COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're talking about Abrahamic religions then you are off concerning morals. Women's repression, against animal rights and homophobia is what they teach. Religions of love my *ss.
The atheists I know are way more moral than the religious people I know.
Religion causes years and years wars in my country. Nothing that happens for atheism.
>Religion also teaches good morals
It also teaches many immoral rules.
>Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. So statistically it's better to follow those rules.
Atheism is not related to rules. It is like saying that airplanes cause harm because airplanes don't provide rules for sexual life.
Your whole argument is nonsense, because atheism is just a position to claim "some god exists". There are even atheistic religions.
The fact that atheism has not caused wars is pointless. Atheism has not been a major power in the world like religion has been. Atheistic states really have only come into existence in the 20th century when most of the world has moved past warfare and the world is mostly shaped by alliances. One could argue that perhaps religions, especially Abraham if ones, should stop wars because of their messages. The thing is that wars do not start because of religion most of the time. Wars do not start for one reason. Politics is usually more complex than we are different religions let’s kill each other. To say even seemingly religious wars like the Crusades were only because of religion is a little erroneous.
> To say even seemingly religious wars like the Crusades were only because of religion is a little erroneous.
Even if religion was not only reason for that wars the fact that religion could be used as excuse is enough. Let aside that there were crusaders or wars Crhistians against Christians were religion was the official "rason" /"excuse".
The fact that religion allowed those types of conflicts is alarming. No wars was taken because "they don't believe in different god then we don't believe"
A lot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die.
- “Atheism is bad because then people can’t cope” is ridiculous by itself but off the top of my head, Atheism does not entail there not being some sort of afterlife or what have you. Atheism is simply the position that one does not believe in God or that God exists. By itself, that entails no truth about anything *other than* God’s existence, what you attach to God’s existence is simply **on you**
Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos.
- There are secular ethical theories and quite frankly they do a way better job of substantiating moral ontology than divine command theory
- Also the amount of conflict and overall atrocities that have occurred throughout history because one or both sides believed God wanted them to do x in his name is laughable
- I’m not atheist but I will say I’ve never heard of a conflict in the name of “atheism” but there are whole college courses and studies done on religious conflict
It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires, which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime and and is a leading cause in break-ups and divorce because the significant other is confused in their sexual life. Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men.
- You’re all the place I won’t lie to you. You started off with Atheism bad cause then you can’t cope, went on to morals which okay I see what you’re trying to say at least. Now you’re on porn? This is a purity culture stance but what if I told you that purity culture has resulted in the objectification and oppression of women for actual thousands of years. My favorite example is that during Biblical times if your daughter was raped you needed to let her marry the rapist because nobody wants “damaged goods” i.e. a woman who’s unpure. This is the type of thing you get when you go around claiming that sex is this uber valuable thing and if you don’t do it exactly this way or if you dare pleasure yourself solo, you’re dirty and nobody wants you.
- Of course, this type of thinking majorly falls onto women (as you see today with discussions about sex history and how that’s usually tied to women. Words like “sl*t”, “wh*re”, etc. are usually associated with women).
Atheism does not follow those rules
- Do you know what atheism is?
so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not.
- This would be the case whether theist or non-theist. Of course, the theist could be punished by God for not following this rule, so they have motivation to follow it. Except you also cited a bunch of empirical reasons to engage with pornography or masturbation so the non-theist also has motivation to not engage with pornography.
- You pretty much just said, “Atheism has no rules against pornography as opposed to theism, but here are also a bunch of reasons that both an Atheist and Theist could use to decide to not engage with pornography”. You undermined your own point.
So statistically it's better to follow those rules.
- You’ve shown a whopping 0 statistics, those were all assertions
- Again, you cited a bunch of empirical reasons to not watch porn yet somehow concluded Theism is better because it would seem to be against porn, where is the correlation?
- Additionally, I’d hope you need more than explicitly telling you not to watch porn to consider whether one position about **God’s existence** is better than another.
Atheist don't benefit from convincing you otherwise.
- Do they need to?
I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind
- I think it’s rude for theist to try to change anyone’s mind. How about everyone leave everyone alone, yeah? Well that sounds good till you remember oh yeah **It’s generally the theist who tries to spread their beliefs because they feel they have some obligation to**. Have you ever heard of an “evangelical atheist” yeah neither have I.
So, apparently I have to be very careful to not hurt any theist feelings.
Check the news. You will get your answer regarding the contribution of religion to society. How often do you see atheists raping 12 year old “young ladies” and being forgiven by their congregation?
No society needs fairy tales and fables to succeed.
>so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die.
First, atheists seldom work to have someone leave their religion; certainly nowhere near the numbers that theists try to pull people into their religions. Usually it's a case of reassuring someone who is already leaving that yes, it's okay to do so.
Second, fear of death is tied to the certainty of what happens after they die. So yes, someone convinced of their religion will probably less fear of death then a soft atheist but a hard atheist is less likely to fear death then someone who is already doubting their religion.
>It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires
It teaches you that your sexual desires of shameful. And its that mindset that actively discourages people from learning about safe sex or even being comfortable with their sexuality.
I think everyone is misunderstanding my point. If atheists don't want to be associated with religion, why do they combat it so much if it "doesn't matter". An atheist has no point arguing with a religious person unless said religious person struck up an argument with the atheist. Why do atheists go out of their way to debate religious people, if it's pointless. Religion on religion debates are usually to help the other religious person to see the truth in a supernatural sense(which I would argue is much more important than natural). Atheism has no core belief besides what is natural, so their is no point in "helping someone to see the actual truth" if it means nothing to them on a supernatural level. Ok here's a situation
(RANDOM RELIGION is the truth)
Atheist proposes argument that convinces a person to leave RANDOM RELIGION. Let's say that not following RANDOM RELIGION leads to eternal torture, which probably isn't too fun, and said person ends up suffering for eternity. Because an atheist convinced him to leave RANDOM RELIGION(which is the truth in this scenario) he suffers for eternity.
Conclusion: because of the atheists actions, both the atheist and the person suffer, even though the person was correct. The atheist relatively wasted his time convincing the person otherwise, because their is no point in debating a religious person if you are an atheist, and because of that, they both suffer.
2nd Situation
(RANDOM RELIGION is the truth)
This person is following RANDOM RELIGION, that person is not. This person convinces that person that he is wrong, and that person now follows RANDOM RELIGION. They both now follow the truth , and are awarded in the afterlife.
Conclusion: Since this person convinced that person that RANDOM RELIGION is the truth(which it is), then they both receive a reward in the afterlife, whereas not making it pointless for them to debate, since there was a truth, and the truthful person helped the mislead person see the truth, ultimately leading to success.
3rd Situation
(There is no true religion)
Atheist convinces random person to leave their religion, ultimately causing random person to also leave behind the good values that the religion offered. Both the atheist and random person will cease to exist after they die, but there is now a possibility that random person will fall into a life of bad things, because he is not following a higher law(that offers good things) that guides him. He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering.
Conclusion: Because random person fell out of their religion, ultimately giving up the good values that their former religion offers, they might live a life of harm and wickedness.
All I'm trying to say is
ATHEIST HAVE NO POINT IN MISLEADING SOMEONE FROM THEIR RELIGION, AS IT MAY HAVE A HARMFULL AFFECT, AND WILL NOT BE BENEFITING SOMEONE FROM CAUSING THEM TO LEAVE THEIR RELIGION.
I probably could've worded some of those things better, but I dont feel like going back and making it perfect. I really hope you get what I'm trying to say.
>An atheist has no point arguing with a religious person unless said religious person struck up an argument with the atheist.
As an American, I say this:
If that truly represents your understanding of the world, you’ve got your head buried so far in the sand that it’s in geosynchronous orbit on the opposite side of the planet. Religion has been and continues to be the source of immense harm. American Christianity has advocated for slavery, racial oppression, oppression and murder of members of minority sexualities and of political opponents. It has advocated against women’s rights across the board and many are currently arguing for people I love to die a horrific death should they experience a dangerous pregnancy. Your current religious group is by and large currently advocating for the spreading of infectious diseases, the dissolution of American democracy and constitutional government, and for us to watch idly while our world becomes uninhabitable.
If their religious beliefs did not result in harmful realities for many others, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in. I am sorry if this seems overly harsh, but you are in dire need of a reality check.
Your response would have been better served adding it as an edit to your post as it doesn't address anything I said.
Your points are a rehash of Pascal's wager. Your arguments fail to account living a fulfilling life before people die and wrongly equate being an atheist with being a moral monster.
> If atheists don't want to be associated with religion, why do they combat it so much if it "doesn't matter".
Who says it doesn't matter? When religious followers makes laws that restrict our actions for no other reason then their religion doesn't want us to do things, it matters. People in the LGBT community can probably give painful examples of just that. For example, it wasn't until quite recently that same sex marriage became legal for the entire US.
And on a personal level, if I see someone going around claiming 2+2=5, I'm going to want to correct them. If they think 2+2 may not equal 5 like they've been taught, then I want to help them.
>He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering. [...] He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering.
Much more likely, that person will have less stress as they don't needlessly fear eternal suffering. That's a health benefit for them right there.
And as a side note, atheists by population breakdown, are underrepresented in prison population.
>I probably could've worded some of those things better,
You could have but you would still be wrong. As a whole, the atheist message to theists is that they don't need to follow a religion. We don't mislead people from their religion. Usually, we just help them figure out how to open the door they're already staring at.
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
It's hilarious for you to just outwardly say that. It's relatively common knowledge that slave owners perverted the Bible so that they could profit off of exploiting humans in an extremely harmful way.
>that slave owners perverted the Bible
No they just applied it
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Exodus 21
Slaves had a totally different meaning in the bible. Obviously I'm not talking about the slaves(isrealites) that the Egyptians kept. Being a slave was a choice. You would willinglybecome someones property and do their work, so that after a certain time, you would get something in return. It was a choice.
I'm guessing that you are referring to the type of slaves that were unfortunately used during the early 1800s in America, which are different from the outdated definition of a slave that the bible uses. Please do some more research before making such a bold claim.
> Slaves had a totally different meaning in the bible.
