i want to once more take a position that i stole possibly from @pegobry that a better term for this is _fideism_
helpfully from @NoHolyScripture: https://twitter.com/CharlesFLehman/status/1460220159973601286 …pic.twitter.com/uKsYOlj2Ui
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
From what I've seen of him talking about it, he's largely just pointing out that they function very similarly socially
A religion which has a standard set of or morals and practices for its practitioners is very different from one whose main tenants are about forcing compliance from nonbelievers.
As a religious person I don’t find it so offensive. Other religions have had thousands of years to evolve and select for more optimal outcomes. This is more akin to a mass cult that hasn’t evolved similarly.
I suspect one reason is the lingering effect of Dawkins and the rest of the New Atheism movement having spent many years arguing that religions are bad. Also, as others noted here, progressives insist they're not a religion so it's good trolling, and 1A (established religion).
Whether any of this trolling is productive of anything except lulz is, in my opinion, doubtful. I'd like to know, for instance, whether many people end up in the vaguely-defined Moldbuggian corner because of this trolling, or come in their own way.
yeah the big thing missing from this discourse is an explicit reckoning with what moderns think “a religion” is. the side throwing this term around on this particular issue is supposed to be the one that likes “religion.” it may turn out that that’s not actually what they like.
OR, it may be that this choice of word is intended to own the other side in an “it’s called we do a little trolling” way, which seems entirely within the ROE of contemporary political discourse
I believe the usual point the First Amendment explicitly forbids one religion holding power to the exclusion of others. Using that power to enforce blasphemy laws by another name is a pretty sure sign it is, and shouldn't.
Im sorry, I know this is frivolous and irrelevant and unkind... Author's name is WHAT now?
its a fine scottish name
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.