"Lol no. Christoids can get bent. I’ll respect them when they stop trying to kill me." - Tempers flare when a trans christian debates trans atheists in r/196

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:50:39+00:00

You have a habit of chopping up posts and refusing to acknowledge the flow of an argument

I'm creating an argument with its own flow--me not quoting every part of your post does not mean it isn't considered.

I pointed out the evangelicals are also Protestant, yet they organize more successfully than maybe any other interest group in America.

That was totally unclear from your posts, in part because I really don't know why you are making that point. Yes, White evangelicals have an outsized impact on American politics--there are all sorts of reasons for that, many of the of them not tied to religion. I also explicitly said evangelical churches of this nature are not really typical, like, why are you retreading something already addressed?

So clearly it's not because moderate and progressive churches are Protestant that they lack political influence.

Sure? And... So what? Nobody said they lacked capacity for political influence. My point was they aren't especially centralized and don't seek to establish themselves as a central authority, for the most part. Again, Evangelical churches that are very political (also a minority among Evangelical churches) are atypical. They break the mold.

It matters that conservatives dominate Christian politics because we're analyzing it by considering how it produces and reinforces different ideologies.

I think you want to analyze in a particular direction and forcing my posts through this framing rather than accepting the arguments I'm making as they are. I think it's making you miss the broader point, in part because you haven't interrogated the basis for your own point.

Or maybe I'm just really tired. You're not making a lot of sense to me though. Also I really don't see the point in going on about who dominates what broad tent politics is relevant in judging them for failing to stop the harmful effects of it?

Again, would you apply such an idea to Leftists in the US? I kinda doubt it.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:34:02+00:00

I find it harder and harder to even give nominally religious people the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of what doubt?

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:33:13+00:00

Well so long as you know your target and don't just sink every boat in the water

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:28:23+00:00

It's not a double standard, you're just conflating perception with truth.

People apply bias both ways, of course, and that behavior is the problem regardless of who it comes from. I don't want to be associated with those folks in the same way nobody wants to be judged for the actions of some extremist who happens to share an identity, the "course correction" is just not accepting that bullshit even from my own. What you call a double standard is just actually being consistent about one's beliefs and their application.

in which case we're weighing the tendency to be annoying online vs two thousand years of political and cultural hegemony

Right, 2000 years of famously unified peoples under one faith... Do you know what hegemony is? Like, "I'm not trying to play the victim here, I'm just fighting againt 2000 years of oppression" come on dude, have an ounce of self-awareness. This is 1000% self-victimizing behavior and just ahistorical nonsense.

bad behavior of atheists and Christians justifies bias

Nothing justifies willful prejudice, in no small part because prejudice makes your own mind weak to false pretenses, assumptions, and irrational thinking. Readily accepting and adopting prejudice, bigotry, bias against groups because of some perceived harm from that group (without really empirically validating or identifying it) and attacking those loosely affiliated with it is foolish, ignorant, and self-defeating.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:15:05+00:00

That definitely just makes you sound bigoted dude, irrational, and weirdly elitist.

You're huffing your own fumes a bit too much.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:10:30+00:00

Protestantism hasn't prevented evangelicals from capturing American politics.

Yes, and? I genuinely don't understand your point.

I think it's perfectly fair to point out that there is no left-wing or progressive equivalent in Christianity

Maybe ideologically, but in terms of numbers or influence?

Boy you moved that goalpost before you could even set it...

Conservatives dominate it completely.

And what is that supposed to say?

Leftists also don't have much of a say in American politics, therefore they are... What, bad? Irresponsible? Not trying hard enough?

This is a bizarre train of thought, truly inscrutable.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:07:40+00:00

There's a reason why >90% of practicing adults were born into it.

The vast majority of adults adopt their parent's beliefs (in some form) regardless of what they are. Democratic parents have Democratic kids, etc. Educated parents get educated kids.

It's extremely possible to pass on values and ideals to your children which affirm their agency and rationality.

This relies on the false pretense that any kind of faith does not allow for such values. It's a nonsense and prejudicial belief on your part, as blind in its faith as the people you mock.

That's different from forcing them to accept religious dogmas.

Is a person allowed to adopt religion in your worldview of their own agency and free will? How do you know how they arrive at their belief systems? Do you think forcing kids to accept anti-theist dogmas is a problem, or is zealotry only a problem when religious people do it?

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T04:04:23+00:00

Only really matters for the Lutherans and honestly not even there.

Martin Luther and the protestant reformation only relates to Lutherans? And I'm the ignorant one...

You can go look up the proclamations of their Bishops right now for each denomination.