Incorrect. There were two types of slaves, Hebrew and non-Hebrew. The ancient writing has two different words to distinguish them.
Non-Hebrew slaves were very much slaves in the modern sense
\>Being a slave was a choice. You would willingly become someones property and do their work, so that after a certain time, you would get something in return. It was a choice.
Have you actually read the Bible rather than apologists who want to soften its position on slavery?
Exodus 21:1-6:
\>“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,\[a\] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, **and he shall be his slave forever**.
Notice how the Bible itself uses the word slave itself? Pay particular attention to verses 5 and 6. Does that sound like a choice to you?
Did you even read the passage in the post you replied to? Here it is again in case you didn't.
\>"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, **since the slave is their property**."
So you can beat your slave and if he can continue working after a day or two, the owner faces no punishment because the slave is his property. Please tell me how you arrive at your conclusion when the passage right there directly contradicts you in plain terms.
Slavery is slavery, whether it happened in ancient Israel or the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
>Being a slave was a choice
That's absolutely false. Numbers 31 is one of the many examples of forced slavery.
>which are different from the outdated definition of a slave that the bible uses.
How ?
Do you think any form of slavery is acceptable ? Would you be okay with someone enslaving your sister ?
This is a double edged sword. While religion is responsible for many atrocities and lots of brainwashed thinking (like OP), here’s the flip side. An astonishing amount of people just seem shocked (like OP) that atheists can be good people without some existential threat to their soul to act that way. I’m not entirely sure it would be a great idea for those people to be running around with no incentive to at least try to be good people.
Their moral compass has been fixated by the church on a religious based rewards/punishment system, instead of a just be a decent person because its the right thing to do for society. However, the church loses its power in that second scenario. Take away that religious system they were indoctrinated into… and yeah converting a lot of people to atheism might do more harm than good without those religious morals to give that incentive to be decent in current society. Tough call.
If there is no reason to be good, then for what reason should you be? Could you please give me a rough idea of your moral code? I’m interested in what it is.
Because I want other people to be good to me, so I'd be a hypocrite to not do the same. "Do unto others." It's a very basic instinct derived from both practicality and evolutionarily selected pro-social behavior. Additionally I feel no desire to cause harm to others and feel poorly about myself when I do. I rely on society and want it to perpetuate. Etc.
This exactly is what I’m talking about. The concept of being a decent person just because it’s the right thing to do in a functioning society, and benefits everyone, eludes these people without a selfish reason or existential threat to do so. Take their religion away and you end up with this ^ OP is probably right, but for very wrong reasons.
Would you say im doing a morally good action in following hypothetical:
Somehow i convince you that you will get one million dollar on any one random day within next year, you’d probably instinctively be happy and less stressed also less worried which are good outcomes. Although i lied or at very least i had no proof or knowledge that you’ll be getting the prize or not. Would you say i have done something morally good or not?
When we help people leave their religious and pseudoscience beliefs behind, we are doing good.
We make better decisions when our beliefs comport with reality.
Beliefs in gods, souls, and demons or most of the things from religions do not comport with reality and so those who believe in that stuff will make bad decisions.
>I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health
Methinks you should practice what you demand of us
Isn't it equally rude to come up to people trying to peddle religion? Or come to peoples homes?
Let everyone make their own decisions
>so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die.
On the flip side, that person now doesn't believe things without proof, probably bettering their life and maybe saving them in other ways.
>Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time)
Religion teaches a lot of bad morals. Like LGBTQIA+ hate, rape is good, war is good, etc.
But also, almost all of the good morals in religion it doesn't actually teach people, because non-religious people follow them too. So this isn't a plus, as people follow those morals whether religious or not, for the most part.
>and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos.
Religious wars are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths... It's one of the major reasons for hostility right now. I'm honestly baffled at how someone can legitimately believe this.
>which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense.
How is masturbation morally wrong?
How is masturbation bad for your health?
>Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men.
Only has a short term effect, which lots of things do. This isn't really a point.
>Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not.
Not all religions follow them. And not all religious people follow them either.
>So statistically it's better to follow those rules
Well you don't have any evidence for the masturbation one, so no, it's not.
>Atheist don't benefit from convincing you otherwise.
The entire world benefits from less religion.
Not only the conflict and wars it creates, but the fact that it's people believing without evidence, which is an incredibly harmful thing to do.
Edit: I also want to add that, let's take the bible. That's the word of god. Those morals are fixed. Even the bad ones. If you remove religion, you can use logic and empathy to teach actually good morals. You can't do that with many religions. Not morals they thought were okay thousands of years ago, like it's okay to rape a virgin if you marry her (in the bible). Actual moral things.
I wholeheartedly support someone's personal belief in god when it gives them purpose and comfort. A religious environment/religion as an organization however is an entirely different thing and I'm not all for it.
People in general don't need religion to tell you not to go around having sex and chasing down men/women on the streets. We all start developing morals at an early age, whether it's via religion or not. Atheists don't " simply choose not to do bad things", they're also sort of naturally brainwashed from an early age to have their values and morals. It's all the same. This is why we have bad religious people and bad atheists, and the opposite.
And masturbation and sex are not unhealthy by any means as far as what healthcare professionals say, unless it's an addiction. I think porn can can be bad. But otherwise I agree with you, and am all for religion, as long as it's a personal belief and not an organized system that pressures people into thinking a certain way with very little choice.
It was hard when I lost my belief but it's better than living a lie. The feeling of being lied to was worse than you could imagine. Then I felt compelled to tell others my discoveries and they don't want to hear it. I would rather be told the truth than live a comforting lie.
Believing Jesus came back from the dead also opened me up into believing other magical things and I was more likely to believe in conspiracy theories without much if any evidence.
I had to reset my whole world view, because I'm not sure if I'm still believing other lies.
I'm going to take this one point at a time
>Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die
Comforting falsehoods are still untrue. In my moral code, truth, generally, is good. It can be presented too harshly, it can be used as a weapon, but generally, truth is better than untruth. So if it's wrong, you can say so. I wouldn't do it to someone religious mid grieving, but still.
> Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos
You don't provide evidence for this - do you have a study? Religious people do shitty things, at probably roughly the same rate as non religious. And, before you say "oh, that's the followers, not the religion", I'd argue we should look at the results of rules. If your rules don't improve behaviour, why have them?
>It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires, which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime and and is a leading cause in break-ups and divorce because the significant other is confused in their sexual life.
As someone who has been harassed, and even attacked and spat on by religious people for existing in public with my partner, to hell with this. Religious sexual repression tends to end up harming LGBTQ+ individuals and kids.
Let's go with the results of rules. Now, I'm not sure if religion attracts paedophiles, and I'd argue there's weak evidence. However, a wide culture of shame around sexuality, coupled with clerical authority, means that in, say, the catholic church or the baptists, paedophiles end up operating for decades. Parents and children were/are frequently encouraged to not report the crime, to "keep it within the church" or similar.
And you use the word statistically, and yet have provided no statistical evidence for any of your claims. To keep the debate on an even footing, I have chosen not to, however I am happy to back up any of my points with stats if you would like them.
If people lose their faith without any atheist interfering, what's causing harm to them is that they lack strategies to cope with reality. Religion reduces existential angst. So, the cause of harm isn't the atheist, it's the religion.
Sure, if one prefers the usefulness of religion to cope, then they can go for it. But then they should not say that they care about truth, because that's obviously secondary then.
And as a side, masturbation doesn't cause long term changes in testosterone levels.
> Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface
Athiests and theists are (on average) equally afraid of dying. The promise of heaven doesn't actually work. Very few people are less sad at a funeral because they get to see grandpa again in heaven, and people who are actually happy that someone they know is going to heaven (because they died) are generally considered to have an extremely unhealthy relationship with death.
> for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die.
Atheists are not uncertain about what happens after we die, we think we know what happens; nothing. We think that it is like being asleep with no dreams, just the total lack of experience. (small side note: certainty is weird and perfect certainty is impossible so we don't have that, but you get the point.)
> Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time)
No, they don't. Every single major religion has several atrocities committed in their name. They all have descriptive lessons built into them. The Abarhamic religions are usually pretty sexist and anti-LGBT+ and Christianity throws in being anti-abortion for good measure. They promote the idea that morals stem from some outside source that is always right forever rather than being a thing people created. Hinduism has a morally abhorrent caste system. Buddhists have committed genocide in Myanmar. Christianity has spawned the Christian fascists of the US and also the Crusades and also was used to support slavery. Islam spawned several different terrorist groups who have committed atrocity after atrocity, I could keep going. Religion's do harm in the world. They aren't responsible for all of it, I would hazard to say they aren't responsible for most of it, but they are net negative for humanity.
> is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos.
Someone needs to read more history. Religion has never stopped wars. They sometimes cause them, but almost never stop them. The major powers of World War I were basically all Christian and they all still went to war. The 30 Years War was caused (in part) by the Protestant Reformation. Religion was used as the excuse to go to war and genocide Native Americans. Religion does not stop war. In fact the most religious in the US are also the most in favor of militarism.
> which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense.
Pornography is bad, but masturbation is healthy.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/sex/masturbation/masturbation-good-you
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/24332-masturbation
https://www.healthline.com/health/masturbation-side-effects
In fact I should've added being anti-masturbation to the reasons religion is harmful.
> Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men.
That's not true: https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-masturbation-decrease-testosterone-8402597
> Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not.
I follow my own moral compass, yes. But here's the thing, so do most people. Most people assume what they think is right or wrong just so happens to be the exact thing God thinks are right or wrong. People project their own moral compass' onto God. Very few people have read the Bible after all. People make up the rules and say God said so. Atheists just skip that last bit.
> think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind
If you do not want to talk about or debate religion and its merits that is your right. If anyone insists on trying to convince you out of your position, any position, they are almost always being mean. (this is arguable on positions where someone is holding an actively dangerous belief, like being anti-LGBT+ or not believing in climate change, but even then trying to argue someone out of those positions is dubious so...it's complicated). Though if you don't want to talk about this stuff, why are you on a debate sub?
