SalaTris

Thanks for the book recommendation! Yeah, discrimination can happen with or without religion. It seems to me that any human system is capable of being exploited or corrupted.

I look at religion from the perspective of "what purpose does the manufacturing of religion serve?" assuming there's good intention. I am with you that what organized religion typically offers is not exclusive to religion.

What is "community"? Is it surrounding myself with people who are exactly like me?

Personally, I find it helpful to have a "safe space" to talk to other people who are going through a similar experience that I am. Although I am not great at it I also think it's healthy to interact with the outside world from time to time. At best we learn something from one another, at worst (I hope) we tolerate one another.

For me as an non-sectarian, the good parts from organized religion are advice and lessons about living life, which science doesn’t particularly address.

I recently read an elder theologist reflecting on the stages of enlightenment and I realized that I agreed entirely with them. The difference was our journeys for how we arrived at these same conclusions. They spent their entire life figuring that out. And I had figured it out probably by the end high school. I am not saying I am smart or flawless, because the other person has a lifetime of experience that I don’t have culminating in their wisdom. But they chose to spend their time on such matters, and I chose to spend my time differently.

Your point is important. I was once part of that movement. There is a crucial piece missing:

In the US atheism has come to specifically challenge the assumed Christian majority that influences US society in subtle ways. For instance, Christmas, or the fact that we have “under God” on US currency. It wasn’t anti-religious as much as anti-Christian, and contextually that point of view is warranted.

Since that movement, I’ve noticed that theologists have labeled atheists as “strong” and “weak” in (my interpretation) an attempt to discredit “agnostic atheists”.

I think there will always be a “war” between mindsets so long as humanity survives. The important part is allowing diverse religious or non-religious backgrounds which means one religion can’t be imposing values onto everyone else.

Engagement is what matters, and that’s driven by habits. The protests were disruptive. The switching of apps is disruptive. I see this more as a way to distract and bring up engagement again.

Is it a good idea? Honestly, if they want to succeed I think they should focus on what has become broken with reddit first

Also an atheist. I applaud a well-rounded description of this new community! It also doesn't particularly include atheism which is maybe fine.

I’m happy to see it after seeing some blindly anti-all-religious-people (I don’t know a good word for this) hate comments recently.

Sounds like overcompensation? Some people who gravitate towards, let's say atheism, come from another bad experience and need a safe place to talk about that. Some need that answer to the meaning of life, etc. And some don't

Since this doesn't necessarily include atheists -- How about a philosophy community? Or is it better to have more specific communities?

Also the Internet Archive? I always wish they crawled more of the web than they did in years past.

Salaries for key people aren’t out of this world given their scale and highest paid person taking a pay cut is a good sign: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767

At some point you have to trust your gut?

Speaking more broadly than FOSS:

The large national nonprofits probably don’t need your money, and the small local nonprofits probably do. At the same time nonprofit can lose sight of their mission, and bigger orgs need admin, specialty jobs, and leadership that are full time jobs that a family could live on. So it’s hard to generalize. Their mission is the goal, not making decisions based on finances.

I look at their finances to get an idea of where they are at. These can be “lagging indicators” if there really is a time sensitive need though.

Examples: Ran into one person who was trying to promote their non-profit rather than solicit donations — when I looked into their finances it was clear they didn’t have the money to get there but had done great work already. Another person who doesn’t pay himself for the work he puts in because it’s all volunteer based and only seeks contributions for his projects.

I've had some non-profits prompt me to up my contribution to cover transaction fees. But they seem to be closer to 3%.

I try to identify orgs where there is actual need so I am not consistent. Some of the big-name non-profits get disproportionate attention, or they spend too much money on fundraising, or they grossly overpay their key people. Other non-profits do good work and are sorely underfunded.

It's not just transaction feels, I find the act of making individual contributions in itself an inefficient allocation of resources.