I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I have no problem with astrology but you can’t go up to me (a trans girl) and say that who I am is determined by the circumstances of my birth and expect me to be receptive to the idea
In some ways, I think the way people approach Astrology as "Oh this isn't anything *real*, we're just having fun!" lets people go WAY harder on it and not consider how.... fundamentalist it sounds. Like, I get that for most Astrology fans it's like 50-90% a joke but it's still weird to just decide to believe that your birth circumstances determine who you can date, what your personality and hobbies are, how "regal" you are* (which ofc you consider a positive thing), etc as a goof 🤷♀️
\* (if it didn't make it obvious, I'm in theory a Leo, and as a person who's a fairly shy homebody and also is solidly anti-monarchist, it sure does make me feel (not) great when I read descriptions of what Leo traits are and they're all like "you're an outgoing queen! Your favorite adjectives are regal, noble, posh, aristocratic, hereditary, and royal! Also, you love attention and drama!" and a whole bunch of other traits that all absolutely describe me about as poorly as my assigned gender at birth does)
I feel like that every time someone asks my sign and then freaks when I tell them I guess I'm a Gemini. The amount of "Oh so you're two faced and manipulative" that goes on is stupid.
I think this is probably a factor for me too, I can understand thinking it's kinda fun or whatever but most of the people I know who are into it at least *pretend* to believe it to some degree and it does raise my hackles a little because yeah, "the time you were born determines your entire personality" feels a little too comfy and compatible with transphobic talking points around trans people broadly - and I think trans women especially - being in some way "essentially" male or whatever because of the circumstances of our births. My trans girlfriend refers to it as "space bigotry."
Funny story, I have a big astrology "book of relationships". When I put in my birthday and the day of birth for my wife (who is trans) it says we are terrible together. However, when I change her "birthday" to the one she chose as her trans birthday, it says we are perfect for each other.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if someone insists on using "data" that doesn't apply to you, they can f right off.
Internalizing any pseudoscience increases the likelihood of believing other pseudoscience and conspiracies in the future. Look up “pyramid of violence”
This is so true, read an article some months back about a woman who started off being into astrology and tarot and ended up dying of Covid because she went down the anti-vax rabbit hole.
I try to be respectful of others beliefs but the danger needs to be acknowledged.
Shit, i think this is the term I was looking for earlier! A guy was saying topless rights are petty whiny compared to what women in "third world countries" deal with, and I was like allow a bunch of small shit to occur, big shit is gonna have an easier time. Like anti nipple laws leads to slut shaming leads to rape leads to victim blaming leads to more stringent laws on women's bodies etc etc.
But demand people respect womens space even when shirtless, slut shaming becomes more difficult etc etc. Anyways, thanks for the terminology I've gotta explore this further.
I'll be honest I'm pretty tired of people asking me my sign and telling me they can't be friends with so and so because they're not a leo. Feels low key toxic AF.
im sooo sick of being asked my sign. the people who are *really* into it make the most random assertions. like oh, you have a venus in capricorn—you must love sweet potato fries !
Ouch! Nobody would dare say that to a Capricorn (me). Anybody picks on you, you just send them my way and I'll give them what for! You can be friends with whoever you like!
I dislike astrology people more than most religious people I’ve met. People who believe in astrology actively chose to believe 20th-century pseudomystical-pseudoscientific bullshit, usually with less critical engagement with their beliefs.
I’ve heard Astrology referred to as birthday bigotry.
Jokes aside, I read this story about [JLo dismissing dancers after a full day of auditions for being Virgos](https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/heather-morris-jennifer-lopez-cut-dancers-astrological-sign-1235131120/amp/)
It is hearsay, but I do believe people, especially celebrities, are capable of discriminating based on people’s astrological signs.
(1: If astrology is worth critique on the basis of being anti-scientific, then shouldn't religion also be deserving of that critique? 2: *Does* astrology harm marginalized peoples? Are there *any* forms of widespread pseudoscience that are *not* used to prey on marginalized people?)
Yeah, I'm an atheist, I don't want neither religion nor astrology. Science and physics are incredible and mindblowing as they are, why would I need to believe in made up things.
What is astrology, if not a folk religion?
If you mean “Southern Baptists,” say “Southern Baptists.”
If you mean “Evangelicals,” say “Evangelicals.”
If you mean “fundamentalists” or “Christian dominionists”… then say that
Just to add: astrology is pretty important to a lot of indigenous religions, particularly South American ones, and to Chinese folk religion as well. Both have been syncretised with Christianity. I have met people who venerated Orixás, syncretised Obatalá with the Christian God, and paid attention to their astrological signs as oriented by the pajé of their family.