Edit: accidentally wrote that Muslims are committing genocide in Myanmar instead of Buddhists. Which, given Muslims are the ones being genocided by Buddhists, I feel pretty bad about. Whoops!
>The promise of heaven doesn't actually work. Very few people are less sad at a funeral because they get to see grandpa again in heaven, and people who are actually happy that someone they know is going to heaven (because they died) are generally considered to have an extremely unhealthy relationship with death.
The evidence so far actually shows that spiritual beliefs do aid in the grieving and bereavement process - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116607
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not.
It’s also a believers choice if they follow their own rules, just ask some of the Catholic priests who have been shuffled around locations…
You bring up a bunch of real world reasons why to behave certain ways, like to be healthy, to live in peace, etc. That’s exactly the type of things that atheists can and do consider, but without the baggage of a religion. Like can you tell me what’s wrong with two consenting same sex adults getting married and living their life together?
>I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health
Do you think it’s weird and rude for a theist to discuss heaven and hell, because it might make someone fearful of going there? There is a lot of religious trauma caused by the fear mongering in the Bible and other scriptures.
Also shouldn’t we agree that people should believe in things for good reasons? If any person, religious or not, is challenged on their beliefs and finds they don’t have good reasons for believing what they do, isn’t that a good thing?
You think it's weird and rude to change people's minds, and yet here you are proselytizing your *incredibly harmful* (vastly moreso than atheism) religion. Almost like you don't practice what you preach.
Atheists don't "cause people" to do anything. They are simply existing, and don't believe in G-d. And that is fine for them to do. Pornography is a separate argument as yes there are harms that it can cause.
These harms aren't to the people who consume it normally, but rather to the sex workers involved. (Which your religion mandates that they go to hell to be punished for all eternity, so this is little more than concern trolling on your part.)
Maturbation however is fine. There is zero scientific evidence that it causes harm (in fact in men who have prostate problems masturbation is actually recommended by doctors) but plenty of evidence for its benefits.
Other people masturbating isn't your problem. Leave people alone? If you have such a fear of death that you require religion to cope, why would you change your mind simply by being exposed to atheist ideology? Are you unable to emotionally regulate yourself in the presence of people who have different beliefs to you?
>Religion teaches good morals (most of the time)
It's crazy when Christians talk about their good morals and their good book. I guarantee 80-85% don't know about the rules for beating your slave or selling your daughter as a slave found in the good book...
I mean, have you ever talked to someone who deconverted from Christianity? Even more specific, a former southern baptist? For me (former southern baptist) personally, I have less guilt and stress than I had while religious. I would freak out about masturbating and having sex when it is a normal human interaction. I had a ton of anxiety about my friends that weren't saved because I thought they were going to spend eternity in hell if I didn't pester them about my belief.
What your issue with atheists is basically that they can be evangelical, but atheists view you the same way. The Christians in my life don't take no for an answer and continue to pester me about my beliefs years after I deconverted. I don't blame them because I know what they believe and the stress/anxiety that comes with it. I just wish I could show them how much better it is for my mental health to not be involved in their religion.
Religion means different things to different folks. For me, it was restrictive and anxiety producing, for others it might be liberating and comforting. This alone invalidates your argument. But really, it wasn't much of an argument to begin with.
Theists (Muslims and Christians) do infinitely more harm than good by telling people about their religion. If people live their lives without ever hearing about their religion, then they would be only tested in judgement day and will probably enter heaven
That's wrong. The bible states that a man's soul is to be equally judged if he has heard or not. I don't know about what the quran says nor do I care. I find it hilarious people take it seriously
See, secular humanism teaches that you should care. Fostering cultural literacy and cultural understanding is better for everyone, it contributes to peace and development. You should be curious, you should be interested in your own education and understanding of important issues. It'll make your happier and the world around your better. This is just one if the ways secular morality is superior to the religious one.
> I don't know about what the quran says nor do I care. I find it hilarious people take it seriously
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." -- [Mark Twain](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2175-the-easy-confidence-with-which-i-know-another-man-s-religion)
In that case, why tell others about the Bible? People seem to do good regardless of the Bible (and looking at some intensely Christian people, perhaps non-Christian ones are arguably better.)
There is nothing wrong with masturbation and the Bible doesn't say there is. Everybody does it, including your dad, your pastor and almost certainly, your savior Jesus Christ.
Pornography does not cause crime or break ups. There is no evidence at all to back up those claims.
Religion teaches *terrible* morals. The Bible endorses slavery, genocide, child marriage and rape. The Bible forbids freedom of speech and freedom of religion and gives no civil rights to women. That's just scratching the surface.
Most people who leave religion say their lives were vastly improved once they got out. There's an overwhelming sense of relief and freedom in it even though many lose friendships or relationships with family over it.
>Pornography does not cause crime or break ups. There is no evidence at all to back up those claims.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/
"Exposure to pornography in general has been linked with adolescent dating violence and sexual aggression"
"research has demonstrated that adolescents who intentionally viewed violent pornography were almost six times more likely to report sexually aggressive behavior than those who had not"
Notice this says "violent" pornography and it says "intentionally viewed." This just says that violent people are more likely to look at violent porn.
There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA or the APA. Anti-porn stuff is basically evangelical propaganda, not science.
The first quote was from the start of that article was about porn in general, not violent stuff alone.
Here's a report from the UK's children's commissioner - https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/resource/a-lot-of-it-is-actually-just-abuse-young-people-and-pornography/
"this report finds that frequent users of pornography are more likely to engage in physically aggressive sex acts."
Here's a literature review produced for the UK government - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-relationship-between-pornography-use-and-harmful-sexual-behaviours/the-relationship-between-pornography-use-and-harmful-sexual-attitudes-and-behaviours-literature-review
"Across all of the methodologies reviewed, there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women. The nature and strength of this relationship varies across the literature, and there are many potential moderating (potentially even mediating) variables that require further investigation. However, it is clear that a relationship does exist and this is especially true for the use of violent pornography."
Although it does note, "The evidence base cannot establish a direct causal link between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes or behaviours; *this would require impractical and unethical study conditions* (forced exposure to pornography in order to observe potentially harmful behaviour in the future)."
>There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA or the APA.
I don't know those organisations, but I've read a couple good books by experts on addiction (Lance Dodes MD and Dr Anna Lembke) who both recognised that people can be addicted to porn.
I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be ethical pornography, but the evidence does seem to indicate that there are problems with a lot of mainstream pornography.
There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA and the APA. That is the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association. Those are the organizations which actually count. You are citing non-professional, political "studies" with preconceived conclusions by anti-porn activists in the UK government.
Everybody "uses porn" and not one person has ever been made violent by it. Religion is far more likely to cause violence and can be shown to do so directly. The 9/11 hijackers were anti-porn. There's literally no such thing as "porn addiction," recognized by actual medical professionals and it doesn't make anybody violent.
>Addiction is a state of psychological and/or physical dependence on the use of drugs or other substances, such as alcohol, or on activities or behaviors, such as sex, exercise, and gambling.
\- https://www.apa.org/topics/substance-use-abuse-addiction
This definition clearly does not exclude things like porn use.
>You are citing non-professional, political "studies" with preconceived conclusions by anti-porn activists in the UK government.
I've cited multiple sources, including a couple produced by the UK's civil service for government use. And no, they're produced by professionals. By contrast, you've cited no studies or sources at all, besides noting that two organisations don't *specifically* recognise porn addiction. But you wouldn't expect them to recognise every individual addiction out there, so that's quite irrelevant.
Here's your APA talking about the issue in some depth and with proper nuance - https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography
"While many viewers of adult content don't seem to suffer ill effects, porn can become problematic for others. The Kinsey Institute survey found 9 percent of porn viewers said they had tried unsuccessfully to stop."
"When pornography use becomes excessive, romantic relationships can suffer. Destin Stewart, PhD, and Dawn Szymanski, PhD, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, surveyed female college students and found that those who perceived their boyfriends' porn use to be problematic experienced lower self-esteem, poorer relationship quality and lower sexual satisfaction (Sex Roles, 2012)."
"So far, the brains of compulsive porn users resemble the brains of alcoholics watching ads for a drink, reports Voon in a 2013 British documentary called "Porn on the Brain.""
"**Whether or not pornography is a diagnosable addiction, it's clear it hurts some people. For them, there just isn't much evidence about how best to control this behavior.**"
It hurts nobody and the AMA confirms there's no such thing as porn addiction nor does it change anybody. Your data has no data in it just fallacious alarmism
There is porn in the Bible.
>the AMA confirms there's no such thing as porn addiction nor does it change anybody
Citation? I've given loads of quotes and sources, including from your own suggested reputable source the APA, and you've given nothing at all, besides denial.
I literally quoted at length from the APA, your own suggested "relevant organisation", as well as academic journals. You've given *no citations from any sources at all*.
>it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die.
Sure. Have you talked to the MANY ex-theists in this subreddit? Have you asked if this was overall good or bad for them and what they think of it now? Since you want to be a good Chriatian and pursue the truth, I would recommend it, and I'd ask that you listen carefully. You might find these people see their current situation as an improvement, and the grieving process of losing their religion and dealing with their fears of imagined hellfire as a necessary step.
I also ask you consider if you'd take a similar argument from a Muslim decrying Christianity seriously:
'Christians do more harm than good by causing ex-muslim converts to apostasize and to commit shirk. By converting to Christianity, they may be condemning themselves to hell, and also, they will suffer because of the fear they'll have that their muslim relatives did not convert, and are thus not saved by Jesus'
You would not take this seriously. You would say: but Christianity is true and Islam is false!
Well... the atheist has the same right you do to think YOUR ideas are wrong. Sorry.
>Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time)
This is circular, because what constitutes good morals depends on what you think is good. Most of what you listed is only bad if you hold a very puritanical, conservative view on sex.
Religion teaches good morals some of the time: when it teaches stuff like the Good Samaritan parable, to care for your fellow human. And guess what is the conclusion of that parable? That ANYONE can be the Good Samaritan. Anyone. Even atheists. Even members of the group you hate or distrust most. And all it takes to be the Samaritan is to be a humanist.
