But they are not doing it because they are Christians. The vast majority of Christians don’t do it, and atheist americans do it too. This is just a quirk of america, that is religiously coloured because that is what america is like.

And the comment I responded to was talking about people who circumcise for religious reasons.

So it is you, who is wrong.

Wow. If I was prompted to come up with the stupidest notion right now, I would hardly make up something dumber.

The Jews at least had a normal reason to do this(hygiene), this is ridiculous. Do you still do this?

But Americans that circumcise(which I did not know happened), don’t do it for religious reasons. And Muslims don’t believe in the story depicted, so this by elimination only applies to Jews.

Believe what?

It is not. There are enough Jews that don’t support the actions of Israel for your comment to be definetly antisemitic.

But the only religion that holds to this story of Abraham, and circumsises is Judaism.

Muslims reject the Torah, or the Old Testament, and Christians are under no obligation to circumcise so this only applies to Jews.

And Americans do it because they are weird for cultural reasons.

I would say that Christians are not required to circumcise themselves, since jewish law only applied to Jews before Christ, and it actually made sense to do so back then, for hygienic reasons.

I was unaware Americans do this, but first I would say that that practice is clearly not connected to Abraham, that is portrayed here, in any way, even if what you say is correct. And it is a cultural practice, not a relgious one, and even if it was, as you say, motivated by religious views.

But I… am not sure how circumcision would prevent anyone from touching himself, so I am highly sceptical of that claim.

Finally, I will say that it would be unfair to transpose the beliefs of an obscure american sect of Christianity on the entire Christendom. Especially since there is literally no religious requirement for Christians to do so.

That seems somewhat antisemitic, if you ask me. Not all jews are anti-trans.

Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

deleted by creator

If I had tatoos that ugly I would seriously consider becoming one.

I would ban you just for the name.

Well, sorry for the accusation. AI usually gives these bullet points when prompted.

Are these AI bullet points, lmao?

I just find this line comical when you pretend Europe was progressive from the Greeks through to modern times rather than seeing the Enlightenment as a return to those values

Progress is a modern idea. The enlightenment was not a return to these values, because it was very different from what came before it.

You might be confusing rennaisance and enlightenment.

You might want to look into that Copernicus guy:

In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus’ theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua and since the previous year a cardinal, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you. …For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe. …Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject.

Also, you should look into that Galileo guy yourself. He and his inquires were favoured by the church, until they weren’t. It was a complicated matter, and to say that the church was opposed to science is just false.

The Enlightenment was only 300 years ago, and it only happened because the printing press (Invented in China, refined by Korea) allowed knowledge to spread outside of their given libraries.

Why did it not happen in China then? Also, as far as I understand, the Gutenberg press was made independently from the Chiense, and in any case this is not the sole reason for the enlightenment clearly.

Europe was not “anti-rationality”, because western Europe has always had a very rationalistic culture it inherited the Greek philosophical tradition, western Christianity is quite rationalistic as well, compared to other religions and orthodox Christianity.

Without the medieval intellectuals, the universities, the scholastics, there would be no modern science. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, and it did take 2000 years of the development of conceptual tools for it to emerge.

2000 years not since the enlightenment, but since the beginning of philosophy in Greece, clearly.

This is just absurd. How can you say Europe was anti-science, if modern science did not exist, so it was impossible to be opposed to it? And Europe was literally the region with the most rationalistic intellectual culture in the world.

If you do not know something, do not pretend you do.

I am not dismissing the achievements of other civilisations, but this is hardly a counterargument.

India is, indeed, the only place on earth where a rationalistic tradition emerged similar to the Greek philosophical tradition, and they did achieve quite a lot in maths as well I believe, but their intellectual tradition did not achieve what the western intellectual tradition did. This is just a fact.

Modern science is a result of two thousand years of intellectual work, during which a rich variety of conceptual tools was formed on the basis of which science emerged. It did so out of a rationalistic tradition, that has been developed by Europeans, other Mediterranean peoples and Arabs, but the centre of which was western Europe.

I am not religious. You commented about the sociocultural roots of religion. You were wrong.

But because I was not making up bullshit about Christianity to insult it, but instead was actually, unlike you, “rational and reasonable”, your binary thinking led to you writing even more fan-fiction about religion, unfortunately.

Feel free to write another essay full of nonsense.

The Jews were already militant, and we know that Christians were not even perceived as a distinct group from Jews by the Romans initially.

The scientific tradition was also exported to the rest of the world from Europe(and parts of Asia, I suppose) via colonialism, I do not see anyone complaining about that.