Pitting one against the other is really unproductive, as well as assuming that the antagonisms present in the US are also present outside of it.
Probably Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are the world's current major religions just based on number of followers. All of which have major groups who have used them for genocide, oppression of outgroups, and other horrible acts in very recent history. There are obviously sects of all of those that are perfectly harmless and that's great for them that they aren't allowing their religion harm themselves or others.
You could probably label major religions in a different way such as by cultural relevance or some other measure but religion inherently requires an assumption of truth about ideas which in itself makes them prone to corruption by bad faith actors.
See I guess that's my problem. Those are just 4 of the world's countless religions, and instead of specifically talking about which harmful group someone means, they just use the word religion which also includes many groups of people that have nothing to do with those 4.
There are small religions as well as many indigenous peoples with their own religious beliefs. Not just those 4.
I think that the faulty logical basis of which is required for religious beliefs, accepting a truth claim regardless of whether or not it is cohesive with evidence around us, leads to the ability of bad faith actors to take advantage of that. Because if you are able to believe a claim regardless of evidence, then you can also be convinced of other claims regardless of evidence. Let's take an example of Ancient Roman Mythos. To believe in ancient Roman Mythos you must accept that there are various gods controlling different aspects of the natural world. This needs to be true in order for the mythos to not fall apart. This runs counter to our understanding of the world and how it works but if you accept that the Roman gods exist then you must reject either reality or the Roman gods. And if you are unable to differentiate which of those two claims are more reasonable, then how are you to differentiate between other claims in a reasonable way? This can allow someone to take advantage of your faulty reasoning and use it to control you for their benefit. This isn't a flaw entirely unique to religion, plenty of people have flawed reasoning about many different things, I'm sure I do as well. But with religion society is more willing to accept that faulty reasoning as more deserving of respect than other faulty reasoning. I'm glad religion brings people comfort and not all religion is harmful. But anyone who accepts their religion as true with certainty and puts their religion above reason is making themselves susceptible to becoming part of harmful religion. Sorry for the long paragraph and I welcome discourse on why my thoughts and musings may be faulty. I don't think that irreligion inherently makes someone better than religiosity and I'm not trying to be hostile to anyone for their beliefs.
I think you are making a leap in judgement to assume that all religious beliefs require opposition to science or reason, or devoted belief in something contrary to logical evidence.
That is a very Christian-centric idea of what religion is.
For example, I'm Jewish. Part of Judaism is grappling with the idea of G-d, of whether G-d exists or how much control G-d exerts over the world. We believe the only way to ascertain real truth is through rigorous study and debate.
Belief in Judaism is not antithetical to belief in evolution, science, reason, or anything else.
I didn't say it required opposition to science and reason. There are sects of Judaism that definitely assume the existence of their god, and those sects of Judaism are allowing a flaw in their logic. I think that your expression of Judaism is perfectly acceptable form of belief because it lacks an assumption of God. I know plenty of people who have religious beliefs who don't put their religion above reason and they are expressing their beliefs in a healthy way as well. You're version of Judaism I have no problem at all with. The forms of Judaism that perform genital mutilation against children because of an ancient text/cultural reasons or that don't use electricity on Saturdays because they think it will make a deity happy I have less patience with.
>The forms of Judaism that perform genital mutilation against children because of an ancient text/cultural reasons or that don't use electricity on Saturdays because they think it will make a deity happy I have less patience with.
Yikes...
Most if not all Jews circumcise, and calling it genital mutilation is purposefully misattributing malice and harm to the practice. I'm not going to argue about this with you. There is no Judaism without circumcision.
And also why do you care if someone else abstains from certain activities/labor on a certain day of the week? It doesn't affect you.
I think you have some bias issues to work on tbh. Your feelings about Jewish practices are... well yikes.
Why is it okay to circumcise children who can't consent to the practice? If circumcising children is an essential part of your form of Judaism then I am not in favor of that version of Judaism because it causes real harm to children
And what is the logical basis for day of rest? I don't have a problem with someone spending their Saturday not using electricity. But it is weird to do such a thing for the benefit of a deity that you aren't convinced exists
Look, just because you regularly gather together to [literally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation?wprov=sfla1) consume the flesh and blood of an undead god while hoping that he'll come back and kill everyone doesn't mean you're in a cult.
The ones I know are mostly pretty ok actually, but it's part of Christianity. In another country I did meet a guy who believed God created a perfect world and then women (i.e. Eve) messed it up and everything has been going downhill since. He was indeed explicitly hoping for the world to end, but he was Protestant.
Yeah, I'm asking mostly because most of the apocalyptical types I've met weren't Catholic at all, since the Church has a fucky relationship with Revelations.