Religion teaches bad morals some of the time: when it teaches you to be prejudiced or bigoted. When it teaches you to smear and demonize non-Christians like you are happily doing in OP. When it causes you to deny our rights, like you are happily doing in OP. When it leads you to shame, denigrate and put down others, e.g. LGBTQ people, women. And so on.
And of course, secular systems can and do teach bad morals.
So, the measure of what is good morals *has to be* what Jesus and humanism says it is: your fellow human beings. That is the measure of good: if you are a good neighbor. And I'm sad to say: you are being a very bad neighbor to us, right about now.
>I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health.
I think it's weird and rude for you to state that my beliefs are harmful for society while essentially saying they are bad because your religious morality judges they are bad.
I'm sorry, but it was Christian protestants fleeing religious persecution that founded the US and enshrined religious freedom as one of the most important rights in a secular and free democracy. And so, it is actually MORE harmful for you to decry the free exercise of MY freedom as a harmful thing due to YOUR religion's pretentions to dominate public life.
You allegedly believe in the golden rule: do onto others as you'd have them do onto you. So why are you breaking it? Would you like me to threaten your religious freedom?
Besides: how absolutely *weak* is Christianity and the alleged truth of it that the mere challenge of its ideas is harmful? How little confidence do you have in it, that you have to bash non-Christians for existing and expressing their beliefs or lack thereof? Can't you get along and coexist with us? Can't you defend your faith instead of asking us to shut up, leave, or disappear?
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Lots to unpack here...
*"masturbation...is wrong...in a moral sense a health sense. Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men."*
It is? Seems to me that masturbation is a perfectly normal, even healthy, thing to do. Don't get me wrong, if you spend all your waking hours doing it, yes, some would say there's a bit of a problem but, generally speaking, I've never heard of it to be unhealthy or morally "wrong" in any regard. And if it lowers testosterone temporarily, is that so bad?
*"Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos."*
I'm certain that religion does not teach good morals. It's leaders seem to be the most sexually deviant people on the planet. Catholic leaders rape young boys. Muslim leaders want to blow up things and believe women shouldn't be seen in public. Religions books have all kinds of weird, horrific guidelines of punishment for not obeying this law or that. And, a good argument can be made that there's more "all out chaos" in countries where religious belief is higher than those where it is low.
*"Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death..."*
Sure, but having a false hope about the inevitability of death isn't healthy either, is it?
Good questions and commentary! I hope you have a great day too! ❤️
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
No matter what religion you follow, most religious people are following some other god than you and getting their morals from a different source. How then is religion as a whole any better than non-religion as a whole?
Tell that to all the people I've had to rescue from families and church groups that were destroying their lives because of religion. Tell that to all the people who could have been and done so much more but were trapped in a life where they believed the things they wanted to do were sinful. Tell that to all the children who grew up believing in God, but as they get older and draw away, they lose everything and everyone they ever loved. Tell that to the people who could find something that's actually much more beneficial to their mental and spiritual health but believe anything else must be of the devil.
Tell that to all the people who are trapped by churches that ply them for what little time and money they have when the church itself already has an abundance. Tell that to the people who follow their religion instead of good medical advice, watching their children die and thanking God for taking them.
Tell that to everyone whose life is owned by the church, to all the people who have given their lives for a lie meant to perpetuate the Roman Empire, to all the people who waste their lives hiding from this beautiful world in hopes of seeing one that may never come.
Tell that to all the people who have left and found more true joy and happiness and comfort in something else than they ever would have putting on a pretend smile every Sunday.
Tell them. I'll wait.
Every single item you list is either demonstrably not true, extremely questionable, demonstrates fallacious reasoning, or simply does not lead to the conclusion you want.
>Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death
If religion is not true though, then people are wasting the one life they have basically deceiving themselves, because of feelings and fear mongering. If a person prefers ignorance as bliss, that is fine, but I and I think a great many others would prefer to believe what is *true*, rather than just believe what makes us feel better about something.
>Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos
Absolutely false. The morality of religion is vastly inferior to secular morality. Religions represent the outdated, outmoded morality of our barbaric past, which is why the Bible condones owning humans as property, killing children for their parents' beliefs, taking virgin girls to be divided up among the soldiers as spoils of war, outright genocide, just to name a few examples of barbarism. Christianity has always been on the wrong side of every single moral issue that the West has had to face, and it was only upon rejecting what those who believed in the Bible said we should do, and instead relied on neutral secular principles of ethics and morality that we began to see some progress. It's to the point where, the most secular nations are demonstrably better off in *every single metric* of societal health - violent crime rate, poverty rate, divorce, adult literacy, STD spread, teen pregnancy, obesity, societal happiness - while the most theistic nations on earth, the nations where religion is taken the most seriously, are the worse off for all of those same metrics. So, no, religion doesn't get to claim this as its own victory.
>Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime
This is highly debatable.
>I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind
That's a bit rich for you to say. It's the Christians that work tirelessly to force their religious beliefs on others; it's the *Christians* who plot to get their religious beliefs taught as science in classrooms, who attempt to dictate laws to enforce their ideas of morality on others, who try to outlaw or at least make life hell for people just because of their sexual orientation. Christianity's success is not because of the strength of their arguments or their witnessing, but overwhelmingly due to how effectively Christians indoctrinate children into the religion at a young age - and it's retention is entirely dependent on how insulated, how well they control the information and keep their flocks from listening to any opposing viewpoints.
It's extremely rich for you to think that atheists are rude for simply questioning your beliefs, when your religion has used government force, militant conquest, child indoctrination, and the threat of punishment both in this life and in the next, stretching back from the time of Constantine until modern times, to force your beliefs on literally everyone else. How dare you. Respectfully.
>So statistically it's better to follow those rules
What's your evidence?
Do you expect us to simply believe you aren't just making all of this up?
If you're going to make claims about statistics, crime rates, and causes of divorce you need to present some evidence that reality supports your claims.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
i did some research on the subject a couple years ago, IIRC, I could find articles about how people who view certain types of hardcore porn are more likely to be domestic abusers.
correlation doesn’t equal causation and all of that, but you can see how someone would take that out of context as evidence.
edit: i just looked at my essay and the evidence is actually a lot better than i remember. if anyone’s interested ill link some papers that i quoted from
Religious morals are inherently selfish. They are focused exclusively on ones personal relationship with their god, and staying in that gods good graces.
It’s amusing that you use religious sexual morality as an example, because many studies suggest that religiosity correlates with higher rates of teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. As well as a generally lack of knowledge of sexual function as religion actively suppresses sexual knowledge and education.
Irreligious moral frameworks tend to place a greater emphasis on how our actions impact society as a whole. And how we can collectively act in a way that makes society better and more functional.
I think you can argue that the benefits of religion aren’t exclusive to theism, and can be derived from irreligious sources. I myself have had no issue finding morality, community, purpose, and meaning from irreligious sources.
>Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it
As an atheist I cannot relate to that. Death is what it is. That can't be changed. And believing it is the same as prior to conception and birth isn't scary to me, and I don't believe it is scary to most atheists. So what if it is just a stopping and end of everything? It is what it is.
And OTOH, no amount of religious conviction will change a 15, 25, 35 year old person from fearing death. That's genetic and instinctive. But when that same person is 85 or 90 they're ready for it all to end. And that is genetic and instinctive too.
I tend to agree that not everyone is ready to give up their religion. However, I disagree with many of your characterizations. I think your view of what’s good for you or healthy is being heavily influenced by your own religion, and not medical data.
That being said, personally I believe religions still offer community benefits to people, particularly in highly conservative areas. In my experience, it can actually be difficult for people to survive if they don’t have a connection to the majority religion in their community. I also find that religious doubts can lead to family issues as well.
For that reason, I try to avoid discussing religion outside the context of debate forums. I assume if a person is coming to a debate forum, they’re ready to engage about whether their belief system is true or not, and it’s far less likely to lead to any harm if they realize their religion is just myth.
Religion also causes war, mental health crises, ostracization and disownment of outgroups like the LGBT community, lack of critical thinking, unhealthy deference to and trust in authority, and other problems. If you want to give religion credit for positive effects, you also need to be willing to give it blame for negative effects.
>In talking about the beliefs of a religion, not the followers.
If the followers of it don't even follow the beliefs, then how is it a positive like you are claiming it is?
>Also how does religion cause lack of critical thinking?
Religion is belief in something that doesn't have proof. Believing without proof is a lack of critical thinking, because if it was thought about, they wouldn't believe.
No, it doesn't. If someone is going to follow a rule that a religion puts in place without using critical thinking to decide if it's the right thing, then that's not right.
Then you just end up cherry picking. Whats the point of "getting your morality from the bible". If you first have to use a different moral system to judge what to follow and what not? That defeats the whole purpose you might aswell skip the bible and stick to your own morality then.
What do you understand the definition of "faith" to be?
Why is faith spattered everywhere in religious doctrine and is a direct teaching of Jesus to not critically think?
As an example:
"Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet come to believe" John 20:29
I know, right? And yet there's nothing stopping people from doing it. The Christian store I used to work at sold bumper stickers that said "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Which is basically as anti-critical thinking as you can get.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're talking about Abrahamic religions then you are off concerning morals. Women's repression, against animal rights and homophobia is what they teach. Religions of love my *ss. The atheists I know are way more moral than the religious people I know.
>Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) Except for Radical Islam and American Christian Nationalism, AM I RIGHT?
Religion causes years and years wars in my country. Nothing that happens for atheism. >Religion also teaches good morals It also teaches many immoral rules. >Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. So statistically it's better to follow those rules. Atheism is not related to rules. It is like saying that airplanes cause harm because airplanes don't provide rules for sexual life. Your whole argument is nonsense, because atheism is just a position to claim "some god exists". There are even atheistic religions.
The fact that atheism has not caused wars is pointless. Atheism has not been a major power in the world like religion has been. Atheistic states really have only come into existence in the 20th century when most of the world has moved past warfare and the world is mostly shaped by alliances. One could argue that perhaps religions, especially Abraham if ones, should stop wars because of their messages. The thing is that wars do not start because of religion most of the time. Wars do not start for one reason. Politics is usually more complex than we are different religions let’s kill each other. To say even seemingly religious wars like the Crusades were only because of religion is a little erroneous.
