• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The only people with no religion are solipsists. Believing in consensus reality is a religious view. What’s it like being a solipsist?

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you have a scientific argument for realism, I’d love to hear it, and so would every scientist ever, because it’s never been proven.

        • Nelots@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nobody said anything about realism. Realism and religion are not the only two options.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            You think I consider realism a different option than religion? I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the point of my comment very fundamentally. Realism IS a religion. It’s the largest and most harmful religion. And every fake atheist who believes in reality while espousing the dangers of religion is a hypocrite. I’m not an atheist, but I wish we had more of them, and less realists.

            • Nelots@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Seems like I did. I don’t think I’d call realism a religion, though I don’t know much about the viewpoint. In what way is realism more harmful than other religions?

              • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                4 months ago

                http://soulism.net is the best source on this

                Realism is capable of serving as a justification for colonialism, supremacy, and genocide even in the absence of apparent religious belief. For example in Australia, some of the cultural genocide against indigenous people took the form of taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents and putting them in white families. There is a Christian justification for this, which is that the kids need to be taught religion. But first off, you can do that by building a church in their community, no kidnapping required. And second, the realist justification, which is that the children must be taught reality, strikes a more fundamental chord in people and appeals even to fake atheists. The idea was that if you taught them maths and English and science in a white school, and European culture and manners and worldview in a white family, you’d “civilise” them. This happened all the way into the 1970s. There’s a lot of people, Christians included, who think that kidnapping a child to teach them Jesus is wrong. But if you instead say you’re going to teach them consensus reality, and use words like “education” and “lifting out of poverty” and “they’re being deprived with their biological parents”, you’ll convince more people that kidnapping is morally right.

                And this trend that realism is more complete and more broadly appealing than Christianity or any other religion holds true across many demographics. Realism is a better excuse for bigots to abuse trans people, otherkin, people with schizophrenia, indigenous people, other neurodivergent people, etc. Some Nazis were Christian and some were “atheist”, but all of them were realists.

                • emmanuel_car@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  if you instead say you’re going to teach them consensus reality, and use words like “education” and “lifting out of poverty” and “they’re being deprived with their biological parents”, you’ll convince more people that kidnapping is morally right.

                  Excuse me, what? In what modern context is this occurring? That Australians think this is morally right? I run in very left wing circles, but I don’t think I know of any Australian who thinks this is a morally right positions, or that when this was done it the past it was ok, save maybe extremists like Pauline Hanson, even then I don’t think she’d put that opinion out there in public.

                  Also this doesn’t make sense, you say you can teach a child religion by putting a church in their community, but the only way to teach them consensus reality is to kidnap them, instead of, I don’t know, building a school in their community?

                  For the record, as a rule I don’t support cultural genocide, all indigenous peoples should be given equal opportunity to stay connected to their heritage as well as participate in “consensus reality”, one shouldn’t have to choose, especially if one’s people have existed on the land for 50k+ years.

                  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    You’re right, few people think this was okay these days. The arguments I’m talking about apply to the cultural conditions of the 1970s, when people did think this was okay.

                    A school can teach numbers and letters, and those are part of reality, but cultural values are more slippery, and they’re also part of consensus reality. The reason that racists in the government kidnapped children is for total cultural immersion, and the eradication of indigenous reality.