Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If anyone is interested, mister Turok is over on the SSC open thread complaining about us: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-thread-409/comment/180699602
I'm curious, why on earth do people think this is a "hugbox for fundamentalist Christians"? If anything I see progressive folks get more leniency. Anyway, sad to see.
Are you seriously asking? Yes, it does come off as a bit of a Christian hugbox at times.
Many posters here, yourself included (yourself especially?), take ample opportunity to mention that they are Christian, and often use the forum to discuss Christian topics and Christian theology as if it would be uncontroversial.
It's not so frequent that I can quickly dig up an example, but I've noticed it and been annoyed by it before. It's innocent enough - one person sees the other mention their faith, and takes that as license to proceed in a discussion where the baseline axioms of Christianity are assumed. I hope you can appreciate that an atheist watching a thread devolve into bible study would be miffed.
Why would you be miffed? Atheists and agnostics regularly talk about AI, transhumanism, and all sorts of other things here as well. I genuinely don't get why this is a problem, or makes this place seem like a hugbox?
Just because this type of convo is allowed?
I'm not @celluloid_dream, and I am also not an atheist. I am not observant, and I am not even certain that I could say that I am a Christian, even though I desperately wish that I could say that I was.
There is something about that particular kind of thread that bothers me. It seems, for lack of better terms, both condescending and sinful.
It feels to me like many of those threads are rooted in a faith that is almost Calvinist, where anyone who is not already among the elect will not and cannot understand the ineffable nature of God's grace; it seems more a way to reaffirm the holiness of the speaker rather than to spread the Good News of universal salvation that is offered to anyone. I'm not sure if this is the intent, but it feels that way when you are on the "other side".
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Jesus himself said to be circumspect about discussions of faith. It is difficult for me to reconcile that with what I have written above.
Idk man I have seen prideful faith, and it’s bad. I don’t see that here.
I think in reality it’s just culture shock from seeing Christians who actually deeply believe speak. Most Christians in the modern world are in name only sadly.
Genuinely not trying to be condescending here but at least imo I haven’t seen much bragging or holier-than-thou. Usually it’s people nerding out about weird historical or theological points. Not talking about how often they pray or that they met this Saint or elder or got to touch this relic or icon, went to this or that monastery, etc.
I'm not exactly sure how to articulate it, but I've seen a lot of discussion between Christians and atheists here where the Christian stance has a strong theme of "you just don't get it". I don't know if it's because the other side of the conversation has a fundamental difference in viewpoint, but the "vibe" is frequently there. Much like the 2014 era meme of "it's not my job to educate you", it feels like it's meant to absolve the speaker of having to explain their stance in a way that allows someone to get it.
That is such a strange stance for me. If Christianity is real, and I could bring myself to believe, I don't think that I would morally be capable of saying something like that.
I don't remember who it was, but someone on this forum once wrote up a long response that could be compressed to "Jesus loves you. Yes, even you, even though you don't think he should." It was probably the single best case for Christianity that I have ever read. It actually made the faith make sense on a visceral level for the first time in my life. I wish we saw more of that here, rather than comments about religion social technology.
Isn't that a pretty standard proselytizing angle, used especially on criminals and drug addicts etc? It may work on spiritual/culturally christian but nonpracticing people, but why would anyone use that line here? It would be a comically bad misread of rationality-community adjacent atheists to believe they "don't think Jesus should love them".
More options
Context Copy link
Interesting! I was initially attracted to the faith due to the social technology discussion, but over time Christ's love is what fully won me over.
If it helps, I absolutely believe that the fact that God loves us personally is the most unique and shocking thing about Christianity. I was healed of a horrible set of chronic pain and illness issues in large part by coming to Christ.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not a problem. It's just mildly annoying sometimes.
The difference between topics of material fact and those of a spiritual bent is that the former are comprehensible to anyone, and the latter only make sense if you have already bought in to a specific belief system. You can discuss geopolitics or tech without anyone having to accept contested metaphysics. The annoyance comes from moving the discussion to a place where not everyone can play.
The term "hugbox" is probably not fair. It's more like the accumulated weight of all the Christian-posting starts to make the place feel kind of Christian by default.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link