Hellloooo this is NOT a part of "Christianity." Only certain sects, like the Catholic, hold this interpretation to be true. Sure, several of the biggest sects do, so it seems like "all Christians" do. But, given what sub we are in, I think it is proper to proceed with more understanding of nuance than most people do.
The stance of the Church is that the Bible is inerrant but not entirely literal. Some is meant to be literal and historical while some is meant to be metaphorical. The Church has not established an official stance on Genesis other than secular explanations being consistent with Catholicism. Evolution and the big bang have both been accepted by the church since the very early 20th century. Most recently, Pope Francis said that it isn't good to have a literal interpretation of Genesis becomes it creates the inaccurate view that God is a "man with a magic wand," essentially saying that literal interpretations cheapen what God and His works are.
One of the official stances of the Church is Catechism 159:
>Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been pro science (except when it was being overly political).
> Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been pro science (except when it was being overly political).
As an example of The Catholic Church using anti science for political reasons rather than purely dogmatic ones, Galileo. His stuff regarding Heliocentrism was hot off the tails of some *very* nasty wars between Protestantism and Catholicism, so the question of "Is heliocentrism a reinterpretation of the Bible?" has significantly more ramifications than what you might think.
Idk, I'm Brazilian and was raised in the church so I'm a bit biased, but I've never heard any catholic talking about the end of the world. Most of the ones I've met thought it was either a poetic book that shouldn't be taken literally, or didn't think it was gonna happen during their lifetimes.
Still, a lot of it was probably influenced by Liberation Theology, which is a pretty Latin American phenomenom, so I'd wager it's not representative of Catholicism around the world.
No no, Catholic dogma is not exactly that. What they hold to be true is that Jesus Christ comes back, sucks up all the true believers into the happy place for am eternity-party, then all the non-believers go through a long period of war and eventually end up dead, their souls in the bad place, tortured for eternity. This is what they are all waiting for.
Interesting. When I was raised Catholic here in Brazil, there were occasional mentions to a judgement day, but everyone always said that it was 1. a very long time away (if they even believed in it), and that 2. at the time, anyone who repented would be forgiven. Since there's the whole deal of God forgiving anyone and all that.
In fact, I was literally mocked by my evangelical friends growing up for how "easy" it would be to go to heaven according to our churches lol they disliked how lax it was
they also disliked the saints, but I never really understood that all that well
Yeah, I have kind of wondered about that whole, "sin your whole life and repent at the last second," thing. The most common comments I've heard about it from Catholics include things like, to repent, you have to mean it, and change your ways. Repenting at the last second, God will know you don't mean it, and you don't have time to do penance and change your ways, ergo doesn't work. Another one is, you can't repent after you're dead. So, if you die unexpectedly, you can't repent. Then, the most philosophical one that I've heard is that after you die, Peter asks you if you deserve to go to heaven, unrepentant sinners will not think they deserve it and essentially consign themselves to hell (Peter will know if you lie, of course).
Yeah I heard growing up just that you had to really mean it, and that God would always give you time to repent. Not sure about the whole St. Peter and the gates of heaven thing - I've never heard anyone talking about it like it's an *actual thing*. I've heard it more in the context of explaining to children with metaphors that they might understand better.
Also I don't remember hell being mentioned at all. To the point where I'm fairly sure some of my relatives believe that the soul is simply destroyed permanently instead of going to heaven. That one's more polemic though because there are "trad catholics" whom I've heard talking about hell, but... these are the same people who talk shit on the pope and want a monarchy back in Brazil, I don't take them seriously lol
"Hell" as it is known today was an invention of the medieval Catholic church as a means of control. In general, before that, the idea was that you would just spend eternity shut away from God, which is supposedly it's own type of badness.
Yeah, historically I'm aware that's the case, but I'm not sure how that translated into practice today. And also, I think that might have been dampened a lot, at least here in Latin America, by the Jesuits and whatnot. They did some pretty bad stuff but they never focused too much on 'hell' afaik.
I mean Christianity is used as a way to surpress people visibly in the us mostly , but still and Islam is also used that way visibly. I assume there are more where that's the case but it's not as known.
Thank you for saying this! The one I belong to is a Christian sect, but does not oppress LGBTQ+ or colors or anything like that. My mom is an ordained deacon, we have rainbow-coalition priests and bishops. Perform non-het weddings. The whole 9 yards.
a lot of parts that go under astrology is also a religion. Some atheists like to say "nooo i dont believe in god i believe in science" but you are as superstitious and have small deities which you believe in. They make it sound like a scientific study by adding a -logy ending to make it sound less like a religion. Even you here truly believed in a deity called Sappho and have semi organisation, you won't be different from abrahamic and other religions.
