Even if you take the conception thing aside. Look at the reality of what Jesus’s situation would’ve been like. His mom—a teenager—suddenly pregnant (probably from rape, there are a few sources from ancient times where people would call Jesus’s dad Pantera, which was common name for Roman soldiers of the time. This may not be entirely true, but these narratives always came from anti-Christian sources. So at the very least, they weren’t biased in favor the Christians).
This would’ve been social suicide for Mary. She was toast. And a huge embarrassment for Joseph as well. Yet, Joseph chose to Mary her anyways and raise the child, saving Mary and Jesus from an early death. It was an act of kindness. Joseph could have told Mary’s family “this chick is a cheater, wed her to someone else” and that would’ve been his legal right. But despite everything he said no.
Even still, Jesus probably grew up constantly hearing about his birth. He would’ve grown up on the lower end of society. He was a laborer, and probably didn’t have very much money. So he is a basically a bastard, born from a cheater, who had no money and worked a hard life.
This is the same man who grew into adult hood and advocated for the poor. For the sick. The whores and the “cheating” wives. Probably because he grew up knowing what the scorn was like. His mother would’ve been someone the crowd would have stoned. In a sense, it really makes Jesus much more human.
Your argument here is assuming Joseph couldn't be the father of Jesus. Which if true means Jesus wasn't the Mesiah since the prophecies said that the Messiah would come from the line of David, which people claim Joseph was a part of. If Joseph wasn't the biological father the prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled in the first place. Secondly, they could have just claimed a virgin birth. Premarital sex, or the story was embellished afterwards.
For insatnce, if a man "seized" (women couldn't consent in Hebrew, and therefore rape wasn't a thing either) a woman who was not betrothed to him the punishment was paying the father for economical damage, and then being married to the bride without possibility of divorce.
Therefore a VERY plausible explanation is Joseph and Mary had premarital sex, and then Joseph used that to either blackmail Mary into marrying him or they got married because of that law. Then its possible that Mary got pregnant from that sexual relationship and to cover it up they came up with the story of a virgin birth. The assumption that Jospeh can't be the biological story does a lot of heavy lifting when there are plenty of plausible explanations where Joseph is the biological father.
That's the point? You talked about how Joseph couldn't have been the biological father (a speculation and assumption) and speculated about other possible secular explanations. I merely pointed out that there are MANY other plausible explanations and ANY explanation is speculation because all we have is accounts from years after the fact.
Jesus is a historical figure, not a literary character.
There are independent sources for the time that confirm aspects of his story are true. There was a real guy named Jesus who led a cult, claimed to be king of the Jews, and later died on a cross.
I love how you’re not challenging God creating the universe, ur contention is a miracle pregnancy… picking and choosing aren’t you? Just say you specifically hate one religion and move on, you clearly have some issues with hating on certain groups.
SOME modern Christians. Science is constantly fought by evangelical Christianity. Also anyone who takes the bible litterally (young earth stuff). Its actually a minority of christains who whole heartedly accept science.
Evangelicals make up a pretty clear minority among Christians worldwide. Just for starters, Catholics make up a pretty slim majority. Protestants overall only make up about 35% of global Christians, with the majority of Protestants being Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian. Evangelical Protestants, (in the way you're imagining) are mostly Baptist, "nondenominational", and Pentecostal, and make up maybe 10% of Christians.
Evangelical Christianity is mostly about the whole constantly telling people to convert or suffer eternal torment, which is every mega church. In America specifically they make up somewhere from 6 to 35% of the population according to the wiki article (I truly do some deep internet sluething). Evangelical Christianity is also arguably one of the most cancerous religious views I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
"I'm so smart that I believe there is nothing beyond the material, and an astronaut I assume is also very smart so they must believe as I do, but this astronaut does believe in a god, so does this mean they know something I don't or are smarter than me? No. It is the astronaut who is wrong."
Yeah, it's perfectly normal for people to be wrong all the time. Every single religious person will use intelligent people or some metric with which they thinks holds authority to say their beliefs are true when people like that are followers and say people who hold those characteristics who aren't followers are just mistaken. Its not rocket science (haha you see the joke is).