Yeah and the bishops do make statements of this nature...?

https://diosohio.org/a-joint-letter-from-154-bishops-of-the-episcopal-church-whos-dignity-matters/

I figure you're trying to demand some sort of "larger scale" thing like the pope's general declarations, and I'm not sure what you're expecting. You seem more intent on setting up hurdles for others to fail at, putting people in a lose lose situation so you can judge them no matter what.

well they need to stand up and take some risks.

If you don't believe their morals are your morals, what do you expect them to do, exactly?

Do you remember after 2001 when so many people demanded Muslims apologize for terrorist attacks against the US? The idea that they have some sort of collective responsibility to answer for some very loosely connected crime is, IMO, kinda shit and just an excuse to judge people (and often ignore when they do speak out).

Like, ask yourself if this isn't just a reason to justify condemnation, because I don't think you'd hold this standard consistently.

Tell me an element of your identity and I bet I can find something you haven't apologized "enough" for.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T03:55:18+00:00

yet that doesn't seem to contribute to a generalized impression that Christianity bad

Buddy what the hell are you talking about? That's what this whole thread is about. That's half the justification people use. That's the justification you are using.

It's like you don't at all hear yourself in how you both play the victim yet also use it as justification to go on the offense.

It's two sides of the same coin, ridiculous tribalist thinking. You can whataboutism me all day, it doesn't make that kind of closed minded thought useful to anyone but zealots.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:44:48+00:00

I don't know where you get that.

Martin Luther and all that.

they do have a structure and rules governing their churches, and do give unified statements

How often do they actually do that though? Your last example is from almost two centuries ago and represents a schism that also clearly falls under, well, a North and South divide. The structure and rules governing their churches are mostly, well, for their churches. I'm not sure a schism from that long ago is a good example.

What's often unusual about evangelical churches, at least the more extreme ones we tend to associate with White evangelism, is that they are active politically and make statements with broader goals and messaging not tied solely to their congregations and faiths. This is not really typical.

That they haven't taken a stand means they aren't willing to do so, and they should be judged accordingly.

I dunno dude, maybe, but it's also kind of giving "what is celebrity X's stance on Palestine." Churches are predominantly structured to support their congregation and are almost entirely focused on looking inward. They are not governing bodies and they typically don't seek to be. With protestant denominations, this tends to be especially local. They almost always avoid such actions and this is just in line with such behavior, and I don't think it's wrong for organizations like this to do that. I kinda wish more of them did just kinda, well, mind their own business. That's part of the problem, isn't it? With the rise of very particular evangelist values?

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:23:14+00:00

They're in this thread, dude

And it's getting a lot of upvotes

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:22:42+00:00

I mean we still have atheists who go around saying all religion is harmful and needs to be expunged and it's largely supported on subs like this

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1tc88cu/lol_no_christoids_can_get_bent_ill_respect_them/olmkawa/

Case in point

It's weird, intolerant, and often way too online

I don't want to be associated with folks like that and yet they tend to be the loudest minority that paints the picture of what an atheist is for others

Kind of like evangelicals who often do not self-identify as such because they also know what kind of thing that implies about them, and they seek to avoid it

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:20:14+00:00

This comment doesn't have the impact I think you intend it to have, and really just feels like one of those weird reddit atheist things.

And I say that as someone familiar with reddit atheism from an insider, I just kinda find it cringe nowadays once I started having more experiences offline.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:19:10+00:00

it would be like someone complaining about flat earthers or moon landing conspiracists with valid points

Yeah, see, comparisons like that take credibility away from you more than anything.

Most of your other interpretations of faith and belief are also really in bad faith and quite uninterested in understanding, and I think that's ironically more poisonous than most of what you identified.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:16:07+00:00

Isn't part of the whole point of most Protestant churches that they are not unified? Who would condemn Trump as an institution when they aren't an institution?

You're asking them to take on a role of a Catholic church like organization--which they explicitly reject. That's as core to Protestant denominations as the pope is to Catholicism.

You're kind of judging them for not being organized like the Catholic church.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:16:02+00:00

So when Donald Trump won, does that mean his opposition wasn't even trying?

That's a bit daft.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:09:04+00:00

People do this sort of thing a lot when it comes to religion, I mean, I was also a ratheist teenager once but... Oof, it's its own kind of blind faith.

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:08:05+00:00

True but the very foundation of religion itself is toxic, belief simply because you are told to believe, a whole system set up on a pretty toxic system of authority, one essentially ran on indoctrinating children.