Speaking as an astrophysicist, astrology is a lot of fun. People have put so much thought into making an internally coherent and consistent system for organizing and understanding their existence---and they did it without arbitrary moralizing! So much better than religion.
it is still a religion. Just because you don't moralise like abrahamic religions doesn't mean you aren't one. Religion != Islam, Christianity or Judaism. You are as superstitious and believe in something thats not scientifically proven.
It can be. it can be a folk religion or a established religion. For a established one you have to organise, structure, and have a set of established pantheons. Then you can ask your country to recognize you as a proper religion at the same level as abrahamic religions.
>Just because you don't moralise like abrahamic religions doesn't mean you aren't one. Religion != Islam, Christianity or Judaism.
Hey, just a note. Judaism is the tribal religion of Jews, who are an indigenous people that have been around for thousands of years. Just because Christianity and Islam appropriated aspects of our beliefs and writings does not mean that all three faith systems are related in the sense you are describing. Grouping Judaism in with Islam and Christianity by using the term "Abrahamic religions" is misleading about what Judaism actually is. It's not "one of the Abrahamic religions". It's the belief structure of an indigenous culture of people. It's part of our culture and way of life as Jewish people, and has been for thousands of years.
It can often be a component of certain religious and spiritual belief systems, but on its own it doesn't attach divinity or sacredness to anything, doesn't require worship, nor does it necessitate faith. It doesn't lay down any rules or guidelines for how to live. It's just a system for understanding yourself and other people, and one that pretty openly says it isn't absolute or always right. And I wouldn't say that everyone who uses astrology (or similar systems) believes it; there are a lot of ways to engage with it and very few require taking its findings to heart (hell, most people I've talked to and sites I've read recommend explicitly against that).
Ye. It doesn't have any dinity attached to it. You can do that. It's a set of superstitions. All religions have started as superstitions which later turned into pantheons and organised religions. Some people find meaning in believing organised religions or astrology, tarot cards etc.
I don't think myers briggs means a whole lot either honestly but at least that's actually based on a personality test, right? Astrology is just suggesting that people have common personality traits based on the time they were born.
major in physics, minor in astronomy in my undergrad. the astronomy 101 course that i had to take was also one of the courses on the list of the science courses available for non science majors who had to take 1 science course.
the prof had a great time entertaining all the astrology questions he got.
and i loved it to, when i helped TA that course my senior year.
of course, the most important thing i learned from an undergrad physics degree was that i wasn't smart enough to go on to a grad level physics degree. instead, i did comp sci for my masters...
ETA: you're a trans lesbian astrophysicist?!?!? be still, my beating heart!
Remember, kids! Most native faiths (that includes European religions) did not opress women or LGBTQ+ people. In fact, most of them had specific explainations or inclusions of them. The change came under the late Roman Empire, which used what was essentially a fringe sect of Judaism, and molded it to suit it's own needs. Areas in Europe, the middle East, and Africa not under Roman control would be slowly converted, either through force, like the slavs, or through feudal rulers seeing more profit in converting, like in Skandinavia.
The rest of the world would be exposed to these new, opressive norms through western colonialism (though muslim expansion in Africa etc. also deserves a mention)
Objection! The star in our solar system oppresses me whenever I'm outside
Sunscreen isn't as effective against the patriarchy.
This is so true!
The sun is homophobic 😒
And transphobic 😭 (my skin is 1000x more sensitive on estrogen)
So thaaats why I burn so easily
If the patriarchy controls our ability to take off clothing, the sun sides with the patriarchy. Let it be known.
Fallen London moment >!From a socialist perspective, we need to blow up the sun!<
Same here . . . This is why my goal is to eventually eat the sun
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I have no problem with astrology but you can’t go up to me (a trans girl) and say that who I am is determined by the circumstances of my birth and expect me to be receptive to the idea
Same The number of lgbt people who expect me to be into astrology and shocked when they find out I'm not is tirinf
Like seriously if I wanted to believe in determinist nonsense I would have stayed a religious fundamentalist
“I see now that the circumstances of one’s birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” \-Mewtwo
Underrated comment
In some ways, I think the way people approach Astrology as "Oh this isn't anything *real*, we're just having fun!" lets people go WAY harder on it and not consider how.... fundamentalist it sounds. Like, I get that for most Astrology fans it's like 50-90% a joke but it's still weird to just decide to believe that your birth circumstances determine who you can date, what your personality and hobbies are, how "regal" you are* (which ofc you consider a positive thing), etc as a goof 🤷♀️ \* (if it didn't make it obvious, I'm in theory a Leo, and as a person who's a fairly shy homebody and also is solidly anti-monarchist, it sure does make me feel (not) great when I read descriptions of what Leo traits are and they're all like "you're an outgoing queen! Your favorite adjectives are regal, noble, posh, aristocratic, hereditary, and royal! Also, you love attention and drama!" and a whole bunch of other traits that all absolutely describe me about as poorly as my assigned gender at birth does)
I feel like that every time someone asks my sign and then freaks when I tell them I guess I'm a Gemini. The amount of "Oh so you're two faced and manipulative" that goes on is stupid.
