Anon on Atheism | TheaterFire

This only happens when it's a fascist government that believes that people believing in God could mean that they view God as a higher authority than them.

It's not religion specifically, but any system that places a God or Diety or even leader as a higher authority than the government.

China does this currently, it's why we have the current Uygher situation going on there.

Im an atheist and as a leader I would never ban religion, and I'd never mandate it either. Leaving it as a choice is always good and when ANY religious belief or lack there of becomes government mandated thats when shit falls apart.

theocracies are complete shit holes to live in devoid of any freedom

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Sure, you're not like the other girls . You're different.

[-]

Idmaybefuckaplatypus@reddit

Forcing religious beliefs from a government level is bad no matter what. Even atheism.

Im atheist and believe the world would be better overall without religion but I would NEVER advocate for taking away people's freedom to worship whatever God or diety they want.

So I actually agree that it's no different than forcing religion. It's the forcing part that's bad. And like I said in certain countries, they use God to control because they can warp the messaging to make people religiously follow what the God sanctioned gov't is saying.

Just like atheism, totalitarian regimes see anything that implies that the government is not the highest authority gets stamped out. Sometimes it's forcing atheism since God would have more authority to them so they can control the masses. And with a country that forces something like Islam they are basically using their theocracy to convince people that their government is above all else due to the qua ran and it's teachings.

My entire point is that no, forcing atheism for those reasons is just as bad as any religion. People should always be free to choose

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

It's funny when we have an entire apparatus and media and people shaming and, let's say, ripping up bibles and having a one-sided conversation where only you are right, like Richard Dawkins Hey, I am not trying to force my atheism on to you as I removed every pillar and moral pillar to put my ideology on top, you know, as long as it is not hurting anyone. As they infiltrated schools churches and positions of power and influence. Like they have not done since the last 100s plus years . Like the first and second red scared, and let's say when The Kremlin paper came out after the fall of the Soviet Union and to my shock 😲. Hollywood was full of them.

[-]

Idmaybefuckaplatypus@reddit

This comment is so ignorant I can't even begin to approach it. Christian victim complex at its finest.

Keep telling yourself you're the prosecuted victim if it makes you feel better. I could easily pick apart this bullshit comment you left but I already know it'd just send you further down your misinformation rabbit hole

Enjoy living in ignorant bliss man, i honestly hope that it helps you live a better life and fit into your family or whoever forced all that on you.

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Of course, over 9000 karma points in less than 5 months. It's like there is a build for these righteous glue eaters.

[-]

Idmaybefuckaplatypus@reddit

I sniff my glue thank you very much

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

What flavor? Let me guess the high-end stuff, right?

[-]

Idmaybefuckaplatypus@reddit

The yeasty ones are best

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

So Christians out of any religion have not been prosecuted the most? Not under the bolshevicks or romans or Muslims or Japanese or Africans or Chinese or atheist such as Romania. There's over 20 million Christian dead before the end of the late 1900s in Russia and Ukraine. How about the Spanish Civil War and how lovely they treated the nuns in the streets. Dude, yet you haven't debunked what anything of what I said.

[-]

Idmaybefuckaplatypus@reddit

You so fucking realize Richard Dawkins is a Christian apologist and he's been going around saying that Christianity is actually good as a "culture" and basically better than any brown religion... Right?

That dude has fallen completely off base and isn't even close to the level of conviction he once had

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Because princess realized that it is easy to preach your nonsense from the safety of Western Christian society, but as they destroy it a vacuum, it's left, and islam had the willpower to do it and would kill for it so know he can't say F Allah cause he would be given the Islamophobia treatment so now he is a "cultural Christian".

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Also, as the crusades are portrayed as religion extremists against the poor muslims.

[-]

Subt1e@reddit

If you have to make up scenarios to argue against it, maybe you should explore why atheism makes you uncomfortable

[-]

Unairworthy@reddit

I can articulate that. Can you explain the equality and rights of men from naturalist foundations? Darwinism doesn't work without inequality since if all organisms are equally fit then the fitness function is unimportant. Theism can come to the same conclusions but it leaves room for the possibility that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. God has been used to explain the rights of kings since Europe started to go Christian and the rights of the Church since Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, an idea which became codified as law in the Magna Carta thus extending rights to church members. A more inclusive bow to a creator was made in our Declaration of Independence which extended the concept to all people. Atheism undermines the rights of both government and people by removing the creator, leaving us with only the struggle for survival with government arising merely to secure the victory of superior organisms. The consequence of removing God from government is an authoritarian state that practices eugenics and genocide.

[-]

RedXTechX@reddit

I do not believe that "inalienable rights" exist. If they did, how could you explain them being violated on a regular basis?