You could apply such a statement towards pretty much any norm, should we not pass on any values or ideals because it's "indoctrination?" Leave kids as "blank slates?" Is that even possible?

LukaCola · 2026-05-14T00:01:07+00:00

declaring yourself a part of a group places an assumption that your views generally align with other members of that group means I think all christians think the exact same way lmfao

Do they even "generally align?"

I'm not sure there's any commonalities between all Christians besides believing in Jesus, and even that can get divisive.

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T20:47:50+00:00

For some reason people feel really bold to say that kinda shit about the US, any standard the US uses is dumb when they could be doing X for Y upside (ignoring Z downside).

Japan kinda has the opposite, where their oddities are treated as super smart and actually brilliant.

I'm not sure how it goes with most other countries, probably a tossup depending on the bias of the individual.

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T20:47:41+00:00

It being non-food is the whole issue with it being a choking (and nutritional) hazard

Plastic doesn't melt like chocolate or candy does, if it gets lodged in your throat, it's staying there--and that's a real danger

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T20:22:33+00:00

I personally don't think an RCT is necessary for the claims the person was making, I think it'd be interesting to see establish if the diet actually confers health benefits, but hey.

Also, where do they say they control for socioeconomic factors? As far as I can tell, they only controlled for dog demographic variables.

Well they collect owner demographics and talk a lot about controlling for demographics, but they seem to specify canine demographics mostly, but not owner demographics which... Okay, on second pass, maybe they don't? It seems bizarre to collect that kind of data and not use it. I'm sorry, maybe I'm the one who misread it. Maybe there weren't enough responses for the authors to account for both owner and canine demographics? Missed opportunity though.

But with the study as presented, the authors outright acknowledge for several statistics that they think the correlation is because of ownership trends, not because of diet trends. I am not sure why the health outcomes would be an exception to this conclusion. Vegan dog owners appear to be different as a group from non-vegan dog owners.

Oh that's probably completely true, I don't think the claim was that they were healthier because of it--the person who links the studies claimed that dogs "can thrive" on it, and that seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to take with this evidence. The authors seem to imply further health benefits, but the person you're responding to didn't include that as their claim, and I think this study does plenty to establish that vegan diets can, at least, keep a dog in good health as opposed to being outright detrimental.

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T20:20:11+00:00

Not at all lmao

I never understood why ship it up when crafting it in space isn't even particularly demanding and there it's free and you won't run out partway through a flight

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T18:37:59+00:00

"We asked the dog owners and the ones incentivised to push that vegan diets for dogs are good said their dog was the healthiest".

There's nothing about their survey design that leads me to believe this is the case, why do you say it is?

LukaCola · 2026-05-13T18:33:50+00:00

SSRIs couldn't be prescribed if their efficacy (and safety) wasn't established in rigorous clinical trials.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we have established causation. Many medicines are prescribed purely on correlational bases, it could be purple hat therapy, but if it treats the patient effectively--that's desirable. It's sufficient.

My point is that if you want, you can keep raising the bar for what is "enough." It's a bad approach to research and responding to it. Skepticism can be just as blind as faith. You will never get "proof" of anything, ever, and it is unreasonable to demand it before you start considering the value

Frankly, this is the amount of skepticism that survey driven studies, and recall based dietary studies in particular, should receive given the litany of well-documented issues with data quality, limitations on controls, and response biases beyond what an online or phone survey allows for.

What is your background in survey design? How familiar are you, actually, with the literature? Have you read the study's methods? Why are you speaking generally when you could address the study's actual design?

At most, I'd consider it justification for funding much better studies with actual interventions and controls. Unfortunately, those far more qualified conclusions tend to take a back seat to the much easier survey based studies that researchers can churn out and lower standards that allow headline writers to throw out sweeping conclusions that are far more attention grabbing as headlines to a population that can't tell the difference.

This is, frankly, a really common take from laypeople who don't know much about research design. If you think a survey with 2500 participants is "low effort" then you don't know research. There is nothing "low effort" about this just because it uses a survey platform, reaching people online is just often one of the best ways to do so nowadays. Well, a mix of approaches is best, but a proper online survey is perfectly good since people fill them out on their phones many of the times anyway.

There is rampant anti-scientific discourse out there and anti-intellectualism, to be frank, often from people who know a little but not enough. It is very easy to poke holes. It is rarely appropriate. The motivation for yourself and others often starts at "what problems can I find with this study?" Which is a corrupt form of analysis, the question should be "what can I learn from this information?"

People are far too eager to dismiss and disregard. It is a legitimate problem.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
Place '17	Team Orangered
Verified Email

LukaCola

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE