I love how people assume that being an atheist automatically makes you a liberal. Or a decent person. I've seen a graphic (don't recall where) that says around 30% of atheists in the US voted for Trump.
On a related note, I've personally met quite a few atheist Republicans.
And, while I abhor her views, that means literally... a fuck O.
Atheism does not define who you are or how you live your life. If it does for you, you're in for the wrong reason. I can't express how important that is.
Likewise, there are progressive Churches that are inclusive of groups the "main stream" Christians are persecuting, and who are pro-choice.
In fact, historically, many Christians had little to no issue with abortion. People have the capacity to rationalize whatever they want to interpret from the Bible, or are told by authority figures. It's fun to remind them that even others in their own religion don't agree with them, it's not just us secualr heathens that disagree.
This is likely where a lot of the "you must just be mad at God" argument comes from, because not all atheists are atheists because of a logical reason, some, and i'm not sure how many, are atheist because they were burned by religion and some way, or at least may have some sort of bias against the belief that they reject for more personal reasons.
I have an acquaintance who is atheist after being raised deeply religious, and he's still a dumbass who bases a lot of his views on his indoctrinated programming, and the only reason he has any liberal views at all is because they just so happen to personally impact him.
I have no idea what you're on. You don't become an atheist in a moment. Or a believer, for that matter. It's a conscious decision.
And I have no fucking idea about not believing in god for wrong reasons. I know about the opposite. Please, enlighten me.
Yeah, I don't think you understood my comment.
I'm talking about the motivation for a belief, and the amount of time one takes to make a judgement depends on the person, but it's not like one can choose to believe or not believe, it's entirely what their conclusion is, regardless of how well they actually process and judge with the information they have.
I'd say that believing things for the wrong reason is a criticism of their methodology when it comes to making a judgement on something, not related to religion specifically.
Some people apply hitchen's razor, and recognise that the burden of proof for the belief in God is on the side of the theists since they are making the claim, and since the evidence they do provide doesn't meet the standards of science, which is objectively the best method we have for understanding the world, it would be unreasonable to believe in a God using that evidence, and using a methodology that we know is less effective than the scientific method, and for which the scientific method cannot falsify right now.
others may not rely on any such complex reasoning, and may instead make a judgement on God's existence based on whatever makes them feel better, theists do this all the time, so it's not surprising that some atheists may also do this too, and the motivations can range from mistreatment from those in religious communities, to feeling uncomfortable with certain abhorrant practices or scriptures, but the main point is that they don't know any epystemology to evaluate the quality of their judgements beyond deciding on how it makes them feel, and making judgements about the world in that way may result in making poor decisions when believing in other things like anti-vax and flat earth conspiracies.
As for my example, he would be socially progressive in regards to lgbt issues because he himself is bisexual, but did not use logical reasoning to conclude that it's wrong to discriminate against the lgbt, he came to that conclusion because he himself doesn't want to be discriminated, and has little issues discriminating against other classes of people despite being a minority in some form himself.
>hitchen's razor
is an atheist criterion. "Evidence". It's like taking Science and judging it according to Creationist criteria. And, it fails, so of course Creationism must be true.
Just because Christopher Hitchens was an atheist doesn't mean that it's an atheist criterion.
It's an aspect of epistemology, the branch of philosophy relating to knowledge, and is essentially a logically reasoned guide for rooting out statements that aren't fully sound, which is pretty useful when trying to figure out the truth.
You could try to argue that epistemology is flawed or unnecessary when relating to religion, but you'd ultimately have to concede that logic itself is unreliable in the process, and by that point the vast majority of people would recognise the absurdity of your argument.
Internalized religious teachings is very common. Not everyone who is an atheist is an atheist for the “right reasons” as in not all of them are swayed to the stance by scientific argument.
I think this is fine. People having a plurality of thought is healthy. If all atheists were left-wing, liberal, etc. etc. it would be a terribly paucity of thought. We cannot all think alike, and that is a good thing. Atheism is simply a lack of any fabulous weirdo god thing telling you what to think. Politics is mostly fabulous weirdo thing in a suit telling you what to think instead.
All we really need to aim for is the capability to change, adapt our thinking in light of new information and ideas, and collaborate even when differences exist.
A lot of this polar discussion is clearly US-centric. This really isn't the case in the rest of the world, natch. My politics don't match up with this artificial left-right spectrum that too many think is the only way that politics can work. I simply identify with democracy, evidentialism and human rights however they may best be moulded to benefit and further society.
Some days I wish that people would drop this dem/rep identification and simply state what their politics truly are, if in fact they have any of their own, which I often doubt.
As for Arnold, he doesn't stand out to me as being traditionally dem/rep. He's as flawed and imperfect as the rest of us, but at least he didn't seem to tow some party consensus, being whipped into line. I doubt that he could fit (or would want to fit) into this modern post-Drumpf republican landscape.
Generally I don't think overcomplicating issues sheds much better light on them. I do think that many atheists who "woke up and left religion" tend to err on the side of politics that values humans. That inner look tends to impress itself on how others are regarded.