I believe that rights aren't inalienable, inherent, or inevitable. They are what we, as a society, over the course of many generations, have decided are important to strive for. They require constant effort to maintain, and can (and should) be updated as our understanding for morality changes.

[-]

Didiuz@reddit

Or maybe, just maybe, if u can fathom it, there is no need for religion to understand and value the wondrous fact that consistutes humans, their intellect, their ability for pro-socialness and the immense and amazing progress our race has accomplished (in spite of the intellectual bonds of religion). Is it not amazing that some of the most atheist countries (the nordic countries) in the world take care of their poor, sick and damaged to an unparalleled degree.

[-]

NightOwl1702@reddit

That’s great subjectively but take away all the colorful language and with atheism all you have left is that humans are meat puppets floating through space. There’s no grand-ultimate cosmic meaning to our lives. In the end it doesn’t matter if you’re Doctor Martin Luther King or Adolf Hitler because both people are just temporarily self aware junks of matter in a worthless universe. I’m not an Atheist because reality obviously doesn’t function that way. People like Doctor King are self evidently better than people like Adolf Hitler and science alone cannot explain that. Reality is morally ordered where good things like childhood innocence or generous charity are obviously valuable and lesser ways of existence like a kitten starving to death in the woods because its mother was hit by a truck is so plainly bad that atheism is simply intellectually dishonest. The only reason I can imagine anyone who isn’t a teenager being an atheist is because they’re still maturing as a person or they just don’t want to believe that their bad actions actually matter so it’s okay for them to continue living lesser lives of what they could be if they followed the moral order.

[-]

RedXTechX@reddit

At the universal scale? You are correct! Nothing that we can ever possibly do will ever even come close to beginning to matter at a universal scale.

That said: why do you need things to matter at a universal scale? Is it not enough for you that it matters locally? If so, why not?

because reality obviously doesn't function that way

Are you sure? If you nuked the whole planet, hell, even if you nuked the entire milky way out of existence, the universe would remain cold, uncaring, and indifferent. That is but a fraction of a blip of nothingness at the cosmic scale. Actually, it's barely even a fraction of a blip of our observable universe, which is itself infinitesimally irrelevant to the grand scale of the universe.

The only reason I can imagine anyone who isn’t a teenager being an atheist is because they’re still maturing as a person or they just don’t want to believe that their bad actions actually matter

This is such a bad-faith understanding of atheism it's astounding. I actually believe that the opposite argument is stronger: the only reason I can imagine anyone who isn't a teenager believing in a god/creator is because they cannot cope with a lack of inherent meaning in the universe, and is unable to live with having to create meaning themselves.

My actions have zero meaning at a universal scale, but they do have meaning locally: to myself, to the people around me, and they can even have the potential to be meaningful at a planetary scale!

In the grand scale of the cosmos, sure, nothing matters in the end. But just like a sandcastle on a beach is just a bunch of grains of sand in a cool shape that will inevitably be flattened by the waves, we happen to be temporarily sentient meatbags that are capable of experiencing our world before returning to dust, so we might as well make the best of it while we're here, regardless of our cosmic impact.

[-]

Didiuz@reddit

Please use more logic or arguments that are not built on your subjective feelings, youre lacking.

What makes you say the universe is worthless without religion?

Humans are a amazing coincidental meat puppets. The chances of these meat puppets even existing not to mention being able to argue on this thing we call the internet while (atleast I) am living in a country with free top quality healthcare, free education and relatively (to history and other religious countries) high safety and QoL is a evolutionary miracle specifically beacuse of the apparrent absence of any proof of god, atleast to me.

[-]

NightOwl1702@reddit

I’m glad that you see the inherent worth of humanity but an atheistic worldview cannot account for humanity’s inherent value. Why is our species’s qualities of intelligence, discipline, cooperation and love objectively valuable and good beyond subjective human opinion?

[-]

Didiuz@reddit

Why does it matter if its subjective human opinion? We are all humans?

Ofcourse we will derive and assign values that are inherently valuable to our species?

Do you think what some values ordainded by some priest, book or your feelings are any more objective?

[-]

NightOwl1702@reddit

Why does it matter if it’s subjective human opinion? We are all humans?

Having a subjective opinion doesn’t make something true. It’s not subjective human opinion that 2+2=4 and it’s not human subjective opinion that babies are more valuable than rocks.

Do you think what some values ordainded by some priest, book or your feelings are any more objective?

No and I don’t make that claim.

[-]

Didiuz@reddit

So what is your alternative?

When we are speaking morals, values or even philosophy everything is subjective. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if it is not as easy to value, compare and rank as when discussing objective matters.