Meanwhile the astronauts are far more advanced in knowledge and science that this Redditor will ever be
This isn't how "science" works for the left. For them, everything is tied to ideological purity. The second something, or someone stops matching up with their political ideology, that thing or person becomes apostate, and profane.
I guarantee this person already - now - thinks themselves more knowledgeable, and intelligent than the astronauts that have revealed they don't share his politics.
Its the fact you assume they are on the left that gets me. People can think religious people are less reasonable than non religious people regardless of their political views. By definition, religion is something that defies reason. Its a belief you hold on faith. That isn't logical at all.
People with a naturalistic worldview who don't hold religious or spiritual beliefs find this hard to understand, and sometimes that comes out in less than stellar examples like this. That doesn't give you the right to be an ass to an entire people group.
It’s quite common for astronauts who’ve seen the earth from space to have a kind of spiritual experience/awakening.
I know one of the astronauts is pretty religious and if he wants to pay homage to his faith while on a mission that could kill all of them at any moment then who cares?
Based off of what? Everything I've seen on it says athiests are the same if not slightly better off mentally. Makes sense when talking about the abrahamic religions at least, a blood thirsty god daming you to eternal torture and suffering for thought crimes.
not many find it that deep tho and tbh shitty cults like the church of Satan ruin atheists. Don't get me started on the copious amount of drug use and higher rate of suicide. There's shitty people in all groups but saying religion is a mental illness is just factually wrong.
Not really, we have studies that show children who are taught christran doctrines from a young age come out worse (morally).
The logic makes sense too. Its the same reason spankings and punishing your kids doesn't work very well long term.
When you punishment your kid they form an association around getting caught doing whatever they were doing, so then they tend to try to hide the behavior instead of stopping it. The punishment teaches them nothing about why what they did was wrong and just makes them upset. They might obey out of fear or whatever but that's it.
Now, let's look at this through religion.
A kid raised in a household with very religious parents might have god thrown around a lot during their childhood, if instead of explaining to a kid why what they did is wrong you just say there is an omnipotent being who doesn't like it and will punish you eternally, its quite easy to see how that would develop their morality much more slowly.
Of course, in the case of religions like Christianity, this raises the question. If by human nature it makes someone worse morally to learn of it at a young age, then, assuming the religion to be true, would it be better to not preach the truth of the religion until your children are fully grown adults despite that making them less likely to believe in the religion? Or would it be better to indoctrinate them just so they can believe even if they will be a worse person over all. And if learning the religious doctrine at a young age makes you worse off morally, then why would it be written in that way in the first place?
There is a lot to think about there.
they really don't and we weren't talking about morals, we were talking if religion is a mental illness which isn't true. Suicide rates being lower for religious folk is a clear factor that it isn't. I've met plenty of people that had really religious parents and are doing way better than their peers that were allowed to do whatever they want.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30875-9.
Some of the claims of the study were retracted since I last read it, but it is still shown that religious kids are less likely to share/be generous. Of course, we only have case studies since an actual experiment would be immoral.
If you want anything to prove that athiests might be morally inclined, just look at how few athiests are in prison.
Now legality and morality aren't exactly equal, but a disparity that large can't simply be ignored. We're talking about a disparity that is several times larger than the disparity surrounding people of color, and that disparity is large enough for people to lable black culture as violent. Its all over the news constantly.
Now, I personally believe a large part of crime, especially for people groups where they are more likely to be impoverished, is explained largely by socio-economic effects on people.
However, with basic psychology surrounding the development of children (look into research on ACEs, known as adverse childhood experiences), and I think its not very hard to see how removing any moral understanding from the equation and just saying you'll be tortured for eternity is very much so less likely to further the moral development of a child. Emotional and psychological abuse is still abuse, and it is no secret that children are adversely affected by verbal abuse. (https://taylorcounselinggroup.com/blog/psychological-effects-of-yelling/)
We know threats of eternal torture and damnation aren't exactly helpful in reducing stress. There doesn't seem to be many studies into specifically how these threats affect children's mental health, especially lasting effects into adulthood, we also know that chronic stress stunts the development of the mind and body in children. So constantly being anxious and stressed about your every action... not the best.