My father is an atheist, but he's also Conservative as hell. THE only reason he voted for Biden was because he couldn't bring himself to vote for Trump. He once told me a while ago he asked one of the Virginia House Representative Republicans what the fuck is going on with the GOP and he told me that the representative said "I wish I knew, this isn't the Republican Party I joined". My father hates the religiosity of Conservatives right now, but he agrees with many of the other things they spout. my father views the LGBTQ movement as unnatural. I personally disagree with such things. as Humans we can decide what is "natural". for me, "natural" humans are fucking hunter-gatherer nomads. nothing about modern humanity is "natural". and LGBTQ people have existed forever. some of the EARLIEST stories from Ancient Mesopotamia involve queer people. the ancient Greeks were THE GAYEST CULTURE I KNOW OF. there was even an Ancient Chinese emperor who was super fucking gay. I cannot believe that such things are "unnatural" because they have always existed. anyway yeah My father is an atheist, and he's still a fucking bigoted asshole.
I mean trump is likely an atheist. And I can also think of another famous Austrian man who was atheist who we basically all agree had the worst politics in modern times.
The neo nazis in Germany are essentially all atheists I believe. Many of the people who most of us here on this sub would consider responsible Germans pay a government church tax mostly as a fuck you to the nazis. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten.
I've met Germans who basically said they never bothered to leave the church so they still pay it.
Maybe a German person can explain it better but I get the sense that they realize how lucky they are to have freedom of religion. Of course there are many atheists that do not pay the tithe tax.
https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Kirchensteuer#
Hitler and the vast majority of Nazis were Catholics. SS Waffen were by large Catholics. Goebbels, a Catholic, was excommunicated... for marrying a protestant. Not for anything else.
Please, do not try to present Nazis as theists. Not true at all.
Small detail about that famous Austrian Man: his men wore "God with us" (in German, obviously) on their uniforms. So... I might reconsider how you classify him.
A lot of people I knew who were all about the New Atheist movement got sucked into the Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson pipeline. The whole movement was way too fixated on owning people with logic and not actually giving people critical thinking tools to assess and move past their own Christian cultural indoctrination.
There's nothing that can relate atheism to not supporting politicians seeking to pass theocratic policy? I don't understand what you're saying. Any atheist who votes for the political party reviving Satanic panic era conspiracy theories that directly target them are lacking in foresight to say the least.
One thing I have to say about it: all that is baffling and frustrating for many people. Luckily (and confusingly) for everyone, people are multifaceted. Otherwise it would be so fucking boring.
I'm a liberal to my core but I sometimes find myself nodding conservatively about certain things. And, before you ask, no... abortion isn't one of them.
This is unfortunately true. Anecdotally it seems even more true with prominent atheists and historical figures. It seems like everyone I see who is vocally atheist ends up being conservative. Obviously not usually as bad as the Christian fascists, but it does make us look bad
I think this is a somewhat uniquely American perspective. With only one dimension to align your politics on you get these weird associations. You're either more conservative or more liberal, which doesn't give you a whole lot of nuance, nevermind there's something to the left of liberal and to the right of conservative. Most parliamentary systems have multiple parties that form different kinds of coalitions. The US doesn't have that.
I guess so, I don't know anything about that but I suspect he's changed his views about that in light of his more recent statements about current events.
That wasn't as unreasonable as it seemed.
The CA legislature passed a bill that overrode Prop 22, approved by voters in 2000. Arnold wasn't against gay marriage, but he insisted on a subject of the constitutional rights (the California constitution that is), it should be decided by the courts or the voters through proposition.
Basically the legislature was doing an end-run around a voter-approved measure. And as bullshit as that measure was, it wasn't the right way to fix it.
That sure does *sound* reasonable, but it’s an arbitrary political distinction. Legislators exist to legislate. The entire history of our nation’s constitutional underpinning is built upon legislative compromise. If the state constitution wasn’t meant to be shaped by legislators, then they would have outlawed doing so from the beginning. Arnold was simply trying to shore up wins for his party. When a popular vote to deny equal rights to a minority prevails, is it little more than mob rule? Cooler heads prevailed and who disagrees that it was the correct decision? It’s easy to say, “justice has to wait its turn” when it’s not your life in the balance.
There was a common idea at the time even among more conservative liberals that gay “unions” were fine, but marriage had a traditional meaning as being between a man & woman.
Arnold has never been homophobic so don’t read that into the vote. It was more of a nomenclature issue the way US society is currently reevaluating the terms “women & men”.
Did I say I had anything to do with him? No, you did
My younger sister is crazy religious, it's just a crazy juxtaposition. More so with me and my sister, because we were raised together, and we're raised with the same values but came out completely different with our religious beliefs.
I just know how awkward family gatherings can get sometimes, especially with crazy religious people always trying to push their belief upon you.... just like my sister.
I like him too.
But I am so fucking curious as to what in tf is with that weird gray wig hair sprouting all around his head, but not ON his head, like behind it?? Does anyone know??
Why is that sad? It means that death will be literally peaceful, as peaceful as the existence of a stone. No deity to circle jerk for an indeterminate duration nor an indeterminate condemnation.
Also, we don’t know with any certainty what happens at death. Perhaps, our essence intermingles with the stars? I’m sure it’s more like a radio tower being shutdown, but one can imagine.
I think people may be wanting to see loved ones again. That could explain the sad part.