If a vast majority of humans can agree that killing is bad, regardless of creed or faith, why does it matter if it is subjective and not objective?

[-]

NightOwl1702@reddit

So what is your alternative?

You failing to realize that there are alternatives shows in intrenched in postmodernism you have become. It’s sad to see how often people who think they are free thinkers are actually the most mentally boxed in. Much like flat earthers or antivaxers. If you merely read a book that doesn’t subscribe to the assumption that morality is necessarily subjective and opinion based you’d understand that one of the multitude of possibilities is that reality itself has a morality. The idea that reality itself has a morality may seem unlikely since in we see bad things happening everyday but what if actually we live in the best of all possible worlds and things could have been far worse? What if factors such as the necessity of challenges for growth or the necessity of free will for moral choices to matter as well as countless other variables mean that bad things will happen as a result of living in the best of all possible worlds? I’m not saying this with certainty just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

When we are speaking morals, values or even philosophy everything is subjective. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if it is not as easy to value, compare and rank as when discussing objective matters.

Again here you show your postmodernist assumptions about the morality and values.

If a vast majority of humans can agree that killing is bad, regardless of creed or faith, why does it matter if it is subjective and not objective?

If agreeing or disagreeing on whether or not killing is bad is subjective to each individual human mind then why can’t someone follow their subjective desire to be a serial killer since there’s no actual fact that gives them a reason to value life enough to decide not to murder for self satisfaction? I have my answer which is that it is a fact (not just an opinion) that life (especially human life) is so valuable that we ought to not unnecessarily end it.

[-]

Le3mine@reddit

You believe in the wrong god. The mortis trinity will be your salvation.

[-]

me_like_math@reddit

Can you explain the equality and rights of men from naturalist foundations? Darwinism doesn't work without inequality since if all organisms are equally fit then the fitness function is unimportant.

No one should ground morality on "naturalist" foundations. Doing so is both an Is-ought fallacy ("This is how things are in nature and thus this is how they should be!") and a naturalist fallacy ("this is best because it is natural!").

Many people have argued that "having morality" increased the fitness of human beings and so there is an evolutionary reason why we feel there is "right and wrong". I ultimately believe this but also this is not a grounding for ethics. This is an explanation of WHY we act, while ethics demands a system that tells us HOW to act.

What should we the atheists ground ethics on? This is a very hard question. I think about it often. I do not know the answer to this question. All I can tell you is that, under the veil of ignorance as Rawls has put it, "equality and rights of men" seem like the most desirable way of organizing society for each individual which will take part in it. But you can go further, you can ask "but why should we have a society like that rather than in any other way?" and at this point the conversation becomes about personal preferences.

But apart from that, I do not think your argument is compelling. You have correctly identified that there are many positives for religious belief, such as having god given rules like "equality and rights of men".

But the problem is precisely that the world is under no obligation to the nice to us. We all want the positive outcome. But the argument as here presented is of the form "[thing] must be true because otherwise it would be terrible". I agree it is terrible to not have an easy and straightforward grounding for morality, but that does not mean that the theist position is correct, it merely means that the world can be worse than we hope for.

[-]

Uglynator@reddit

Am I the only one who thinks this comment is just schizobabble?

[-]

greenhawk22@reddit

Evolution has been defeated for a long time in humans anyway, to the point where there is functionally zero evolution. There is no struggle for survival compared to 200k years ago. We live in the best times of human history (from a purely material/survival view).

There are no selection pressures acting on our population. Fundamentally not enough people die before procreating to affect the gene pool in any meaningful way. That eliminates one of the 5 mechanisms of evolution.

Genetic drift is next, which happens when small populations have random events that change gene frequency. If you have a population of say 20 frogs, half are blue and half are green. If a tornado comes through and by pure chance kills 8 blue frogs and 2 green. Now the green genes are much more likely to survive to the next generation just by virtue of the green population surviving better. This is different from natural selection because it doesn't necessarily confer a benefit to be green in this case. Human populations are too large for this to happen, but this could happen as a result of nuclear war, for example.

Migration/ gene flow is next. It's essentially when a gene from isolated population A is introduced to isolated population B. This doesn't work in humans because we are essentially one very large community at this point, there are very few populations that have significant genetic differences from everyone else.

So that leaves mutation, which is the slowest of them all. And many mutations aren't beneficial, or are just neutral. This still happens but not in relevant numbers to affect the human genome other than on a geologic time scale.

So your premise is pretty flawed from the get-go. Also, altruism evolved ( and not just in humans) so that's pretty unexplainable from your point of view. Also, don't you just want to be better than that? Is it really a good thing to proudly state that you're so instinctually driven that it requires fear of a deity to keep you being a good person?