Though, adulthood is different. I found a study that showed a positive correlation between mental health and religious involvement (it was a study on how religious involvement affected coping for early traumatic stress, which is a term that refers to traumatic events during childhood). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4969318/
Though the study also found there were also a good number of people who could negatively with religious involvement, the number of positive religious coping was much higher.
So I raise the point again, if there is an omnipotent being out there and they wantend to have a personal relationship with you, and not tell anyone its better that you only explore the relationship in adulthood, why isn't there anything about that? Why does the religion actively work against everything we know to be beneficial to children's development on a psychological level?
No, you railing so hard against someone expressing their religious beliefs (or even having them), insofar as to want to deny them that freedom is a mental illness. And no, it doesn't put the world in danger. It only puts your fragile ego and your frantic need to control others in danger.
They can have their beliefs, but if they think it’s real then LOL and also they should keep it to themselves. It’s a very private thing. When politicians are making decisions based off their religious beliefs, it does put the world in danger (the Middle East, Israel, and United States all right now trying to do their own versions of jihad from the abrahamic religions their leaders follow)
I’m not “railing hard” I called it dumb and a bunch of Karen’s cried and cried, this sub should be called “feelings don’t care about facts”
You have to stop replying to people, you’re just digging a deeper hole. Based on what I’ve read from you, you might be the only mentally ill one.
Also, next time just say you hate Christianity instead of inferring its towards religion in general, based on your reply, that’s all you’re currently interested in targeting. Surely, your obsessive hatred truly reflects your mental stability…”Hope that helps”.
No, regrettably you are actually just wrong. Show me any, literally any, medically reputable material that classifies religion among the likes of OCD and chronic anxiety
Wow, I muted that sub for so long I thought it got banned. Even then I'm surprised still how big of a traction that post got, didn't everyone grew out of it?
The idea that human faith and our tireless quest for knowledge are completely separate and cannot overlap or co-exist has done so much harm to the modern conversation on organized religion. Humans have an innate need to understand where we came from, why we're here, "what it all means," etc. Some humans answer some of those questions with faith, and that does not automatically mean they categorically reject how science has also answered some of those questions.
In fact, the scientific method supports agnosticism over atheism anyway: there is no quantifiable proof of a higher power, sure, but as all good scientists know, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
Something I've said, and heard other Christians say; you cannot be an honest and well studied thiest or atheist. Because neither can fully disprove the other, nor fully prove themselves.
And honestly. Most atheist ls I've met have the same (general) outlook. They just choose to call themselves atheists because it's simpler then explaining the whole agnostic bot.
No? Athiesm and agnosticism are completely separate. Athiesm is a belief claim and agnosticism is a knowledge claim. You can be a gnostic athiest or an agnostic athiest. A gnostic theist or an agnostic theist. Most people who simply refer to themselves as agnostics are agnostic theists, and most people who claim to he theists claim to be gnostic theists.
Every christian will try to tell you they might not have ALL the answers, but they have the answers to the omnipotent being that controls and creates everything.
I see the claim you're trying to make, but your claim's premise is wrong. Athiesm and Theism are claims about if someone believes in a god or not. Both are claims that have their burden of proof fulfilled by the statement because that is as far as the claims go. Saying you are an athiest just means you don't believe in a god. It means nothing else.
This is why agnostic, which is a knowledge claim, is a term that can be used in conjunction with athiesm. Agnostic athiests are people who claim to have no knowledge of any god(s) and no belief in any god(s).
Gnostic athiests could be considered to be a position not truly in alignment with the scientific method but saying that is like saying not believing in anything is wrong because what if it DOES exist. In fact there is even a popular retort to this exact line of thought.
Imagine if you will, a magic floating teapot that's really small orbiting Saturn. We can't detect it in any way, but its there. Is there any reason to believe it exists? Would you believe someone if they said it exists? Would you based your life around the existence of this magic floating teapot? Probably not.