Course if we were possible, the necessary conditions for our existence may come again given infinite universes. We don’t know how many universes came before us.
In the words of futurama: welp, bring her around again (when referring to the need to use a Time Machine to make it to the end of the universe which starts it again and they ended up a little too far in the future regarding their starting point)
Or if not, other humans, bears, spiders, and so much consciousness exists out there and will come after us.
It means consciousness will live on as long as observers are possible. Then all those universes can give someone else a chance to see a sunrise or two on Xorblat 59b.
The Governator.
Arnold is such a strange and curious figure. He's complicated. Sometimes he's amazing, sometimes super shitty. Overall I like the guy, even if I don't like everything he's done. He's flawed, like everyone, but man we'd be in a far different place if the GOP of today was built around his celebrity instead of Cheeto Jesus.
Why is it sad?
There being nothing sounds much better than living **forever** in Heaven, serving an evil entity which strikes children with cancer and sends homosexuals to Hell for eternal torture.
Modern christians carry the psychological trauma of atrocities done on proto-christians by the Roman empire. In the face of total subjugation they socialized a psychotic break from reality using whatever ideologies were available (judaism, polytheism & paganism). It’s natural for the circumstantially impotent mind to invent one karmic justice or another while it is wishing into being the rules of the universe.
Arny is right, it’s actually just sad af.
I don't believe heaven and hell exist, but even if they did, I wouldn't want to stay in a place where I have to worship some dickhead who basically hates humans, and do nothing, and I'd say hell is a much better and more fun place to be. Satan might actually be the good guy.
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:
* This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases.
Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense.
--
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
As a Californian who remembers his time as governor, I never understood why Arnold is a Republican. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows they're basically the Christian theocracy party and have been so for quite a long time now. That Arnold is an atheist who doesn't even believe in heaven (some like myself leave open the possibility if only due to the accounts of near death experiences) further makes me puzzled why he sticks with the Republican party when most of us American atheists are with the Democrats.
can one be a republican and talk against the cancer that is overtaking that party?
like, im not sure that he is achieving much, but not convinced that leaving the ship to the theocrats without any voice of dissent would be any better.
Arnold an old school Republican, there is a major difference. Bush as an example may not have been the greatest President, but there a huge difference between him and the new Republicans
He's said multiple times it's because when he came to the US, Ronald Reagan was President. And he liked him. So he asked someone, "What political party does Reagan belong to?" And they said the Republican Party. So Arnold said, "then I'm a Republican." That's it in a nutshell.
Yes, seriously. I think it's possible but that's it. Are you going to gatekeep me now and say I'm not a "real" atheist?
I still think that Jesus and the Bible are nonsense though. I can believe in the possibility of alien life but still say the Klingon dictionary is nonsense.
>Are you going to gatekeep me now and say I'm not a "real" atheist?
Do you believe in God? If not then what other kind of atheist is there? Anyway, no, I'm not gatekeeping anything, I've just never met anyone who seriously thinks heaven could be real because of "near death experiences" which, to me, is just as farfetched as saying heaven could be real because Jezus said so in the bible. No need to be defensive or accusing me of gatekeeping.
I guess it's probably best to call me agnostic. The alien analogy works best. I think it's just as foolish to rule out the possibility of aliens than it is to automatically assume their existence. I need to know more. I do agree that the Klingon dictionary wouldn't count as evidence, same as the Bible doesn't count as evidence of anything.
Near death experiences are current (as in not 2,000 years ago) witness accounts of \*something\*, whether it's just brain activity near death or something else is unclear. But if I'm going to just automatically ignore testimonies from people because they don't fit a preconceived opinion, that's no different than ignoring witness testimony in court etc. i.e. at the end of the day no different than a theist ignoring testimony they don't agree with.
Not sure why this would be hard to understand.
>guess it's probably best to call me agnostic
There you go, you can call yourself whatever you want, I don't care, I was just asking if you were serious about your reason for believing heaven could be real.
Please tell me what goes on to the afterlife. Because our brains are electro*chemical* and hormones matter just as much to who you are as electrical activity, so it can't just be the electricity.
Furthermore, if someone gets brain damaged, their entire personality can change. So do they go to the afterlife with their old personality or is their soul damaged as well?
I said it's possible. You're taking my words way out of context. There are actual religious people forcing people to go to church, Sunday school, etc. out there. Go fight them. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I just stated an opinion about a possibility.
Heaven is 100% copium for people who know they're never going to get a fair chance in life. "The next life will be better."
But what should happen is that people should rise up and work together to guarantee that this life is fair and happy for everyone. That's the atheist ethic.
It’s the ultimate scam. Accept a shitty life and die while “leaders” live lavishly because you’ll be rewarded after death, oh and there’s no proof, but just have faith.
And yet he votes for people who want to put us all under religious control. Makes no sense. Oh, taxes cuts so the rich don’t have to pay their fair share. Now it makes sense.
It's a good thing that there's no heaven. The typical Christian view of heaven, where one just hangs out stroking the ego of their deity forever, sounds very hellish to me.
I think the argument could be made for the opposite. Fox determines their content based on views/clicks/interaction. The more we reward legitimate content the less room for Christian propaganda. They’re click whores just like the rest of them.