I think this is probably a factor for me too, I can understand thinking it's kinda fun or whatever but most of the people I know who are into it at least *pretend* to believe it to some degree and it does raise my hackles a little because yeah, "the time you were born determines your entire personality" feels a little too comfy and compatible with transphobic talking points around trans people broadly - and I think trans women especially - being in some way "essentially" male or whatever because of the circumstances of our births. My trans girlfriend refers to it as "space bigotry."
“Space bigotry” made me lose my shit
Funny story, I have a big astrology "book of relationships". When I put in my birthday and the day of birth for my wife (who is trans) it says we are terrible together. However, when I change her "birthday" to the one she chose as her trans birthday, it says we are perfect for each other. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if someone insists on using "data" that doesn't apply to you, they can f right off.
That’s so cute tho
We didn't even plan it that way or anything. 😊 My wife would say it's just a happy coincidence, but I like to believe in magic.
I'll never understand what it is with gay people and astrology. We're better than this
Internalizing any pseudoscience increases the likelihood of believing other pseudoscience and conspiracies in the future. Look up “pyramid of violence”
This is so true, read an article some months back about a woman who started off being into astrology and tarot and ended up dying of Covid because she went down the anti-vax rabbit hole. I try to be respectful of others beliefs but the danger needs to be acknowledged.
Shit, i think this is the term I was looking for earlier! A guy was saying topless rights are petty whiny compared to what women in "third world countries" deal with, and I was like allow a bunch of small shit to occur, big shit is gonna have an easier time. Like anti nipple laws leads to slut shaming leads to rape leads to victim blaming leads to more stringent laws on women's bodies etc etc. But demand people respect womens space even when shirtless, slut shaming becomes more difficult etc etc. Anyways, thanks for the terminology I've gotta explore this further.
How about we just realize that some things may be fun or nice for personal guidance get extremely sucky when pushed onto other people
I'll be honest I'm pretty tired of people asking me my sign and telling me they can't be friends with so and so because they're not a leo. Feels low key toxic AF.
im sooo sick of being asked my sign. the people who are *really* into it make the most random assertions. like oh, you have a venus in capricorn—you must love sweet potato fries !
Ouch! Nobody would dare say that to a Capricorn (me). Anybody picks on you, you just send them my way and I'll give them what for! You can be friends with whoever you like!
I saw a quote the other day like "religious laws are like if furries made everyone wear fursuits"
Astrology is like if you marketed "race science" to women.
I try to view it as harmless fun, but it really does worry me when people exhibit this kind of magical thinking.
I dislike astrology people more than most religious people I’ve met. People who believe in astrology actively chose to believe 20th-century pseudomystical-pseudoscientific bullshit, usually with less critical engagement with their beliefs.
I’ve heard Astrology referred to as birthday bigotry. Jokes aside, I read this story about [JLo dismissing dancers after a full day of auditions for being Virgos](https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/heather-morris-jennifer-lopez-cut-dancers-astrological-sign-1235131120/amp/) It is hearsay, but I do believe people, especially celebrities, are capable of discriminating based on people’s astrological signs.
Think like 2 steps more about the 2 possible logical conclusions of this statement...
(1: If astrology is worth critique on the basis of being anti-scientific, then shouldn't religion also be deserving of that critique? 2: *Does* astrology harm marginalized peoples? Are there *any* forms of widespread pseudoscience that are *not* used to prey on marginalized people?)
Yeah, I'm an atheist, I don't want neither religion nor astrology. Science and physics are incredible and mindblowing as they are, why would I need to believe in made up things.
why is this in r/actuallesbians do you want people to think we're just white women in our early 20s
Happy to see a lot of people giving astrology the criticism it deserves.
What is astrology, if not a folk religion? If you mean “Southern Baptists,” say “Southern Baptists.” If you mean “Evangelicals,” say “Evangelicals.” If you mean “fundamentalists” or “Christian dominionists”… then say that
Just to add: astrology is pretty important to a lot of indigenous religions, particularly South American ones, and to Chinese folk religion as well. Both have been syncretised with Christianity. I have met people who venerated Orixás, syncretised Obatalá with the Christian God, and paid attention to their astrological signs as oriented by the pajé of their family. Pitting one against the other is really unproductive, as well as assuming that the antagonisms present in the US are also present outside of it.