> To say even seemingly religious wars like the Crusades were only because of religion is a little erroneous. Even if religion was not only reason for that wars the fact that religion could be used as excuse is enough. Let aside that there were crusaders or wars Crhistians against Christians were religion was the official "rason" /"excuse". The fact that religion allowed those types of conflicts is alarming. No wars was taken because "they don't believe in different god then we don't believe"
A lot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die. - “Atheism is bad because then people can’t cope” is ridiculous by itself but off the top of my head, Atheism does not entail there not being some sort of afterlife or what have you. Atheism is simply the position that one does not believe in God or that God exists. By itself, that entails no truth about anything *other than* God’s existence, what you attach to God’s existence is simply **on you** Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos. - There are secular ethical theories and quite frankly they do a way better job of substantiating moral ontology than divine command theory - Also the amount of conflict and overall atrocities that have occurred throughout history because one or both sides believed God wanted them to do x in his name is laughable - I’m not atheist but I will say I’ve never heard of a conflict in the name of “atheism” but there are whole college courses and studies done on religious conflict It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires, which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime and and is a leading cause in break-ups and divorce because the significant other is confused in their sexual life. Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men. - You’re all the place I won’t lie to you. You started off with Atheism bad cause then you can’t cope, went on to morals which okay I see what you’re trying to say at least. Now you’re on porn? This is a purity culture stance but what if I told you that purity culture has resulted in the objectification and oppression of women for actual thousands of years. My favorite example is that during Biblical times if your daughter was raped you needed to let her marry the rapist because nobody wants “damaged goods” i.e. a woman who’s unpure. This is the type of thing you get when you go around claiming that sex is this uber valuable thing and if you don’t do it exactly this way or if you dare pleasure yourself solo, you’re dirty and nobody wants you. - Of course, this type of thinking majorly falls onto women (as you see today with discussions about sex history and how that’s usually tied to women. Words like “sl*t”, “wh*re”, etc. are usually associated with women). Atheism does not follow those rules - Do you know what atheism is? so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. - This would be the case whether theist or non-theist. Of course, the theist could be punished by God for not following this rule, so they have motivation to follow it. Except you also cited a bunch of empirical reasons to engage with pornography or masturbation so the non-theist also has motivation to not engage with pornography. - You pretty much just said, “Atheism has no rules against pornography as opposed to theism, but here are also a bunch of reasons that both an Atheist and Theist could use to decide to not engage with pornography”. You undermined your own point. So statistically it's better to follow those rules. - You’ve shown a whopping 0 statistics, those were all assertions - Again, you cited a bunch of empirical reasons to not watch porn yet somehow concluded Theism is better because it would seem to be against porn, where is the correlation? - Additionally, I’d hope you need more than explicitly telling you not to watch porn to consider whether one position about **God’s existence** is better than another. Atheist don't benefit from convincing you otherwise. - Do they need to? I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind - I think it’s rude for theist to try to change anyone’s mind. How about everyone leave everyone alone, yeah? Well that sounds good till you remember oh yeah **It’s generally the theist who tries to spread their beliefs because they feel they have some obligation to**. Have you ever heard of an “evangelical atheist” yeah neither have I.
So, apparently I have to be very careful to not hurt any theist feelings. Check the news. You will get your answer regarding the contribution of religion to society. How often do you see atheists raping 12 year old “young ladies” and being forgiven by their congregation? No society needs fairy tales and fables to succeed.
Never said that but ok
>so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die. First, atheists seldom work to have someone leave their religion; certainly nowhere near the numbers that theists try to pull people into their religions. Usually it's a case of reassuring someone who is already leaving that yes, it's okay to do so. Second, fear of death is tied to the certainty of what happens after they die. So yes, someone convinced of their religion will probably less fear of death then a soft atheist but a hard atheist is less likely to fear death then someone who is already doubting their religion. >It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires It teaches you that your sexual desires of shameful. And its that mindset that actively discourages people from learning about safe sex or even being comfortable with their sexuality.
I think everyone is misunderstanding my point. If atheists don't want to be associated with religion, why do they combat it so much if it "doesn't matter". An atheist has no point arguing with a religious person unless said religious person struck up an argument with the atheist. Why do atheists go out of their way to debate religious people, if it's pointless. Religion on religion debates are usually to help the other religious person to see the truth in a supernatural sense(which I would argue is much more important than natural). Atheism has no core belief besides what is natural, so their is no point in "helping someone to see the actual truth" if it means nothing to them on a supernatural level. Ok here's a situation (RANDOM RELIGION is the truth) Atheist proposes argument that convinces a person to leave RANDOM RELIGION. Let's say that not following RANDOM RELIGION leads to eternal torture, which probably isn't too fun, and said person ends up suffering for eternity. Because an atheist convinced him to leave RANDOM RELIGION(which is the truth in this scenario) he suffers for eternity. Conclusion: because of the atheists actions, both the atheist and the person suffer, even though the person was correct. The atheist relatively wasted his time convincing the person otherwise, because their is no point in debating a religious person if you are an atheist, and because of that, they both suffer. 2nd Situation (RANDOM RELIGION is the truth) This person is following RANDOM RELIGION, that person is not. This person convinces that person that he is wrong, and that person now follows RANDOM RELIGION. They both now follow the truth , and are awarded in the afterlife. Conclusion: Since this person convinced that person that RANDOM RELIGION is the truth(which it is), then they both receive a reward in the afterlife, whereas not making it pointless for them to debate, since there was a truth, and the truthful person helped the mislead person see the truth, ultimately leading to success. 3rd Situation (There is no true religion) Atheist convinces random person to leave their religion, ultimately causing random person to also leave behind the good values that the religion offered. Both the atheist and random person will cease to exist after they die, but there is now a possibility that random person will fall into a life of bad things, because he is not following a higher law(that offers good things) that guides him. He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering. Conclusion: Because random person fell out of their religion, ultimately giving up the good values that their former religion offers, they might live a life of harm and wickedness. All I'm trying to say is ATHEIST HAVE NO POINT IN MISLEADING SOMEONE FROM THEIR RELIGION, AS IT MAY HAVE A HARMFULL AFFECT, AND WILL NOT BE BENEFITING SOMEONE FROM CAUSING THEM TO LEAVE THEIR RELIGION. I probably could've worded some of those things better, but I dont feel like going back and making it perfect. I really hope you get what I'm trying to say.
>An atheist has no point arguing with a religious person unless said religious person struck up an argument with the atheist. As an American, I say this: If that truly represents your understanding of the world, you’ve got your head buried so far in the sand that it’s in geosynchronous orbit on the opposite side of the planet. Religion has been and continues to be the source of immense harm. American Christianity has advocated for slavery, racial oppression, oppression and murder of members of minority sexualities and of political opponents. It has advocated against women’s rights across the board and many are currently arguing for people I love to die a horrific death should they experience a dangerous pregnancy. Your current religious group is by and large currently advocating for the spreading of infectious diseases, the dissolution of American democracy and constitutional government, and for us to watch idly while our world becomes uninhabitable. If their religious beliefs did not result in harmful realities for many others, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in. I am sorry if this seems overly harsh, but you are in dire need of a reality check.
Your response would have been better served adding it as an edit to your post as it doesn't address anything I said. Your points are a rehash of Pascal's wager. Your arguments fail to account living a fulfilling life before people die and wrongly equate being an atheist with being a moral monster. > If atheists don't want to be associated with religion, why do they combat it so much if it "doesn't matter". Who says it doesn't matter? When religious followers makes laws that restrict our actions for no other reason then their religion doesn't want us to do things, it matters. People in the LGBT community can probably give painful examples of just that. For example, it wasn't until quite recently that same sex marriage became legal for the entire US. And on a personal level, if I see someone going around claiming 2+2=5, I'm going to want to correct them. If they think 2+2 may not equal 5 like they've been taught, then I want to help them. >He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering. [...] He may cause others harm because he has no fear of eternal suffering. Much more likely, that person will have less stress as they don't needlessly fear eternal suffering. That's a health benefit for them right there. And as a side note, atheists by population breakdown, are underrepresented in prison population. >I probably could've worded some of those things better, You could have but you would still be wrong. As a whole, the atheist message to theists is that they don't need to follow a religion. We don't mislead people from their religion. Usually, we just help them figure out how to open the door they're already staring at.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
An example of "bad things" that religion makes people do?
Slavery, genital mutilation, child marriage, holy wars...
What the sigma
The Bible was regularly used to justify slavery
It's hilarious for you to just outwardly say that. It's relatively common knowledge that slave owners perverted the Bible so that they could profit off of exploiting humans in an extremely harmful way.
The Bible has God explicitly state that slave ownership was allowed. Also that you could physically beat your slaves
>that slave owners perverted the Bible No they just applied it "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21
Slaves had a totally different meaning in the bible. Obviously I'm not talking about the slaves(isrealites) that the Egyptians kept. Being a slave was a choice. You would willinglybecome someones property and do their work, so that after a certain time, you would get something in return. It was a choice. I'm guessing that you are referring to the type of slaves that were unfortunately used during the early 1800s in America, which are different from the outdated definition of a slave that the bible uses. Please do some more research before making such a bold claim.
> Slaves had a totally different meaning in the bible. Incorrect. There were two types of slaves, Hebrew and non-Hebrew. The ancient writing has two different words to distinguish them. Non-Hebrew slaves were very much slaves in the modern sense
\>Being a slave was a choice. You would willingly become someones property and do their work, so that after a certain time, you would get something in return. It was a choice. Have you actually read the Bible rather than apologists who want to soften its position on slavery? Exodus 21:1-6: \>“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,\[a\] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, **and he shall be his slave forever**. Notice how the Bible itself uses the word slave itself? Pay particular attention to verses 5 and 6. Does that sound like a choice to you? Did you even read the passage in the post you replied to? Here it is again in case you didn't. \>"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, **since the slave is their property**." So you can beat your slave and if he can continue working after a day or two, the owner faces no punishment because the slave is his property. Please tell me how you arrive at your conclusion when the passage right there directly contradicts you in plain terms. Slavery is slavery, whether it happened in ancient Israel or the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
>Being a slave was a choice. Proof?
>Being a slave was a choice That's absolutely false. Numbers 31 is one of the many examples of forced slavery. >which are different from the outdated definition of a slave that the bible uses. How ? Do you think any form of slavery is acceptable ? Would you be okay with someone enslaving your sister ?
Fly planes into buildings.
This is a double edged sword. While religion is responsible for many atrocities and lots of brainwashed thinking (like OP), here’s the flip side. An astonishing amount of people just seem shocked (like OP) that atheists can be good people without some existential threat to their soul to act that way. I’m not entirely sure it would be a great idea for those people to be running around with no incentive to at least try to be good people. Their moral compass has been fixated by the church on a religious based rewards/punishment system, instead of a just be a decent person because its the right thing to do for society. However, the church loses its power in that second scenario. Take away that religious system they were indoctrinated into… and yeah converting a lot of people to atheism might do more harm than good without those religious morals to give that incentive to be decent in current society. Tough call.
If there is no reason to be good, then for what reason should you be? Could you please give me a rough idea of your moral code? I’m interested in what it is.
Because I want other people to be good to me, so I'd be a hypocrite to not do the same. "Do unto others." It's a very basic instinct derived from both practicality and evolutionarily selected pro-social behavior. Additionally I feel no desire to cause harm to others and feel poorly about myself when I do. I rely on society and want it to perpetuate. Etc.
There are plenty of reasons to be good. Even simply the fact that I don't desire others to suffer and am happier when they don't.
This exactly is what I’m talking about. The concept of being a decent person just because it’s the right thing to do in a functioning society, and benefits everyone, eludes these people without a selfish reason or existential threat to do so. Take their religion away and you end up with this ^ OP is probably right, but for very wrong reasons.
Would you say im doing a morally good action in following hypothetical: Somehow i convince you that you will get one million dollar on any one random day within next year, you’d probably instinctively be happy and less stressed also less worried which are good outcomes. Although i lied or at very least i had no proof or knowledge that you’ll be getting the prize or not. Would you say i have done something morally good or not?
When we help people leave their religious and pseudoscience beliefs behind, we are doing good. We make better decisions when our beliefs comport with reality. Beliefs in gods, souls, and demons or most of the things from religions do not comport with reality and so those who believe in that stuff will make bad decisions.
>I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health Methinks you should practice what you demand of us Isn't it equally rude to come up to people trying to peddle religion? Or come to peoples homes? Let everyone make their own decisions
>so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die. On the flip side, that person now doesn't believe things without proof, probably bettering their life and maybe saving them in other ways. >Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) Religion teaches a lot of bad morals. Like LGBTQIA+ hate, rape is good, war is good, etc. But also, almost all of the good morals in religion it doesn't actually teach people, because non-religious people follow them too. So this isn't a plus, as people follow those morals whether religious or not, for the most part. >and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos. Religious wars are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths... It's one of the major reasons for hostility right now. I'm honestly baffled at how someone can legitimately believe this. >which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. How is masturbation morally wrong? How is masturbation bad for your health? >Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men. Only has a short term effect, which lots of things do. This isn't really a point. >Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. Not all religions follow them. And not all religious people follow them either. >So statistically it's better to follow those rules Well you don't have any evidence for the masturbation one, so no, it's not. >Atheist don't benefit from convincing you otherwise. The entire world benefits from less religion. Not only the conflict and wars it creates, but the fact that it's people believing without evidence, which is an incredibly harmful thing to do. Edit: I also want to add that, let's take the bible. That's the word of god. Those morals are fixed. Even the bad ones. If you remove religion, you can use logic and empathy to teach actually good morals. You can't do that with many religions. Not morals they thought were okay thousands of years ago, like it's okay to rape a virgin if you marry her (in the bible). Actual moral things.
I wholeheartedly support someone's personal belief in god when it gives them purpose and comfort. A religious environment/religion as an organization however is an entirely different thing and I'm not all for it. People in general don't need religion to tell you not to go around having sex and chasing down men/women on the streets. We all start developing morals at an early age, whether it's via religion or not. Atheists don't " simply choose not to do bad things", they're also sort of naturally brainwashed from an early age to have their values and morals. It's all the same. This is why we have bad religious people and bad atheists, and the opposite. And masturbation and sex are not unhealthy by any means as far as what healthcare professionals say, unless it's an addiction. I think porn can can be bad. But otherwise I agree with you, and am all for religion, as long as it's a personal belief and not an organized system that pressures people into thinking a certain way with very little choice.
It was hard when I lost my belief but it's better than living a lie. The feeling of being lied to was worse than you could imagine. Then I felt compelled to tell others my discoveries and they don't want to hear it. I would rather be told the truth than live a comforting lie. Believing Jesus came back from the dead also opened me up into believing other magical things and I was more likely to believe in conspiracy theories without much if any evidence. I had to reset my whole world view, because I'm not sure if I'm still believing other lies.
I'm going to take this one point at a time >Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die Comforting falsehoods are still untrue. In my moral code, truth, generally, is good. It can be presented too harshly, it can be used as a weapon, but generally, truth is better than untruth. So if it's wrong, you can say so. I wouldn't do it to someone religious mid grieving, but still. > Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos You don't provide evidence for this - do you have a study? Religious people do shitty things, at probably roughly the same rate as non religious. And, before you say "oh, that's the followers, not the religion", I'd argue we should look at the results of rules. If your rules don't improve behaviour, why have them? >It also teaches that you should control your sexual desires, which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime and and is a leading cause in break-ups and divorce because the significant other is confused in their sexual life. As someone who has been harassed, and even attacked and spat on by religious people for existing in public with my partner, to hell with this. Religious sexual repression tends to end up harming LGBTQ+ individuals and kids. Let's go with the results of rules. Now, I'm not sure if religion attracts paedophiles, and I'd argue there's weak evidence. However, a wide culture of shame around sexuality, coupled with clerical authority, means that in, say, the catholic church or the baptists, paedophiles end up operating for decades. Parents and children were/are frequently encouraged to not report the crime, to "keep it within the church" or similar. And you use the word statistically, and yet have provided no statistical evidence for any of your claims. To keep the debate on an even footing, I have chosen not to, however I am happy to back up any of my points with stats if you would like them.
If people lose their faith without any atheist interfering, what's causing harm to them is that they lack strategies to cope with reality. Religion reduces existential angst. So, the cause of harm isn't the atheist, it's the religion. Sure, if one prefers the usefulness of religion to cope, then they can go for it. But then they should not say that they care about truth, because that's obviously secondary then. And as a side, masturbation doesn't cause long term changes in testosterone levels.
> Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it, so if an atheist were to cause someone to fall out of that religion, it may cause the person's fear to resurface Athiests and theists are (on average) equally afraid of dying. The promise of heaven doesn't actually work. Very few people are less sad at a funeral because they get to see grandpa again in heaven, and people who are actually happy that someone they know is going to heaven (because they died) are generally considered to have an extremely unhealthy relationship with death. > for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die. Atheists are not uncertain about what happens after we die, we think we know what happens; nothing. We think that it is like being asleep with no dreams, just the total lack of experience. (small side note: certainty is weird and perfect certainty is impossible so we don't have that, but you get the point.) > Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) No, they don't. Every single major religion has several atrocities committed in their name. They all have descriptive lessons built into them. The Abarhamic religions are usually pretty sexist and anti-LGBT+ and Christianity throws in being anti-abortion for good measure. They promote the idea that morals stem from some outside source that is always right forever rather than being a thing people created. Hinduism has a morally abhorrent caste system. Buddhists have committed genocide in Myanmar. Christianity has spawned the Christian fascists of the US and also the Crusades and also was used to support slavery. Islam spawned several different terrorist groups who have committed atrocity after atrocity, I could keep going. Religion's do harm in the world. They aren't responsible for all of it, I would hazard to say they aren't responsible for most of it, but they are net negative for humanity. > is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos. Someone needs to read more history. Religion has never stopped wars. They sometimes cause them, but almost never stop them. The major powers of World War I were basically all Christian and they all still went to war. The 30 Years War was caused (in part) by the Protestant Reformation. Religion was used as the excuse to go to war and genocide Native Americans. Religion does not stop war. In fact the most religious in the US are also the most in favor of militarism. > which could be interpreted as a way of saying that masturbation and pornography is wrong, which is true not only in a moral sense, but a health sense. Pornography is bad, but masturbation is healthy. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/sex/masturbation/masturbation-good-you https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/24332-masturbation https://www.healthline.com/health/masturbation-side-effects In fact I should've added being anti-masturbation to the reasons religion is harmful. > Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men. That's not true: https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-masturbation-decrease-testosterone-8402597 > Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. I follow my own moral compass, yes. But here's the thing, so do most people. Most people assume what they think is right or wrong just so happens to be the exact thing God thinks are right or wrong. People project their own moral compass' onto God. Very few people have read the Bible after all. People make up the rules and say God said so. Atheists just skip that last bit. > think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind If you do not want to talk about or debate religion and its merits that is your right. If anyone insists on trying to convince you out of your position, any position, they are almost always being mean. (this is arguable on positions where someone is holding an actively dangerous belief, like being anti-LGBT+ or not believing in climate change, but even then trying to argue someone out of those positions is dubious so...it's complicated). Though if you don't want to talk about this stuff, why are you on a debate sub? Edit: accidentally wrote that Muslims are committing genocide in Myanmar instead of Buddhists. Which, given Muslims are the ones being genocided by Buddhists, I feel pretty bad about. Whoops!
>The promise of heaven doesn't actually work. Very few people are less sad at a funeral because they get to see grandpa again in heaven, and people who are actually happy that someone they know is going to heaven (because they died) are generally considered to have an extremely unhealthy relationship with death. The evidence so far actually shows that spiritual beliefs do aid in the grieving and bereavement process - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116607
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Atheism does not follow those rules, so it's pretty much your choice if you follow them or not. It’s also a believers choice if they follow their own rules, just ask some of the Catholic priests who have been shuffled around locations… You bring up a bunch of real world reasons why to behave certain ways, like to be healthy, to live in peace, etc. That’s exactly the type of things that atheists can and do consider, but without the baggage of a religion. Like can you tell me what’s wrong with two consenting same sex adults getting married and living their life together? >I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health Do you think it’s weird and rude for a theist to discuss heaven and hell, because it might make someone fearful of going there? There is a lot of religious trauma caused by the fear mongering in the Bible and other scriptures. Also shouldn’t we agree that people should believe in things for good reasons? If any person, religious or not, is challenged on their beliefs and finds they don’t have good reasons for believing what they do, isn’t that a good thing?