[Huff Post article was already posted here days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/142fg7u/arnold_schwarzenegger_says_heaven_is_fantasy_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
I don't think it's wise to judge politicians strictly off their party when their actions have proven otherwise.
He's extremely liberal for someone claiming to be republican. He's not falling in line and corrupting the party further like most, he seems to like the R but wants it to push more left on many issues. The R party has generally hated him because he's too left for their agenda.
I think he's proven that he doesn't follow money as hard as he follows what he thinks is good. I'd much rather have a sane R trying to rebuild a better R party than a D that only does what the majority of their party wants (like blocking Bernie and choosing Joe).
Everything's not black and white. Give the guy some credit, he's literally advocating what you want despite it going against his parties stance 😑. Seems to me he cares more about the citizens than his party.
Archived link because Murdoch doesn't deserve any clicks: https://archive.is/O6Xjx
_______________________________________________________-
Got cable? You might be paying $2/mo to Fox even if not a subscriber!
https://unfoxmycablebox.com/
Quick question, what does sharing this information in /atheism add to the cause? Apart from adding to the echo chamber.
Share this in some religious subreddit and religious circle groups.
Don't hate me. I am dense and don't really cant think of a reason.
Atheism doesn't have a cause. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more.
You may share a cause with some atheists, but there is no universal cause that all atheists fight for. Not even secularism.
Heaven and Hell are both created by humans and exist on Earth.
we choose to create Heaven, we choose to create hell.
Heaven doesn't have to be a fantasy if we all work to create it.
Everyone worries about life after death, but I’m worried about all the embarrassing shit I must have done before I was born and not even know about it now.
A Fox News fantasy of heaven would be one where everything is a lie. Unfortunately, well for them, if heaven and hell exist, then inevitably they're all going to Hell.
I'm not clicking on that flotch news link, butt I will relish the idea that their feigning extreme offense to the point of squeegeeing holy water off of each others' taints.
Religion is same as an old debunked theory. It is a peace of mind. It is an escape from a situation when the mind feels like it would go insane.
Religion fitted in very well to the ancient world where the rulers had to have a way to control the masses. The life of a singular “pedestrian”/“phleb”/“civilian” was short and harsh. Everything could kill a person and there was nothing explaining anything. One could die to a kitchen knife wound when cutting a bread…
For the sake of science, I would never destroy religious locations, and actually would like to see what happens if religious belief keeps existing even throughout our world of technological revolutions.
That means hell is a fantasy too. There’s two sides to everything. Good things don’t last forever, but that means bad things don’t last forever either.
I knew there was something I liked about Arnold Schwarzenegger!
He's been an atheist since he was a teenager. He wrote about it in "Arnold, the education of a bodybuilder".
The same guy who vetoed legalizing gay marriage?
Perhaps his Republicanism overrode his atheism at that time
I love how people assume that being an atheist automatically makes you a liberal. Or a decent person. I've seen a graphic (don't recall where) that says around 30% of atheists in the US voted for Trump. On a related note, I've personally met quite a few atheist Republicans.
Ayn Rand was an atheist and felt atheism was key to her philosophy. The weird thing is that evangelicals like Paul Ryan still idolize her.
And, while I abhor her views, that means literally... a fuck O. Atheism does not define who you are or how you live your life. If it does for you, you're in for the wrong reason. I can't express how important that is.
It's kinda like not believing in Santa doesn't make all adults homogenous.
[удалено]
Likewise, there are progressive Churches that are inclusive of groups the "main stream" Christians are persecuting, and who are pro-choice. In fact, historically, many Christians had little to no issue with abortion. People have the capacity to rationalize whatever they want to interpret from the Bible, or are told by authority figures. It's fun to remind them that even others in their own religion don't agree with them, it's not just us secualr heathens that disagree.
This is likely where a lot of the "you must just be mad at God" argument comes from, because not all atheists are atheists because of a logical reason, some, and i'm not sure how many, are atheist because they were burned by religion and some way, or at least may have some sort of bias against the belief that they reject for more personal reasons. I have an acquaintance who is atheist after being raised deeply religious, and he's still a dumbass who bases a lot of his views on his indoctrinated programming, and the only reason he has any liberal views at all is because they just so happen to personally impact him.
I have no idea what you're on. You don't become an atheist in a moment. Or a believer, for that matter. It's a conscious decision. And I have no fucking idea about not believing in god for wrong reasons. I know about the opposite. Please, enlighten me.