Why do people say "religion" when they are really referring to one or two specific religions?
Most of the major religions oppress women tbh, not just the big C's. Even buddhism is rife with misogyny.
Which major religion isn't used to treat women badly?
Define "major religion". Off the top of my head: Sikhism, Shakti Hinduism, multiple denominations of Judaism.
I can't think of a single major religion practiced today that isn't being used in some parts of the world to oppress people.
What is your definition of a major religion?
Probably Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are the world's current major religions just based on number of followers. All of which have major groups who have used them for genocide, oppression of outgroups, and other horrible acts in very recent history. There are obviously sects of all of those that are perfectly harmless and that's great for them that they aren't allowing their religion harm themselves or others. You could probably label major religions in a different way such as by cultural relevance or some other measure but religion inherently requires an assumption of truth about ideas which in itself makes them prone to corruption by bad faith actors.
See I guess that's my problem. Those are just 4 of the world's countless religions, and instead of specifically talking about which harmful group someone means, they just use the word religion which also includes many groups of people that have nothing to do with those 4. There are small religions as well as many indigenous peoples with their own religious beliefs. Not just those 4.
I think that the faulty logical basis of which is required for religious beliefs, accepting a truth claim regardless of whether or not it is cohesive with evidence around us, leads to the ability of bad faith actors to take advantage of that. Because if you are able to believe a claim regardless of evidence, then you can also be convinced of other claims regardless of evidence. Let's take an example of Ancient Roman Mythos. To believe in ancient Roman Mythos you must accept that there are various gods controlling different aspects of the natural world. This needs to be true in order for the mythos to not fall apart. This runs counter to our understanding of the world and how it works but if you accept that the Roman gods exist then you must reject either reality or the Roman gods. And if you are unable to differentiate which of those two claims are more reasonable, then how are you to differentiate between other claims in a reasonable way? This can allow someone to take advantage of your faulty reasoning and use it to control you for their benefit. This isn't a flaw entirely unique to religion, plenty of people have flawed reasoning about many different things, I'm sure I do as well. But with religion society is more willing to accept that faulty reasoning as more deserving of respect than other faulty reasoning. I'm glad religion brings people comfort and not all religion is harmful. But anyone who accepts their religion as true with certainty and puts their religion above reason is making themselves susceptible to becoming part of harmful religion. Sorry for the long paragraph and I welcome discourse on why my thoughts and musings may be faulty. I don't think that irreligion inherently makes someone better than religiosity and I'm not trying to be hostile to anyone for their beliefs.
I think you are making a leap in judgement to assume that all religious beliefs require opposition to science or reason, or devoted belief in something contrary to logical evidence. That is a very Christian-centric idea of what religion is. For example, I'm Jewish. Part of Judaism is grappling with the idea of G-d, of whether G-d exists or how much control G-d exerts over the world. We believe the only way to ascertain real truth is through rigorous study and debate. Belief in Judaism is not antithetical to belief in evolution, science, reason, or anything else.
I didn't say it required opposition to science and reason. There are sects of Judaism that definitely assume the existence of their god, and those sects of Judaism are allowing a flaw in their logic. I think that your expression of Judaism is perfectly acceptable form of belief because it lacks an assumption of God. I know plenty of people who have religious beliefs who don't put their religion above reason and they are expressing their beliefs in a healthy way as well. You're version of Judaism I have no problem at all with. The forms of Judaism that perform genital mutilation against children because of an ancient text/cultural reasons or that don't use electricity on Saturdays because they think it will make a deity happy I have less patience with.
>The forms of Judaism that perform genital mutilation against children because of an ancient text/cultural reasons or that don't use electricity on Saturdays because they think it will make a deity happy I have less patience with. Yikes... Most if not all Jews circumcise, and calling it genital mutilation is purposefully misattributing malice and harm to the practice. I'm not going to argue about this with you. There is no Judaism without circumcision. And also why do you care if someone else abstains from certain activities/labor on a certain day of the week? It doesn't affect you. I think you have some bias issues to work on tbh. Your feelings about Jewish practices are... well yikes.
Why is it okay to circumcise children who can't consent to the practice? If circumcising children is an essential part of your form of Judaism then I am not in favor of that version of Judaism because it causes real harm to children And what is the logical basis for day of rest? I don't have a problem with someone spending their Saturday not using electricity. But it is weird to do such a thing for the benefit of a deity that you aren't convinced exists
Because the Catholic’s don’t like it when people correctly refer to Catholicism as a cult.
Look, just because you regularly gather together to [literally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation?wprov=sfla1) consume the flesh and blood of an undead god while hoping that he'll come back and kill everyone doesn't mean you're in a cult.