Your view also completely fails to acknowledge the fact that other moral systems exist apart from Christianity.

[-]

Lauris024@reddit

I can't tell if you're baiting or you genuinely believe this retardism. Do you genuinely believe Nordics are worse at governing than middle east?

[-]

Blight327@reddit

You’re looking at Darwinism from an individual perspective, nature functions as a system not only as a competition. There is competition between predators seeking the same prey, but prey and predator must exist in balance lest they both die. It also ignores communal advantages that we evolved to become a society existing parallel to nature. Equity exist to benefit the community, not nature.

[-]

DazedAndTrippy@reddit

Yes because only atheists states have ever caused eugenics or genocide. It's totally normally to keep fucking your sister so that God will keep giving your family divine rule forever. The curch should control your life because otherwise we wouldn't have rights or some bullshit.

[-]

redxgk@reddit

To answer your really dumb question, they see it through observation. Humans can see and understand that there are differences in our physical appearances but fundamentally we're all come from the same point. Through scientific advances we can literally see when this happens, conception. So God isn't needed to see that we are equal. As for the laws of equality and such, just understanding cause and effect can lead to that. Your eugenics and authoritarian thing is just a slippery slope fallacy.

[-]

fifththrowaway@reddit

Midwit word vomit.

* 'Naturalist foundations' provide endless examples of empathy, social cooperation, and mental models of fairness. This is present even in more primitive animals.

* Darwinism is an explanation of a phenomena, not a prescription of values like theism. This scientism stopped being taken seriously for about a 100 years.

* Insisting that morality must derive from theism is a tired argument, disproven since Socrates. Your tangent on the Divine Right of Kings is a perfect example of why theism is a shitty moral foundation.

[-]

Shvingy@reddit

Sure, all that stuff except fairies dont exist.

[-]

DIAL8_TRAINEE@reddit

doesn't believe gnomes and skin walkers exist

Get out election tourist.

[-]

tayfighter@reddit

They wear boots, ya gotta believe me

[-]

AccursedFishwife@reddit

Christianity was used to justify slavery for as long as it has been around, so there goes that argument. It was also used to put down women's rights (1 Tim. 2:11). Historically, the only people who had rights under Christianity were white men. So much for equality.

And just on a more pragmatic side, today the most atheist countries in Europe have the highest quality of life and happiness. No "authoritarian states" in Scandinavia, no state imposed eugenics, no genocides. Been like that for 70 or so years with no social collapse. As opposed to constant economic crises, civil unrest, and poor quality of life in Christan nations of South America, Mexico, South Africa, etc.

If you think morality comes from religion, you need to start educating yourself. Here is a good introduction that's written in a very layman-accessible format https://archive.is/2iBix

[-]

Unairworthy@reddit

Broken link.

[-]

MalekithofAngmar@reddit

That’s valid I suppose. Coming to terms with reality is difficult. There is no man in the sky up there guaranteeing that we treat each other well, and even more disconcertingly, no man in the sky defining what that good treatment even is. We have to struggle and suffer to determine even our definitions to these things.

Of course, this isn’t really an argument against atheism, but I suppose it was simply meant to articulate why it makes you uncomfortable, and that’s fair. It certainly demonstrates this well. But burying your head in the sand and adhering to a false objective morality isn’t a solution.

[-]

cell689@reddit

The consequence of removing God from government is an authoritarian state that practices eugenics and genocide.

You were so close to making a sensible comment.

[-]

Dsingis@reddit

I think anon was not refering to a theocracy, or a theocratic form of government in general, but more to a government, that has principles based on religious values. Like the United States, or many european countries. When religious values are removed from government (as happened under state-atheism) the result has always been an authoritarian state. Yes, the other extreme is also true. Namely, if you do actually base your government around theocracy, then it also becomes an authoritarian state.

[-]

MixtapeFyre@reddit

I guess we will leave out that catholic government that practiced eugenics and genocide. They don’t follow my preconceived notion that only atheists are bad.

[-]

aj_thenoob2@reddit

Atheism undermines the rights of both government and people

Kings aren't doing so well in modern day I'd think. Besides maybe Saudi Arabia.

[-]

Prophet_Of_Trash_God@reddit

the athiest has the unfortunate habit to religion and an ethical code as one and the same. So if no God exists then no ehtics exist, so they behave without ethics. But ethics is one of the core attributes of humanity. If you take that away you lower yourself.

What they fail to understand is that having a code of ethics is foundational, and that doesn't necessarily need to come from the Lord.