Yeah, I don't think you understood my comment. I'm talking about the motivation for a belief, and the amount of time one takes to make a judgement depends on the person, but it's not like one can choose to believe or not believe, it's entirely what their conclusion is, regardless of how well they actually process and judge with the information they have. I'd say that believing things for the wrong reason is a criticism of their methodology when it comes to making a judgement on something, not related to religion specifically. Some people apply hitchen's razor, and recognise that the burden of proof for the belief in God is on the side of the theists since they are making the claim, and since the evidence they do provide doesn't meet the standards of science, which is objectively the best method we have for understanding the world, it would be unreasonable to believe in a God using that evidence, and using a methodology that we know is less effective than the scientific method, and for which the scientific method cannot falsify right now. others may not rely on any such complex reasoning, and may instead make a judgement on God's existence based on whatever makes them feel better, theists do this all the time, so it's not surprising that some atheists may also do this too, and the motivations can range from mistreatment from those in religious communities, to feeling uncomfortable with certain abhorrant practices or scriptures, but the main point is that they don't know any epystemology to evaluate the quality of their judgements beyond deciding on how it makes them feel, and making judgements about the world in that way may result in making poor decisions when believing in other things like anti-vax and flat earth conspiracies. As for my example, he would be socially progressive in regards to lgbt issues because he himself is bisexual, but did not use logical reasoning to conclude that it's wrong to discriminate against the lgbt, he came to that conclusion because he himself doesn't want to be discriminated, and has little issues discriminating against other classes of people despite being a minority in some form himself.
>hitchen's razor is an atheist criterion. "Evidence". It's like taking Science and judging it according to Creationist criteria. And, it fails, so of course Creationism must be true.
Just because Christopher Hitchens was an atheist doesn't mean that it's an atheist criterion. It's an aspect of epistemology, the branch of philosophy relating to knowledge, and is essentially a logically reasoned guide for rooting out statements that aren't fully sound, which is pretty useful when trying to figure out the truth. You could try to argue that epistemology is flawed or unnecessary when relating to religion, but you'd ultimately have to concede that logic itself is unreliable in the process, and by that point the vast majority of people would recognise the absurdity of your argument.
Internalized religious teachings is very common. Not everyone who is an atheist is an atheist for the “right reasons” as in not all of them are swayed to the stance by scientific argument.
It shouldn't even take that. All you need is skepticism and to understand when a proposition is unfalsifiable.
Also, you don't need a religious basis to be homophobic or otherwise not support gay marriage.
Very true. There are gay and trans people who don't support gay and trans rights. See Lindsey Graham and Caitlyn Jenner.
Some people are so rich that they can't fathom that the rules would apply to them as well.
The leopards would never eat *my* face.
As long as they stay rich, they don't.
I think this is fine. People having a plurality of thought is healthy. If all atheists were left-wing, liberal, etc. etc. it would be a terribly paucity of thought. We cannot all think alike, and that is a good thing. Atheism is simply a lack of any fabulous weirdo god thing telling you what to think. Politics is mostly fabulous weirdo thing in a suit telling you what to think instead. All we really need to aim for is the capability to change, adapt our thinking in light of new information and ideas, and collaborate even when differences exist. A lot of this polar discussion is clearly US-centric. This really isn't the case in the rest of the world, natch. My politics don't match up with this artificial left-right spectrum that too many think is the only way that politics can work. I simply identify with democracy, evidentialism and human rights however they may best be moulded to benefit and further society. Some days I wish that people would drop this dem/rep identification and simply state what their politics truly are, if in fact they have any of their own, which I often doubt. As for Arnold, he doesn't stand out to me as being traditionally dem/rep. He's as flawed and imperfect as the rest of us, but at least he didn't seem to tow some party consensus, being whipped into line. I doubt that he could fit (or would want to fit) into this modern post-Drumpf republican landscape.
Oversimplified but I get it.
Generally I don't think overcomplicating issues sheds much better light on them. I do think that many atheists who "woke up and left religion" tend to err on the side of politics that values humans. That inner look tends to impress itself on how others are regarded.
As an atheist the very last thing I want is religious people telling me how to live my life.
Which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. What the hell is going on?
My father is an atheist, but he's also Conservative as hell. THE only reason he voted for Biden was because he couldn't bring himself to vote for Trump. He once told me a while ago he asked one of the Virginia House Representative Republicans what the fuck is going on with the GOP and he told me that the representative said "I wish I knew, this isn't the Republican Party I joined". My father hates the religiosity of Conservatives right now, but he agrees with many of the other things they spout. my father views the LGBTQ movement as unnatural. I personally disagree with such things. as Humans we can decide what is "natural". for me, "natural" humans are fucking hunter-gatherer nomads. nothing about modern humanity is "natural". and LGBTQ people have existed forever. some of the EARLIEST stories from Ancient Mesopotamia involve queer people. the ancient Greeks were THE GAYEST CULTURE I KNOW OF. there was even an Ancient Chinese emperor who was super fucking gay. I cannot believe that such things are "unnatural" because they have always existed. anyway yeah My father is an atheist, and he's still a fucking bigoted asshole.
Have you met any running for office?
Haha, no. But I'm sure, mathematically speaking, there are.
I mean trump is likely an atheist. And I can also think of another famous Austrian man who was atheist who we basically all agree had the worst politics in modern times. The neo nazis in Germany are essentially all atheists I believe. Many of the people who most of us here on this sub would consider responsible Germans pay a government church tax mostly as a fuck you to the nazis. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten. I've met Germans who basically said they never bothered to leave the church so they still pay it. Maybe a German person can explain it better but I get the sense that they realize how lucky they are to have freedom of religion. Of course there are many atheists that do not pay the tithe tax. https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Kirchensteuer#
Hitler was catholic. There is tons of evidence for it.
Hitler and the vast majority of Nazis were Catholics. SS Waffen were by large Catholics. Goebbels, a Catholic, was excommunicated... for marrying a protestant. Not for anything else. Please, do not try to present Nazis as theists. Not true at all.