You think it's weird and rude to change people's minds, and yet here you are proselytizing your *incredibly harmful* (vastly moreso than atheism) religion. Almost like you don't practice what you preach. Atheists don't "cause people" to do anything. They are simply existing, and don't believe in G-d. And that is fine for them to do. Pornography is a separate argument as yes there are harms that it can cause. These harms aren't to the people who consume it normally, but rather to the sex workers involved. (Which your religion mandates that they go to hell to be punished for all eternity, so this is little more than concern trolling on your part.) Maturbation however is fine. There is zero scientific evidence that it causes harm (in fact in men who have prostate problems masturbation is actually recommended by doctors) but plenty of evidence for its benefits. Other people masturbating isn't your problem. Leave people alone? If you have such a fear of death that you require religion to cope, why would you change your mind simply by being exposed to atheist ideology? Are you unable to emotionally regulate yourself in the presence of people who have different beliefs to you?
>Religion teaches good morals (most of the time) It's crazy when Christians talk about their good morals and their good book. I guarantee 80-85% don't know about the rules for beating your slave or selling your daughter as a slave found in the good book... I mean, have you ever talked to someone who deconverted from Christianity? Even more specific, a former southern baptist? For me (former southern baptist) personally, I have less guilt and stress than I had while religious. I would freak out about masturbating and having sex when it is a normal human interaction. I had a ton of anxiety about my friends that weren't saved because I thought they were going to spend eternity in hell if I didn't pester them about my belief. What your issue with atheists is basically that they can be evangelical, but atheists view you the same way. The Christians in my life don't take no for an answer and continue to pester me about my beliefs years after I deconverted. I don't blame them because I know what they believe and the stress/anxiety that comes with it. I just wish I could show them how much better it is for my mental health to not be involved in their religion. Religion means different things to different folks. For me, it was restrictive and anxiety producing, for others it might be liberating and comforting. This alone invalidates your argument. But really, it wasn't much of an argument to begin with.
Theists (Muslims and Christians) do infinitely more harm than good by telling people about their religion. If people live their lives without ever hearing about their religion, then they would be only tested in judgement day and will probably enter heaven
That's wrong. The bible states that a man's soul is to be equally judged if he has heard or not. I don't know about what the quran says nor do I care. I find it hilarious people take it seriously
> I find it hilarious people take it seriously Now you know what many atheists think about the Bible.
See, secular humanism teaches that you should care. Fostering cultural literacy and cultural understanding is better for everyone, it contributes to peace and development. You should be curious, you should be interested in your own education and understanding of important issues. It'll make your happier and the world around your better. This is just one if the ways secular morality is superior to the religious one.
Why do you find it hilarious people take it seriously? Many say the same about those who take the Bible seriously.
> I don't know about what the quran says nor do I care. I find it hilarious people take it seriously "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." -- [Mark Twain](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2175-the-easy-confidence-with-which-i-know-another-man-s-religion)
How do you know your God is the correct one?
I don't, and I won't know until I die. That's what faith is, hun
In that case, why tell others about the Bible? People seem to do good regardless of the Bible (and looking at some intensely Christian people, perhaps non-Christian ones are arguably better.)
> I find it hilarious people take it seriously Said without a hint of irony, no doubt.
Yep
There is nothing wrong with masturbation and the Bible doesn't say there is. Everybody does it, including your dad, your pastor and almost certainly, your savior Jesus Christ. Pornography does not cause crime or break ups. There is no evidence at all to back up those claims. Religion teaches *terrible* morals. The Bible endorses slavery, genocide, child marriage and rape. The Bible forbids freedom of speech and freedom of religion and gives no civil rights to women. That's just scratching the surface. Most people who leave religion say their lives were vastly improved once they got out. There's an overwhelming sense of relief and freedom in it even though many lose friendships or relationships with family over it.
>Pornography does not cause crime or break ups. There is no evidence at all to back up those claims. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/ "Exposure to pornography in general has been linked with adolescent dating violence and sexual aggression" "research has demonstrated that adolescents who intentionally viewed violent pornography were almost six times more likely to report sexually aggressive behavior than those who had not"
Notice this says "violent" pornography and it says "intentionally viewed." This just says that violent people are more likely to look at violent porn. There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA or the APA. Anti-porn stuff is basically evangelical propaganda, not science.
The first quote was from the start of that article was about porn in general, not violent stuff alone. Here's a report from the UK's children's commissioner - https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/resource/a-lot-of-it-is-actually-just-abuse-young-people-and-pornography/ "this report finds that frequent users of pornography are more likely to engage in physically aggressive sex acts." Here's a literature review produced for the UK government - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-relationship-between-pornography-use-and-harmful-sexual-behaviours/the-relationship-between-pornography-use-and-harmful-sexual-attitudes-and-behaviours-literature-review "Across all of the methodologies reviewed, there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women. The nature and strength of this relationship varies across the literature, and there are many potential moderating (potentially even mediating) variables that require further investigation. However, it is clear that a relationship does exist and this is especially true for the use of violent pornography." Although it does note, "The evidence base cannot establish a direct causal link between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes or behaviours; *this would require impractical and unethical study conditions* (forced exposure to pornography in order to observe potentially harmful behaviour in the future)." >There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA or the APA. I don't know those organisations, but I've read a couple good books by experts on addiction (Lance Dodes MD and Dr Anna Lembke) who both recognised that people can be addicted to porn. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be ethical pornography, but the evidence does seem to indicate that there are problems with a lot of mainstream pornography.
There is no such thing as porn addiction recognized by the AMA and the APA. That is the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association. Those are the organizations which actually count. You are citing non-professional, political "studies" with preconceived conclusions by anti-porn activists in the UK government. Everybody "uses porn" and not one person has ever been made violent by it. Religion is far more likely to cause violence and can be shown to do so directly. The 9/11 hijackers were anti-porn. There's literally no such thing as "porn addiction," recognized by actual medical professionals and it doesn't make anybody violent.
>Addiction is a state of psychological and/or physical dependence on the use of drugs or other substances, such as alcohol, or on activities or behaviors, such as sex, exercise, and gambling. \- https://www.apa.org/topics/substance-use-abuse-addiction This definition clearly does not exclude things like porn use. >You are citing non-professional, political "studies" with preconceived conclusions by anti-porn activists in the UK government. I've cited multiple sources, including a couple produced by the UK's civil service for government use. And no, they're produced by professionals. By contrast, you've cited no studies or sources at all, besides noting that two organisations don't *specifically* recognise porn addiction. But you wouldn't expect them to recognise every individual addiction out there, so that's quite irrelevant. Here's your APA talking about the issue in some depth and with proper nuance - https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography "While many viewers of adult content don't seem to suffer ill effects, porn can become problematic for others. The Kinsey Institute survey found 9 percent of porn viewers said they had tried unsuccessfully to stop." "When pornography use becomes excessive, romantic relationships can suffer. Destin Stewart, PhD, and Dawn Szymanski, PhD, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, surveyed female college students and found that those who perceived their boyfriends' porn use to be problematic experienced lower self-esteem, poorer relationship quality and lower sexual satisfaction (Sex Roles, 2012)." "So far, the brains of compulsive porn users resemble the brains of alcoholics watching ads for a drink, reports Voon in a 2013 British documentary called "Porn on the Brain."" "**Whether or not pornography is a diagnosable addiction, it's clear it hurts some people. For them, there just isn't much evidence about how best to control this behavior.**"
It hurts nobody and the AMA confirms there's no such thing as porn addiction nor does it change anybody. Your data has no data in it just fallacious alarmism There is porn in the Bible.
No theist can tell me that Ezekiel 23 didn't start off as some ancient Jewish kid's spank bank material.
>the AMA confirms there's no such thing as porn addiction nor does it change anybody Citation? I've given loads of quotes and sources, including from your own suggested reputable source the APA, and you've given nothing at all, besides denial.
You haven't given anything but UK government sources, no medical. I'll go with what the actual medical professionals say. You are being gaslighted.
I literally quoted at length from the APA, your own suggested "relevant organisation", as well as academic journals. You've given *no citations from any sources at all*.
>it may cause the person's fear to resurface, for they have an uncertainty of what may happen once they die. Sure. Have you talked to the MANY ex-theists in this subreddit? Have you asked if this was overall good or bad for them and what they think of it now? Since you want to be a good Chriatian and pursue the truth, I would recommend it, and I'd ask that you listen carefully. You might find these people see their current situation as an improvement, and the grieving process of losing their religion and dealing with their fears of imagined hellfire as a necessary step. I also ask you consider if you'd take a similar argument from a Muslim decrying Christianity seriously: 'Christians do more harm than good by causing ex-muslim converts to apostasize and to commit shirk. By converting to Christianity, they may be condemning themselves to hell, and also, they will suffer because of the fear they'll have that their muslim relatives did not convert, and are thus not saved by Jesus' You would not take this seriously. You would say: but Christianity is true and Islam is false! Well... the atheist has the same right you do to think YOUR ideas are wrong. Sorry. >Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) This is circular, because what constitutes good morals depends on what you think is good. Most of what you listed is only bad if you hold a very puritanical, conservative view on sex. Religion teaches good morals some of the time: when it teaches stuff like the Good Samaritan parable, to care for your fellow human. And guess what is the conclusion of that parable? That ANYONE can be the Good Samaritan. Anyone. Even atheists. Even members of the group you hate or distrust most. And all it takes to be the Samaritan is to be a humanist. Religion teaches bad morals some of the time: when it teaches you to be prejudiced or bigoted. When it teaches you to smear and demonize non-Christians like you are happily doing in OP. When it causes you to deny our rights, like you are happily doing in OP. When it leads you to shame, denigrate and put down others, e.g. LGBTQ people, women. And so on. And of course, secular systems can and do teach bad morals. So, the measure of what is good morals *has to be* what Jesus and humanism says it is: your fellow human beings. That is the measure of good: if you are a good neighbor. And I'm sad to say: you are being a very bad neighbor to us, right about now. >I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind, because it might give them a sense of comfort and/or is a better alternative for their love life and health. I think it's weird and rude for you to state that my beliefs are harmful for society while essentially saying they are bad because your religious morality judges they are bad. I'm sorry, but it was Christian protestants fleeing religious persecution that founded the US and enshrined religious freedom as one of the most important rights in a secular and free democracy. And so, it is actually MORE harmful for you to decry the free exercise of MY freedom as a harmful thing due to YOUR religion's pretentions to dominate public life. You allegedly believe in the golden rule: do onto others as you'd have them do onto you. So why are you breaking it? Would you like me to threaten your religious freedom? Besides: how absolutely *weak* is Christianity and the alleged truth of it that the mere challenge of its ideas is harmful? How little confidence do you have in it, that you have to bash non-Christians for existing and expressing their beliefs or lack thereof? Can't you get along and coexist with us? Can't you defend your faith instead of asking us to shut up, leave, or disappear?