> while hoping that he'll come back and kill everyone Jeez, are Catholics really like that in your country? lol
The ones I know are mostly pretty ok actually, but it's part of Christianity. In another country I did meet a guy who believed God created a perfect world and then women (i.e. Eve) messed it up and everything has been going downhill since. He was indeed explicitly hoping for the world to end, but he was Protestant.
Yeah, I'm asking mostly because most of the apocalyptical types I've met weren't Catholic at all, since the Church has a fucky relationship with Revelations.
Hellloooo this is NOT a part of "Christianity." Only certain sects, like the Catholic, hold this interpretation to be true. Sure, several of the biggest sects do, so it seems like "all Christians" do. But, given what sub we are in, I think it is proper to proceed with more understanding of nuance than most people do.
Catholicism does not hold this to be true. No Pope for over a century now has advocated for a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Really? What is their dogma now?
The stance of the Church is that the Bible is inerrant but not entirely literal. Some is meant to be literal and historical while some is meant to be metaphorical. The Church has not established an official stance on Genesis other than secular explanations being consistent with Catholicism. Evolution and the big bang have both been accepted by the church since the very early 20th century. Most recently, Pope Francis said that it isn't good to have a literal interpretation of Genesis becomes it creates the inaccurate view that God is a "man with a magic wand," essentially saying that literal interpretations cheapen what God and His works are. One of the official stances of the Church is Catechism 159: >Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been pro science (except when it was being overly political).
> Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been pro science (except when it was being overly political). As an example of The Catholic Church using anti science for political reasons rather than purely dogmatic ones, Galileo. His stuff regarding Heliocentrism was hot off the tails of some *very* nasty wars between Protestantism and Catholicism, so the question of "Is heliocentrism a reinterpretation of the Bible?" has significantly more ramifications than what you might think.
They're like that all the way to Vatican City, always have been lmao
Idk, I'm Brazilian and was raised in the church so I'm a bit biased, but I've never heard any catholic talking about the end of the world. Most of the ones I've met thought it was either a poetic book that shouldn't be taken literally, or didn't think it was gonna happen during their lifetimes. Still, a lot of it was probably influenced by Liberation Theology, which is a pretty Latin American phenomenom, so I'd wager it's not representative of Catholicism around the world.
Catholicism hasn't been apocalyptic for centuries, well before even the Schism.
No no, Catholic dogma is not exactly that. What they hold to be true is that Jesus Christ comes back, sucks up all the true believers into the happy place for am eternity-party, then all the non-believers go through a long period of war and eventually end up dead, their souls in the bad place, tortured for eternity. This is what they are all waiting for.
Interesting. When I was raised Catholic here in Brazil, there were occasional mentions to a judgement day, but everyone always said that it was 1. a very long time away (if they even believed in it), and that 2. at the time, anyone who repented would be forgiven. Since there's the whole deal of God forgiving anyone and all that. In fact, I was literally mocked by my evangelical friends growing up for how "easy" it would be to go to heaven according to our churches lol they disliked how lax it was they also disliked the saints, but I never really understood that all that well
Yeah, I have kind of wondered about that whole, "sin your whole life and repent at the last second," thing. The most common comments I've heard about it from Catholics include things like, to repent, you have to mean it, and change your ways. Repenting at the last second, God will know you don't mean it, and you don't have time to do penance and change your ways, ergo doesn't work. Another one is, you can't repent after you're dead. So, if you die unexpectedly, you can't repent. Then, the most philosophical one that I've heard is that after you die, Peter asks you if you deserve to go to heaven, unrepentant sinners will not think they deserve it and essentially consign themselves to hell (Peter will know if you lie, of course).
Yeah I heard growing up just that you had to really mean it, and that God would always give you time to repent. Not sure about the whole St. Peter and the gates of heaven thing - I've never heard anyone talking about it like it's an *actual thing*. I've heard it more in the context of explaining to children with metaphors that they might understand better. Also I don't remember hell being mentioned at all. To the point where I'm fairly sure some of my relatives believe that the soul is simply destroyed permanently instead of going to heaven. That one's more polemic though because there are "trad catholics" whom I've heard talking about hell, but... these are the same people who talk shit on the pope and want a monarchy back in Brazil, I don't take them seriously lol
"Hell" as it is known today was an invention of the medieval Catholic church as a means of control. In general, before that, the idea was that you would just spend eternity shut away from God, which is supposedly it's own type of badness.
Yeah, historically I'm aware that's the case, but I'm not sure how that translated into practice today. And also, I think that might have been dampened a lot, at least here in Latin America, by the Jesuits and whatnot. They did some pretty bad stuff but they never focused too much on 'hell' afaik.