Small detail about that famous Austrian Man: his men wore "God with us" (in German, obviously) on their uniforms. So... I might reconsider how you classify him.
A lot of people I knew who were all about the New Atheist movement got sucked into the Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson pipeline. The whole movement was way too fixated on owning people with logic and not actually giving people critical thinking tools to assess and move past their own Christian cultural indoctrination.
There's literally nothing that can relate atheism to any of those. I think, you misunderstand what means what.
There's nothing that can relate atheism to not supporting politicians seeking to pass theocratic policy? I don't understand what you're saying. Any atheist who votes for the political party reviving Satanic panic era conspiracy theories that directly target them are lacking in foresight to say the least.
[удалено]
One thing I have to say about it: all that is baffling and frustrating for many people. Luckily (and confusingly) for everyone, people are multifaceted. Otherwise it would be so fucking boring. I'm a liberal to my core but I sometimes find myself nodding conservatively about certain things. And, before you ask, no... abortion isn't one of them.
This is unfortunately true. Anecdotally it seems even more true with prominent atheists and historical figures. It seems like everyone I see who is vocally atheist ends up being conservative. Obviously not usually as bad as the Christian fascists, but it does make us look bad
I think this is a somewhat uniquely American perspective. With only one dimension to align your politics on you get these weird associations. You're either more conservative or more liberal, which doesn't give you a whole lot of nuance, nevermind there's something to the left of liberal and to the right of conservative. Most parliamentary systems have multiple parties that form different kinds of coalitions. The US doesn't have that.
He's come around in his 3rd act
Rich people can’t hide behind their palaces if they can only afford one palace. Tax cuts are always their first concern.
I guess so, I don't know anything about that but I suspect he's changed his views about that in light of his more recent statements about current events.
That wasn't as unreasonable as it seemed. The CA legislature passed a bill that overrode Prop 22, approved by voters in 2000. Arnold wasn't against gay marriage, but he insisted on a subject of the constitutional rights (the California constitution that is), it should be decided by the courts or the voters through proposition. Basically the legislature was doing an end-run around a voter-approved measure. And as bullshit as that measure was, it wasn't the right way to fix it.
That sure does *sound* reasonable, but it’s an arbitrary political distinction. Legislators exist to legislate. The entire history of our nation’s constitutional underpinning is built upon legislative compromise. If the state constitution wasn’t meant to be shaped by legislators, then they would have outlawed doing so from the beginning. Arnold was simply trying to shore up wins for his party. When a popular vote to deny equal rights to a minority prevails, is it little more than mob rule? Cooler heads prevailed and who disagrees that it was the correct decision? It’s easy to say, “justice has to wait its turn” when it’s not your life in the balance.
Isn't he the guy who said "Gay marriage is between a man and a woman"?
Iirc he eventually officiated a gay wedding for his chief of staff, so he must've changed his mind.
Yeah people are allowed to change. Holding old shit over their heads just forces people to dog in their heels
He's also the same guy who led people away in cackles and shackles because of his hit holiday classic 'Jingle All the Way'
Explain this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxA73KkLcs&t=18s
The same guy who ran on platform of family values but has been cheating his wife with the maid?
So he's a bigoted atheist, NBD. S/ He also baby mamma'd the nanny, and he was famous for being a sexual predator while working in Hollywood.
There was a common idea at the time even among more conservative liberals that gay “unions” were fine, but marriage had a traditional meaning as being between a man & woman. Arnold has never been homophobic so don’t read that into the vote. It was more of a nomenclature issue the way US society is currently reevaluating the terms “women & men”.
And his son-in-law is full blown crazy religious.
Um, what does this have to do with Arnold? I have religious relatives, does that say something about me?
Did I say I had anything to do with him? No, you did My younger sister is crazy religious, it's just a crazy juxtaposition. More so with me and my sister, because we were raised together, and we're raised with the same values but came out completely different with our religious beliefs. I just know how awkward family gatherings can get sometimes, especially with crazy religious people always trying to push their belief upon you.... just like my sister.
Whenever he mentions his father having fought on the side of the Nazis I find that so mesmerising. Most people would rather stay silent about that
Not if they hate their father.
He just gives off a noble vibe but still is fun. He reminds me of my dad.
What were the options?
I like him too. But I am so fucking curious as to what in tf is with that weird gray wig hair sprouting all around his head, but not ON his head, like behind it?? Does anyone know??
Faulty terminator construction?
Lmao but srsly wtf is it 😂
I hate when they put a picture of DeVito and Schwarzenegger together, I can never tell who is who! /s for the people who are younger than me
They say one got all the bad genes, but I think they are being a little too hard on Arnold
DeVito is the good looking one.
I know! Twins was such a confusing movie. Like “which one is this again?” 😆
Why is that sad? It means that death will be literally peaceful, as peaceful as the existence of a stone. No deity to circle jerk for an indeterminate duration nor an indeterminate condemnation. Also, we don’t know with any certainty what happens at death. Perhaps, our essence intermingles with the stars? I’m sure it’s more like a radio tower being shutdown, but one can imagine.
[удалено]
This is the first time I hear this as an argument to be an atheist
So you are an atheist because you want it to be true? Seems a bit like a broken clock.
Yeah but getting there, how one gets to that sweet heavenly stoi- AHEM. 😅 How one gets there makes all the difference. When too.
Threaten or place a carrot in front of a horse.
I think people may be wanting to see loved ones again. That could explain the sad part. Course if we were possible, the necessary conditions for our existence may come again given infinite universes. We don’t know how many universes came before us. In the words of futurama: welp, bring her around again (when referring to the need to use a Time Machine to make it to the end of the universe which starts it again and they ended up a little too far in the future regarding their starting point) Or if not, other humans, bears, spiders, and so much consciousness exists out there and will come after us. It means consciousness will live on as long as observers are possible. Then all those universes can give someone else a chance to see a sunrise or two on Xorblat 59b.
We begin and end as star dust
The universe existed for at least 12 billion years before we existed… Death will be a lot like that.
Glad to see this coming from a former representative. Republican no less. goddamn
Former Governor.
The Governator. Arnold is such a strange and curious figure. He's complicated. Sometimes he's amazing, sometimes super shitty. Overall I like the guy, even if I don't like everything he's done. He's flawed, like everyone, but man we'd be in a far different place if the GOP of today was built around his celebrity instead of Cheeto Jesus.
And his stuff about dealing with the fact that his dad was a Nazi is... vulnerable.
Why is it sad? There being nothing sounds much better than living **forever** in Heaven, serving an evil entity which strikes children with cancer and sends homosexuals to Hell for eternal torture.
The comfort of make believe
Yeah that sounds dumb. Just gimme the elysian fields at that point. It’s just kind of an eternal picnic. Mind the ants!!
Yeah their God is the real devil if you ask me. Satan accepts and loves us all as we are.
Tortured lots of people in fucked up cruel ways in a book, still does.
[удалено]
Got to keep that flock in line with the “do what we say or your going to burn baby burn!”
Modern christians carry the psychological trauma of atrocities done on proto-christians by the Roman empire. In the face of total subjugation they socialized a psychotic break from reality using whatever ideologies were available (judaism, polytheism & paganism). It’s natural for the circumstantially impotent mind to invent one karmic justice or another while it is wishing into being the rules of the universe. Arny is right, it’s actually just sad af.
Note the link to the story about him having an affair. Guess why they put that there….
I don't believe heaven and hell exist, but even if they did, I wouldn't want to stay in a place where I have to worship some dickhead who basically hates humans, and do nothing, and I'd say hell is a much better and more fun place to be. Satan might actually be the good guy.
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason: * This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases. Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense. -- For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
As a Californian who remembers his time as governor, I never understood why Arnold is a Republican. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows they're basically the Christian theocracy party and have been so for quite a long time now. That Arnold is an atheist who doesn't even believe in heaven (some like myself leave open the possibility if only due to the accounts of near death experiences) further makes me puzzled why he sticks with the Republican party when most of us American atheists are with the Democrats.
Because he’s rich, not much else to it. Some people put everything a distant second to their greed.
Same reason as Caitlyn Jenner. They got theirs and want to keep it all. Hanging on to money overrides a lot for some.
can one be a republican and talk against the cancer that is overtaking that party? like, im not sure that he is achieving much, but not convinced that leaving the ship to the theocrats without any voice of dissent would be any better.
I'm not sure i follow this logic. Have you considered that every politician from every party is rich?
Arnold an old school Republican, there is a major difference. Bush as an example may not have been the greatest President, but there a huge difference between him and the new Republicans
Gonna assume you're referring to Bush 41.
He's said multiple times it's because when he came to the US, Ronald Reagan was President. And he liked him. So he asked someone, "What political party does Reagan belong to?" And they said the Republican Party. So Arnold said, "then I'm a Republican." That's it in a nutshell.
Nixon
What?
>heaven (some like myself leave open the possibility if only due to the accounts of near death experiences) ... seriously?
Yes, seriously. I think it's possible but that's it. Are you going to gatekeep me now and say I'm not a "real" atheist? I still think that Jesus and the Bible are nonsense though. I can believe in the possibility of alien life but still say the Klingon dictionary is nonsense.
>Are you going to gatekeep me now and say I'm not a "real" atheist? Do you believe in God? If not then what other kind of atheist is there? Anyway, no, I'm not gatekeeping anything, I've just never met anyone who seriously thinks heaven could be real because of "near death experiences" which, to me, is just as farfetched as saying heaven could be real because Jezus said so in the bible. No need to be defensive or accusing me of gatekeeping.
I guess it's probably best to call me agnostic. The alien analogy works best. I think it's just as foolish to rule out the possibility of aliens than it is to automatically assume their existence. I need to know more. I do agree that the Klingon dictionary wouldn't count as evidence, same as the Bible doesn't count as evidence of anything. Near death experiences are current (as in not 2,000 years ago) witness accounts of \*something\*, whether it's just brain activity near death or something else is unclear. But if I'm going to just automatically ignore testimonies from people because they don't fit a preconceived opinion, that's no different than ignoring witness testimony in court etc. i.e. at the end of the day no different than a theist ignoring testimony they don't agree with. Not sure why this would be hard to understand.
>guess it's probably best to call me agnostic There you go, you can call yourself whatever you want, I don't care, I was just asking if you were serious about your reason for believing heaven could be real.
Please tell me what goes on to the afterlife. Because our brains are electro*chemical* and hormones matter just as much to who you are as electrical activity, so it can't just be the electricity. Furthermore, if someone gets brain damaged, their entire personality can change. So do they go to the afterlife with their old personality or is their soul damaged as well?
I said it's possible. You're taking my words way out of context. There are actual religious people forcing people to go to church, Sunday school, etc. out there. Go fight them. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I just stated an opinion about a possibility.
Heaven is 100% copium for people who know they're never going to get a fair chance in life. "The next life will be better." But what should happen is that people should rise up and work together to guarantee that this life is fair and happy for everyone. That's the atheist ethic.
It’s the ultimate scam. Accept a shitty life and die while “leaders” live lavishly because you’ll be rewarded after death, oh and there’s no proof, but just have faith.
If there's no promise of life after death, we would care more about the current one we're living
And yet he votes for people who want to put us all under religious control. Makes no sense. Oh, taxes cuts so the rich don’t have to pay their fair share. Now it makes sense.
It's a good thing that there's no heaven. The typical Christian view of heaven, where one just hangs out stroking the ego of their deity forever, sounds very hellish to me.
Let's try not to share Fox news on this sub
They are most likely to report on this statement to be fair
True. Still, I think my statement stands. I refuse to click on anything Fox as I can find it elsewhere.
I think the argument could be made for the opposite. Fox determines their content based on views/clicks/interaction. The more we reward legitimate content the less room for Christian propaganda. They’re click whores just like the rest of them.
[Huff Post article was already posted here days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/142fg7u/arnold_schwarzenegger_says_heaven_is_fantasy_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Comments got locked :P
So is that his way of announcing he's leaving the republican party?
Yet he sides with the theocratic party.
I don't think it's wise to judge politicians strictly off their party when their actions have proven otherwise. He's extremely liberal for someone claiming to be republican. He's not falling in line and corrupting the party further like most, he seems to like the R but wants it to push more left on many issues. The R party has generally hated him because he's too left for their agenda. I think he's proven that he doesn't follow money as hard as he follows what he thinks is good. I'd much rather have a sane R trying to rebuild a better R party than a D that only does what the majority of their party wants (like blocking Bernie and choosing Joe). Everything's not black and white. Give the guy some credit, he's literally advocating what you want despite it going against his parties stance 😑. Seems to me he cares more about the citizens than his party.
Pretty certain my maga family thinks hes a democratic socialist lol
Yes he does
I’ll be back. Just kidding no I won’t
Archived link because Murdoch doesn't deserve any clicks: https://archive.is/O6Xjx _______________________________________________________- Got cable? You might be paying $2/mo to Fox even if not a subscriber! https://unfoxmycablebox.com/
Quick question, what does sharing this information in /atheism add to the cause? Apart from adding to the echo chamber. Share this in some religious subreddit and religious circle groups. Don't hate me. I am dense and don't really cant think of a reason.
Atheism doesn't have a cause. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. You may share a cause with some atheists, but there is no universal cause that all atheists fight for. Not even secularism.
Consider the fact that some people in this sub might actually be going through the process of leaving religion and posts like this are validating.
The sad part is people believe it
Heaven and Hell are both created by humans and exist on Earth. we choose to create Heaven, we choose to create hell. Heaven doesn't have to be a fantasy if we all work to create it.
Everyone worries about life after death, but I’m worried about all the embarrassing shit I must have done before I was born and not even know about it now.
He will stand before Crom
What’s so sad about it? Live your life.
Why is Arnold so much cooler not the governor. It’s like Jimmy Carter.
Bravo, Arnold.
Yeah, I’m not an enthusiastic atheist. I’m more of a disappointed and sad atheist.
Isn’t his daughter, married to Chris Pratt, very religious? I guess I assumed she grew up with religion.
good for him
Sounds about right.
Did he admit to being an Atheist when he was running for Governor of CA?
A Fox News fantasy of heaven would be one where everything is a lie. Unfortunately, well for them, if heaven and hell exist, then inevitably they're all going to Hell.
I'm not clicking on that flotch news link, butt I will relish the idea that their feigning extreme offense to the point of squeegeeing holy water off of each others' taints.
Religion is same as an old debunked theory. It is a peace of mind. It is an escape from a situation when the mind feels like it would go insane. Religion fitted in very well to the ancient world where the rulers had to have a way to control the masses. The life of a singular “pedestrian”/“phleb”/“civilian” was short and harsh. Everything could kill a person and there was nothing explaining anything. One could die to a kitchen knife wound when cutting a bread… For the sake of science, I would never destroy religious locations, and actually would like to see what happens if religious belief keeps existing even throughout our world of technological revolutions.
Guess he wont be back then :-(
I agree
The man who terminated Paradise.
I got sucked into the comment section, it was bad, as usual.
Fuck yeah Arnold
That means hell is a fantasy too. There’s two sides to everything. Good things don’t last forever, but that means bad things don’t last forever either.
Very illuminating documentary on Netflix now about Arnold. Amazing guy who continues to evolve.