About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials:
“In my work with the defendants, I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Did he conclude whether those people started without empathy or just lost it due to the things they did?
People like this are eating the same glue that Elon does.
Anyone thinking that empathy is a liability rather than an advantage are fucking stupid.
Empathy is a liability. It's also what makes human connection and love possible.
People who lack empathy are the broken ones.
I think I found the author.
It's frustrating to read Christians trying to distinguish themselves from one another based on interpretations of a book while also all believing in a magical creature that lives in the clouds who will both condemn someone to an eternity of torture and provide unconditional love and acceptance.
The idea that anything anyone could ever do warrants an infinite amount of suffering is crazy.
Is there a slur for christians?
These sorts? Absolutely.
My favorites:
Christofascist is arguably both a slur and a precise, factual description
Ah “toxic empathy” this is the “I need to protect my mental health— I can’t be bothered with seeing homeless people or caring about genocide. It hurts me to care, so I just won’t.” crowd. And every last one of them is a “magical empath” with more empathy than anyone ever had ever. They’re the mostest empathetic and don’t question it!
Sadly, this is a thing.
(Note: I am not encouraging one to read the link.)
Witnessing to Liberals by Ron Rhodes
God’s primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
The writing spends a lot of time arguing against the "mischaracterizations of evangelicals", while mischaracterizing "liberal Christians".
Such a horrible out world view.
(I don't care to find out what this detestable person has to say about Atheists.)
The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.
Hell isn't a scriptural concept, it was taken and evolved from Hellenism. While I'm deconstructed, I know several "leftist Christians" that reject most modern evangelical dogma as "unscriptural." I agree with them, but there is no ethical justification for things like "God told the Israelites to genocide an entire people, including babies." At the end of the day, even if you agree with Jesus' humanist teaching, the Bible is full to the brim with "God" ostensibly telling people to do horrible, unjust, repugnant things.
The hell everyone thinks of was basically just biblical fan fiction.
Most people’s understanding of Satan and Hell is more from Milton and Dante than from the Bible. With the “Rapture”, it’s all Tim LaHeye, Hal Lindsey and basement church videos regurgitation of John Darby.
Against my best judgement, I read the whole thing. (You practically begged me to!) He's just offering incredibly disingenuous "talking points" for "liberal Christians" that are actually things you might say to an atheist. The whole thing just exists to characterize non-conservative Christians as fake Christians.
100% agree. It is fully repugnant.
I would say that empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy. Anyone who lacks empathy is simply unsuitable, because you have to be able to put yourself in the voters' shoes in order to fulfill your mandate as an elected representative of the people.
Empathy would also be highly desirable in business leaders, as the purpose of the economy is to serve society and distribute goods at least somewhat fairly.
In our dark times, however, when politics and business mainly serve to maintain the power of those who are already powerful, it is hardly surprising that someone who is interested in doing just that propagates such idiotic ideas as "toxic empathy."
I'm old enough to remember in 2009 when Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, mentioning empathy as one of the characteristics he valued in her, and the right melted down
You know who I blame? Jesus. Going round teaching people to care about one another regardless of creed and colour. His toxic empathy has really ruined Christianity.
There is the biblical Christ, then there is alt-right Christ. One may, or may not, have existed as some weird combination of avatar/son/whatever of God. Then there is corruption and propaganda on the other side.
I'm not a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination, but I was raised in the south and my grandma taught Sunday school. I had read the bible cover to cover before most other chapter books, though against my will. Grandma also believed in the corrective powers of The Switch. So, yeah.
The biblical Christ would, if he were still entombed, be rolling in his grave over what the current GoP party is espousing as Christianity.
Of course, this post involves suspension of disbelief, so its all in the hypothetical sense.
teaching
This
Toxic empathy can only harm the person who has it. In truth you have to be a little selfish. The trouble with anyone who thinks empathy is really toxic are the ones who are too selfish.
Not sure what the article is getting at, but there’s a thing called “weaponized empathy” - or “concern trolling” - which is a bad-faith argumentation tactic where you pretend to be worried about someone, when in reality you’re just using that as a cover for judgment or hostility.
It can also be used more broadly. Think of how often “think of the children” gets trotted out as a justification to invade people’s privacy, when the supposed concern for kids’ wellbeing is really just an excuse.
The line below the title tells you everything you need to know about what the article is getting at.
How Allie Beth Stuckey is holding the line on the right.
This is about not empathizing with the "wrong people" and making sure to see everything through a "Christian" lens. I put Christian in quotes because this isn't according to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ but the interpretation of the Christian Fundamental movement which sees anyone who doesn't identify as one of them as an enemy to be either converted or destroyed and anyone not confirming to the "natural" standard (I.E. Trans and Homosexuals) should be condemned as irredeemably immoral. These people are basically the ISIS of Christianity.
If toxic masculinity is destructive masculinity like "boys be boys" and neofascist pundits, then toxic empathy would be something like Stockholm-syndrome. In context it does sound more like the expression stems from sociopathy.
How did "boys will be boys" go from "coming home at age 7 covered in mud, with a skinned knee, and a frog in your pocket" to "sexual assault and felony gun possession?"
Even in the first one, 'boys will be boys' is often used to explain why you react differently to the same scenario depending on whether it's a boy or girl. I remember being scolded for this stuff as an AFAB, while boys got away with it. Same story with getting into little physical fights, being rowdy, aggressive, destroying stuff. I guess that can be a slippery slope into the latter one, if you keep it up long enough. Just my attempt at an explanation.
While you're not wrong about the double standard, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason. Consider pranks; just because you do something harmless, like the old cliche of a whoopie cushion, doesn't mean it's okay or inevitable to escalate until you're harassing people on YouTube or endangering people because "it's just a prank bro."
So, this is controversial, but when I hear "toxic masculinity" I understand that it means that not all masculinity is toxic, but masculinity can have toxic forms. In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.
Now, I don't think that left/progressive ideals are toxic in general, and certainly aren't toxic when they're based in empathy and compassion. And I realize that the "side" that coined the phrase "toxic empathy" is also the side that thinks "toxic masculinity" is an absolute phrase. So it would make sense that right/conservative people would think "oh we'll call ideals we don't like toxic, like the libs do with masculinity" without any deeper understanding.
Just want to be pedantic to try to keep the capital-D Discourse on the nature of empathy from becoming black-and-white polarized.
Is that what they're now calling "virtue signalling"?
Ugh, don't you just hate it when people care about someone other than themselves?