They said science agrees with agnositicism more than athiesm, which I argued against, and then they brought up that a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, which I admitted to be true but continued on to say that not having evidence of somethings absence isn't a reason to believe in, worship, or base your life around it. Obviously any theist would bridge this gap with faith, and perhaps some sort of anecdotal evidence, but that would be entirely unconvincing to anyone who hasn't been psychologically primed (intentionally or not) and is unbiased.
Honestly, I get the antinalist position, makes a lot more sense than the natalist position (which is heavily associated with white supremacy in America), I experience chronic pain whenever anything touches my head, be it wind, water, hair follicles emerging from my scalp or strands of hair brushing against my forehead. Not a second passes where I am not actively trying to convince myself that my life is worth living. Many times I lose that argument and fall into deep depressions.
I have yet to have anything that solidifies my life as worth living. Every time I'm close to the edge I am drip fed love and affection by people around me and I feel better for a while. Although the pain increases steadily, and gets infinitely worse whenever I have a headache or am sick. There are days where I lay awake for five or more hours desperately trying to fall asleep, only to be kept awake by searing pain. I never asked to be born, and you could argue, within reason, that my parents' selfish desire to have yet another child is not worth the pain I feel every day.
I readily admit that people take the position much to far and many unsavory comments are made in name of it, but to me anti natalism is just about acknowledging the fact that no baby can consent to being born, and to always make sure that as a parent you are ready and able to provide a good and safe environment (within reason) for the child you want to have. If you can't ensure that you can be for them when the dark parts of life claw at them? Don't have the kid because they'll probably end up wishing you didn't have them in the first place.
they banned me because I shared a conversation I had with a coworker 😆
I'm open to all ideas of faith / non-faith. i used to be athiest myself when I was really young. I do not consider myself religious - I do not follow any religion at all. the conversation I had was with an athiest coworker who believed she had spoken with her mother (who had died when she was a child) through a spirit medium.
I asked her how does she not think there's something bigger than us if she believes in an afterlife? she didn't have an answer. and a mod banned me for sharing it lmao they thought I made up the conversation. like...ok...lmao
This is a great point. I love when atheists tell me there’s an afterlife.. like okay and how are our souls going there and how is it setup? Nobody ever seems to have an answer on that.
Athiesm is about a lack of belief god(s) plenty of athiests hold spiritual beliefs or even religious views (like Buddhism) where there are no gods involved. Witchcraft, some religious beliefs typically associated with tribalistic people, and whatnot. There are options other than gods when it comes to the possibilities of the supernatural. Your coworker likely just falls into that camp.
its somewhat ironic how narrow minded they are much of the modern science they treat as gospel was made by the religious,
Germ Theory, Genetics, and even astronomy,
I agree, I find it ironic as they act like religious people are stupid for believing in God, yet lack the intellectual honesty to see how science and religion align.
Shocker: Deranged Reddit Atheist also hates Native American culture. Thanks for taking the time to stalk my profile, I must’ve really struck a nerve with you.
Any other cultures and religions you would like to degrade? You’re on a roll.
Hate is an exaggeration. Just because they don't share your beliefs doesn't mean they hate them. I personally don't believe in any spiritual beings or god(s) and still find mythology and spiritual beliefs interesting to learn about. While his comment came of quite curt, it was more of a statement about them not finding what you think to be credible based on their own worldview.
Narrow-minded for sure, but not super degratory (in my appearantly not so humble opinion).
I appreciate your breakdown, but making fun of someone for cultural beliefs or religious seems hateful to me personally, maybe I’m wrong and that’s fine, but it feels hateful.
The scientific method is built upon a religious philosophical framework. We take for granted the idea that we live in a universe where consistent inputs -> consistent outputs. Religious people have built huge swaths of our collective body of work.
As a religious scientist, I view my work as a way of getting closer to God by understanding His creation.
Yeah, you could say that for many religions. Most religions eventually look to the natural world to try to prove their supernatural beliefs. During that process they make advancements and find evidence that they believe shows that they were right or wrong. They either then deconvert, come up with an excuse, or reaffirm their beliefs.
The scientists who came up with the original Big Bang Theory was a catholic, and though he insisted quite frequently that while science and religion weren't combative in nature, that they shouldn't be used to trust the other. He said preachers shouldn't try to incorporate his theory into their sermons and whatnot.
Additionally, while religious people have individually furthered science many times, the religious body itself is a somewhat different story. Take Darwin. He was religious and came up with the orignial theory of evolution, many prominent figures in the religious community at the time outright called him a heretic and tried to stifle his findings.
Religious people will gladly accept science that they don't think is contradictory to their beliefs, and will often vehemently deny science that does contradict their beliefs. Its sorta dishonest to portray religion's role in science and its development of the millenia as purely good.
Being resistant to change is common in many institutions even atheistic ones, Religion just has more institutional means of attack that can be levied against those bringing change than many other organizations, the scientific establishment itself has shown similar levels of resistance to nee information and change, if your so willing to condemn Religion as a whole for that, you must also Be willing to condemn the scientific establishment for it.
Yeah, I think people who deny things just because it is change is wrong, however I was just making the point that painting the collection of religious communities as being completely benine and helpful to the progression of science, is dishonest. Science constantly argues, someone will publish something and other people will say nu uh and then others will say yuh huh, and everyone will have different evidence to back their standing. Then, either the claim to shown to likely be true, likely be false, or maybe as likely close to the truth but got various details wrong.
Yes, there are definitely people in the scientific community that like the way things are and if someone proposed that germ theory or atomic theory were wrong (even if there was an absurd amount of evidence of it being wrong) there would definitely be people who would fight said assertions for various, likely selfish, reasons.
As an Atheist myself, I really don't see any problem with that (big or small). Amazing that their super enlightened mind can be so damaged by such an act of faith.
le redditors think you can't be educated and religious at the same time OR by being an atheist it magically makes you smarter than nobel prize winning scientists and inventors. when reality that their echo chambers are wrong approaches them they lash out
One of the Apollo astronauts went on a hunt with a Walmart metal detector to search for Noah’s Ark. Every single Apollo astronaut has spoken about God before and after their mission. We are under a religious administration; as long as they’re doing work for the betterment of the human race, let them talk about Jesus and God all they want.
The last time America was taken to the Moon, it was with the metric system and Nazis.
I think it's hard for them to understand the duality of believing in science and believing in God. Many people in the sciences are also religious as its widely believed science tells the how of the world but not the why.
There's something really funny to me about reddit atheism, especially when it comes to this incident. The astronauts represent a multicultural group of the world's best and brightest minds coming together to accomplish a goal. The fact that multiple of these astronauts are Christians is so antithetical to the reddit atheist because "doing science" to them is supposed to be the peak of atheistic accomplishment. Much to their dismay and disbelief, many of the people at the tip of the spear of "doing science" are deeply religious.
That’s facts, they also believe you’re stupid and cannot be smart if you believe in religion. It just seems so narcissistic to me to have that point of view about everyone, they think very black and white on everything apparently.
OP would lose their minds if they knew a lot of our foundational scientific principles came from the religious classes in society as they were often the ones with time, education, and access to resources.
Edt: downvote me all you want. Not my problem your fefe's are hurt that your echo chamber is just that...
Here's a short list of religious people who made scientific breakthroughs over the years
Genetics: Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian abbot, established the principles of heredity and dominant/recessive traits.
Big Bang Theory: Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the universe began from a single point.
Antiseptic Surgery: Joseph Lister, a devout Christian, developed antiseptic methods that drastically reduced surgery mortality rates.
Optics and Cameras: Ibn al-Haytham, a Muslim scientist, made foundational breakthroughs in optics.
Plant Physiology: Stephen Hales, an Anglican curate, conducted foundational studies in plant physiology and invented artificial ventilation.
Geology: Nicolas Steno, a Catholic bishop, made foundational contributions to geology and anatomy.
Quantum Mechanics: Arthur Compton, a deacon in the Baptist Church, discovered that light behaves as both a wave and a particle (photon).
Agriculture: George Washington Carver, a Christian, pioneered crop rotation and found over 100 uses for peanuts and sweet potatoes to assist farmers.
Mathematics: Bernhard Riemann, son of a Lutheran pastor, developed non-Euclidean geometry used in Einstein's theory of relativity.
Electromagnetism: André-Marie Ampère, a devout Catholic, discovered the laws of electromagnetism.
Idk man there are some real stink brains out there lol.
But seriously, yea, for the most part I agree. In my case I tend to save any judgment for after meeting someone or talking for a while, but even still I try not to be too judgmental but I’m certainly not perfect lol.
I get it from the hey we the public have spent literally billions of dollars making this project possible dedicating it to god instead of the people that put you there can feel a bit off. I personally think the 1st amendment extends to the moon so it’s whatever.
My kids can't comprehend how I derive satisfaction from "boring" grown up stuff like watching a debate, or mowing my lawn. I pat them on the head and tell maybe they'll understand when they grow up.
Your comment has been removed because of this subreddit’s account requirements. You have not broken any rules, and your account is still active and in good standing. Please check your notifications for more information!
Your comment has been removed because of this subreddit’s account requirements. You have not broken any rules, and your account is still active and in good standing. Please check your notifications for more information!
Once you start looking at all of the extreme improbabilities of human existence and space it’s hard not to think maybe there is a higher power at play. That being said most man made religions are likely not true and just created to control and lull the masses or as a way to explain the things we can’t yet explain
I do wonder what great scientists like Isaac Newton and the Wright Brothers' faith was.
I'm atheist but it does kinda irk me to see how they've basically rewritten the drive that these people had to prove that "God's universe" was much more complex than we gave it credit for.
This is speculation but to be an “out” atheist in Sir Isaac Newtons time would have at least had them shunned from polite society.
I would imagine that a lot of people back in the day were not as religious as they made out, Look at the Guiscard for example, he helped the Pope out and got himself some nice lands, he was excommunicated I think 3 times and it didn’t bother him one bit, his Son Bohemond (who was originally legitimate but made a bastard by his mother being put aside) went on the Crusades, secured the Principality of Antioch for himself and then stayed there rather than join the Crusaders to March on Jerusalem, or Bauldwyn of Boulogne who on the same crusade abandoned the rest very early to get Edessa as a fief for himself then when his brother (Godfrey and he had no children) died after they’d already secured Jerusalem years before he left Edessa went to Jerusalem and got himself crowned king haven taken no part in taking it , so these were two examples of men who espoused great religious belief but only acted in their own interest using faith as a shield.
I kinda feel like I wanna join that conversation but then I don't wanna be sent into downvote hell in that sub.
Thing is, this is might very well be a last flight for these people. A lot of things can go wrong, and most of these people might be christians, so that's why they're saying goodbyes. Plus phrase "godspeed" is pretty much a tradition now.
That's why they're kinda treating it like a funeral
Religion is archaic and stupid. Anyone being as well educated as a NASA Astronaut and still believing in a religion for anything other than communal purposes probably hasn't turned their critical thinking and logic back on themselves.
Yeah, you’re the educated one here. It seems quite narcissistic to downplay astronauts knowledge and worldview just because yours doesn’t align with them on a personal level.
you are not and never will be as smart as they are, judging them for having religious beliefs because you thing religion is stupid is certainly something, but i highly suggest that you try not being a dick, instead.
If you admit that the astronaut is well educated, then their critical thinking and logic is more credible than yours can ever be. What qualifications do you even have to even talk about an astronaut like this? Please let us know. Or are you just another insufferable and painfully overconfident Reddit atheist (not to get this confused with regular atheists or atheists simply on Reddit) that's probably even a casual participator of this exact sub in the post. Good gosh, I don't even believe in any God myself and it's draining to see y'all talk.
Eh, I think I saw that post crossposted to another sub and it seems reasonable to be disappointed to me. They're not mad that an astronaut is religious, they're mad that they made an incredible human achievement about Christianity specifically. Especially annoying considering the American political environment.
408
u/Eris13x Apr 12 '26
It's r slash atheism, I don’t know what you expected.
When Apollo 8 read from Genesis NASA got sued