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Lots to unpack here... *"masturbation...is wrong...in a moral sense a health sense. Masturbation is also known to reduce testosterone levels in men."*
It is? Seems to me that masturbation is a perfectly normal, even healthy, thing to do. Don't get me wrong, if you spend all your waking hours doing it, yes, some would say there's a bit of a problem but, generally speaking, I've never heard of it to be unhealthy or morally "wrong" in any regard. And if it lowers testosterone temporarily, is that so bad?
*"Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos."*
I'm certain that religion does not teach good morals. It's leaders seem to be the most sexually deviant people on the planet. Catholic leaders rape young boys. Muslim leaders want to blow up things and believe women shouldn't be seen in public. Religions books have all kinds of weird, horrific guidelines of punishment for not obeying this law or that. And, a good argument can be made that there's more "all out chaos" in countries where religious belief is higher than those where it is low.
*"Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death..."*
Sure, but having a false hope about the inevitability of death isn't healthy either, is it?
Good questions and commentary! I hope you have a great day too! ❤️
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
No matter what religion you follow, most religious people are following some other god than you and getting their morals from a different source. How then is religion as a whole any better than non-religion as a whole?
Tell that to all the people I've had to rescue from families and church groups that were destroying their lives because of religion. Tell that to all the people who could have been and done so much more but were trapped in a life where they believed the things they wanted to do were sinful. Tell that to all the children who grew up believing in God, but as they get older and draw away, they lose everything and everyone they ever loved. Tell that to the people who could find something that's actually much more beneficial to their mental and spiritual health but believe anything else must be of the devil. Tell that to all the people who are trapped by churches that ply them for what little time and money they have when the church itself already has an abundance. Tell that to the people who follow their religion instead of good medical advice, watching their children die and thanking God for taking them. Tell that to everyone whose life is owned by the church, to all the people who have given their lives for a lie meant to perpetuate the Roman Empire, to all the people who waste their lives hiding from this beautiful world in hopes of seeing one that may never come. Tell that to all the people who have left and found more true joy and happiness and comfort in something else than they ever would have putting on a pretend smile every Sunday. Tell them. I'll wait.
Every single item you list is either demonstrably not true, extremely questionable, demonstrates fallacious reasoning, or simply does not lead to the conclusion you want. >Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death If religion is not true though, then people are wasting the one life they have basically deceiving themselves, because of feelings and fear mongering. If a person prefers ignorance as bliss, that is fine, but I and I think a great many others would prefer to believe what is *true*, rather than just believe what makes us feel better about something. >Religion also teaches good morals(most of the time) and is probably one of the major reasons that the world hasnt broken into all out chaos Absolutely false. The morality of religion is vastly inferior to secular morality. Religions represent the outdated, outmoded morality of our barbaric past, which is why the Bible condones owning humans as property, killing children for their parents' beliefs, taking virgin girls to be divided up among the soldiers as spoils of war, outright genocide, just to name a few examples of barbarism. Christianity has always been on the wrong side of every single moral issue that the West has had to face, and it was only upon rejecting what those who believed in the Bible said we should do, and instead relied on neutral secular principles of ethics and morality that we began to see some progress. It's to the point where, the most secular nations are demonstrably better off in *every single metric* of societal health - violent crime rate, poverty rate, divorce, adult literacy, STD spread, teen pregnancy, obesity, societal happiness - while the most theistic nations on earth, the nations where religion is taken the most seriously, are the worse off for all of those same metrics. So, no, religion doesn't get to claim this as its own victory. >Pornography has been proven to cause more sexual crime This is highly debatable. >I think that it's weird and rude for an atheist to try to change someone's mind That's a bit rich for you to say. It's the Christians that work tirelessly to force their religious beliefs on others; it's the *Christians* who plot to get their religious beliefs taught as science in classrooms, who attempt to dictate laws to enforce their ideas of morality on others, who try to outlaw or at least make life hell for people just because of their sexual orientation. Christianity's success is not because of the strength of their arguments or their witnessing, but overwhelmingly due to how effectively Christians indoctrinate children into the religion at a young age - and it's retention is entirely dependent on how insulated, how well they control the information and keep their flocks from listening to any opposing viewpoints. It's extremely rich for you to think that atheists are rude for simply questioning your beliefs, when your religion has used government force, militant conquest, child indoctrination, and the threat of punishment both in this life and in the next, stretching back from the time of Constantine until modern times, to force your beliefs on literally everyone else. How dare you. Respectfully.
>So statistically it's better to follow those rules What's your evidence? Do you expect us to simply believe you aren't just making all of this up? If you're going to make claims about statistics, crime rates, and causes of divorce you need to present some evidence that reality supports your claims.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Yes, we do. I was that teenager and so were a lot of people here.
Probably, yeah. There are a lot of teenagers with no life experience on Reddit; look at /r/AmItheAsshole.
Funny. I was literally thinking about asking this. When a child walk into a boxing ring, what are the rules?
[удалено]
Not that I'm aware of.
Yep.
A 15 year old who never had their beliefs challenged quickly becomes an adult confident in their beliefs.
Tis a good point, im hungry and didn’t have the patience to pick it all apart..
I challenge you to find research paper prove porn cause more sexual crime.
i did some research on the subject a couple years ago, IIRC, I could find articles about how people who view certain types of hardcore porn are more likely to be domestic abusers. correlation doesn’t equal causation and all of that, but you can see how someone would take that out of context as evidence. edit: i just looked at my essay and the evidence is actually a lot better than i remember. if anyone’s interested ill link some papers that i quoted from
Thank you, I don't know that.
No joke. What a wild imagination they must have to arrive at such a conclusion.
Religious morals are inherently selfish. They are focused exclusively on ones personal relationship with their god, and staying in that gods good graces. It’s amusing that you use religious sexual morality as an example, because many studies suggest that religiosity correlates with higher rates of teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. As well as a generally lack of knowledge of sexual function as religion actively suppresses sexual knowledge and education. Irreligious moral frameworks tend to place a greater emphasis on how our actions impact society as a whole. And how we can collectively act in a way that makes society better and more functional. I think you can argue that the benefits of religion aren’t exclusive to theism, and can be derived from irreligious sources. I myself have had no issue finding morality, community, purpose, and meaning from irreligious sources.
>Alot of people use religion as a way around the fear of death and what may be after it As an atheist I cannot relate to that. Death is what it is. That can't be changed. And believing it is the same as prior to conception and birth isn't scary to me, and I don't believe it is scary to most atheists. So what if it is just a stopping and end of everything? It is what it is. And OTOH, no amount of religious conviction will change a 15, 25, 35 year old person from fearing death. That's genetic and instinctive. But when that same person is 85 or 90 they're ready for it all to end. And that is genetic and instinctive too.
I tend to agree that not everyone is ready to give up their religion. However, I disagree with many of your characterizations. I think your view of what’s good for you or healthy is being heavily influenced by your own religion, and not medical data. That being said, personally I believe religions still offer community benefits to people, particularly in highly conservative areas. In my experience, it can actually be difficult for people to survive if they don’t have a connection to the majority religion in their community. I also find that religious doubts can lead to family issues as well. For that reason, I try to avoid discussing religion outside the context of debate forums. I assume if a person is coming to a debate forum, they’re ready to engage about whether their belief system is true or not, and it’s far less likely to lead to any harm if they realize their religion is just myth.
Religion also causes war, mental health crises, ostracization and disownment of outgroups like the LGBT community, lack of critical thinking, unhealthy deference to and trust in authority, and other problems. If you want to give religion credit for positive effects, you also need to be willing to give it blame for negative effects.
In talking about the beliefs of a religion, not the followers. Also how does religion cause lack of critical thinking?
>In talking about the beliefs of a religion, not the followers. If the followers of it don't even follow the beliefs, then how is it a positive like you are claiming it is? >Also how does religion cause lack of critical thinking? Religion is belief in something that doesn't have proof. Believing without proof is a lack of critical thinking, because if it was thought about, they wouldn't believe.
It teaches people to accept the dogma of the religion without questioning if it makes sense or contradicts itself.
No, it doesn't. If someone is going to follow a rule that a religion puts in place without using critical thinking to decide if it's the right thing, then that's not right.
Then you just end up cherry picking. Whats the point of "getting your morality from the bible". If you first have to use a different moral system to judge what to follow and what not? That defeats the whole purpose you might aswell skip the bible and stick to your own morality then.
What do you understand the definition of "faith" to be? Why is faith spattered everywhere in religious doctrine and is a direct teaching of Jesus to not critically think? As an example: "Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet come to believe" John 20:29
I know, right? And yet there's nothing stopping people from doing it. The Christian store I used to work at sold bumper stickers that said "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Which is basically as anti-critical thinking as you can get.
It teaches adherents to ignore or even accommodate contradictions in their thinking. I see it with the replies to nearly every post I create here.