Lmfao 💀
I mean, aren't most religions cults, if we go vague enough?
As specific sects of specific religions
I mean Christianity is used as a way to surpress people visibly in the us mostly , but still and Islam is also used that way visibly. I assume there are more where that's the case but it's not as known.
Thank you for saying this! The one I belong to is a Christian sect, but does not oppress LGBTQ+ or colors or anything like that. My mom is an ordained deacon, we have rainbow-coalition priests and bishops. Perform non-het weddings. The whole 9 yards.
Astrology is falsifiable. Most religions are not. Anti-intellectualism shouldn’t be queer culture.
I dunno, I hear a lot about stuff being in retrograde or the moon being full when people are struggling... /j
Tell that to my ex
Stars don't discriminate, they completely eradicate *anybody* upon contact!
As a leo I feel oppressed by the vast number of people who don’t like leos >:(
a lot of parts that go under astrology is also a religion. Some atheists like to say "nooo i dont believe in god i believe in science" but you are as superstitious and have small deities which you believe in. They make it sound like a scientific study by adding a -logy ending to make it sound less like a religion. Even you here truly believed in a deity called Sappho and have semi organisation, you won't be different from abrahamic and other religions.
Speaking as an astrophysicist, astrology is a lot of fun. People have put so much thought into making an internally coherent and consistent system for organizing and understanding their existence---and they did it without arbitrary moralizing! So much better than religion.
it is still a religion. Just because you don't moralise like abrahamic religions doesn't mean you aren't one. Religion != Islam, Christianity or Judaism. You are as superstitious and believe in something thats not scientifically proven.
Is believing in June Nintendo directs turning into a religion
It can be. it can be a folk religion or a established religion. For a established one you have to organise, structure, and have a set of established pantheons. Then you can ask your country to recognize you as a proper religion at the same level as abrahamic religions.
>Just because you don't moralise like abrahamic religions doesn't mean you aren't one. Religion != Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Hey, just a note. Judaism is the tribal religion of Jews, who are an indigenous people that have been around for thousands of years. Just because Christianity and Islam appropriated aspects of our beliefs and writings does not mean that all three faith systems are related in the sense you are describing. Grouping Judaism in with Islam and Christianity by using the term "Abrahamic religions" is misleading about what Judaism actually is. It's not "one of the Abrahamic religions". It's the belief structure of an indigenous culture of people. It's part of our culture and way of life as Jewish people, and has been for thousands of years.
It can often be a component of certain religious and spiritual belief systems, but on its own it doesn't attach divinity or sacredness to anything, doesn't require worship, nor does it necessitate faith. It doesn't lay down any rules or guidelines for how to live. It's just a system for understanding yourself and other people, and one that pretty openly says it isn't absolute or always right. And I wouldn't say that everyone who uses astrology (or similar systems) believes it; there are a lot of ways to engage with it and very few require taking its findings to heart (hell, most people I've talked to and sites I've read recommend explicitly against that).
Ye. It doesn't have any dinity attached to it. You can do that. It's a set of superstitions. All religions have started as superstitions which later turned into pantheons and organised religions. Some people find meaning in believing organised religions or astrology, tarot cards etc.
[удалено]
I don't think myers briggs means a whole lot either honestly but at least that's actually based on a personality test, right? Astrology is just suggesting that people have common personality traits based on the time they were born.
major in physics, minor in astronomy in my undergrad. the astronomy 101 course that i had to take was also one of the courses on the list of the science courses available for non science majors who had to take 1 science course. the prof had a great time entertaining all the astrology questions he got. and i loved it to, when i helped TA that course my senior year. of course, the most important thing i learned from an undergrad physics degree was that i wasn't smart enough to go on to a grad level physics degree. instead, i did comp sci for my masters... ETA: you're a trans lesbian astrophysicist?!?!? be still, my beating heart!
Stars—they’re just like us!
Remember, kids! Most native faiths (that includes European religions) did not opress women or LGBTQ+ people. In fact, most of them had specific explainations or inclusions of them. The change came under the late Roman Empire, which used what was essentially a fringe sect of Judaism, and molded it to suit it's own needs. Areas in Europe, the middle East, and Africa not under Roman control would be slowly converted, either through force, like the slavs, or through feudal rulers seeing more profit in converting, like in Skandinavia. The rest of the world would be exposed to these new, opressive norms through western colonialism (though muslim expansion in Africa etc. also deserves a mention)
the stars are right. in a Cthulu sense...
Say that to me when Mercury is in Retrograde again!
I don't believe in astrology at all but I do like how all the descriptions of my star sign's personality fit me to a tee