[-]

Clenchyourbuttcheeks@reddit

Religion is based on the same primal rules in tribal societies. With no religion the society codes will still be there to keep it in order.

[-]

mischling2543@reddit

That's not true, many tribal societies see nothing wrong with cannibalism, polygamy, incest, etc.

[-]

BittJan@reddit

Polygamy is almost universaly practiced in settled agrarian societies, hunter-gatherers are almost entirely monogamous. Common Ted K. W.

[-]

mischling2543@reddit

Source?

[-]

psychoCMYK@reddit

Cannibalism, polygamy, etc. are part of their religion. Stop pretending that religion is a source of absolute morality. It isn't.

[-]

mischling2543@reddit

Of course religion in general isn't. Christianity is.

[-]

psychoCMYK@reddit

Christianity is just as garbage as most other religions. It's been used to justify murder, slavery, cultural genocide, and torture. Humans don't need a scary sky daddy to know what's wrong or right.

[-]

mischling2543@reddit

Clearly we do, otherwise we end up with cannibalism, polygamy, and incest.

[-]

psychoCMYK@reddit

That's horseshit. I'm an atheist and I've only fucked and eaten family twice.

[-]

Aegean_lord@reddit

Which is why they remain tribal societies instead of civilizational empires

[-]

ProxyGeneral@reddit

They're technically tied to one another. Ethics and morality stem from the idea that they stem from an objective fundamental source, as to avoid individual interpretations of what's right and wrong, something which necessitates religion since the only thing higher than nature and humans would be a higher being like a God or gods.

If you remove that core assumption, there is no truly objective source of morality separate to natural opportunism. Suddenly morality is subjective and you olen the door to "do what thou will" nihilism.

[-]

TheRealTakazatara@reddit

And, sadly, basic human empathy is not enough for many people. I'm not religious but I definitely see the merit of it for these rabbit dogs of society. If it helps an individual be a better person I'm all for it I've always drawn the line at your freedoms ending when they start to have an effect on other people's freedoms.

[-]

mooimafish33@reddit

Religion is often just the justification of people's ethical choices, not the source. People tend to do what they want to do anyways and justify it later.

[-]

nwbell@reddit

Ethics in some level need to be enforced. Since people have an inherent distaste for authority they need to make up deities that will mete out justice in the afterlife. The afterlife is enough of a motivator to keep people in line

[-]

BittJan@reddit

Pro-tip: All of these points seize to be issues when you free yourself of the belief that industrial society and technological advancement are good.

[-]

Nevek_Green@reddit

Hats off to op. Atheists cannot stand any criticism of their religion. Top tier Atheist rage bait.

[-]

Stregen@reddit

3/10 attempt

[-]

Nevek_Green@reddit

3/10 and still got the atheist brigade to downvote and comment.

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

This has literally never happened

[-]

softhack@reddit

No atheist civilization has ever lasted more than a century.

[-]

BanzaiKen@reddit

Huns, arguably the second most successful atheist civilization behind the Soviet Union couldnt even last beyond the lifespan of Attila.

[-]

TheWormInWaiting@reddit

Where tf are you getting that the Huns were atheists lol

[-]

BanzaiKen@reddit

Ammanius Marcellinus, his travels with the Huns which is the source for most Western historical context. Tengrii rituals only took place for them when a loved one died, which had a lot of blood sacrifice scarring of cheeks etc because that's what Tengri wants. Other than that per Ammanius the Huns worshipped every God they came across so as not to displease them. He states that they spent just as much time offering sacrifices to a river or a tree because a local told them a spirit lives there as they did at war. As a result they cared little for the ideas of Gods and scoffed at the concept of Roman ones casting divine judgement. They were deathly afraid of powerful spirits however which is what they assumed Tengri and every God they came across were.

[-]

TheWormInWaiting@reddit

That’s not atheism though - that’s very much just the traditional / pagan view of religion which most people and states practiced / promoted before the whole abrahamic revolution. If you consider one’s relationship with the divine being transactional as atheistic then almost every human for almost all of history almost everywhere would qualify as an atheist. You could say (based on some clearly very biased accounts intended to paint him as a pagan among pagans) that Attila’s was especially so but him and his people having any relationship at all with divinities / the supernatural would by most definitions make them theists.

[-]

TheUnsaddledTEX@reddit

Dude is just actively avoiding the existence of the Tengri Religion lmao

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

Atheism was a niche belief until like 150 years ago, and even then it didn't spread to every part of society up to this very day. And plenty of countries have at least been secular for that long.

[-]

redditcdnfanguy@reddit

Uh... all of Eastern Europe after WWII...

People's Republic of China....

Everywhere Marxist/Leninists take power.. .

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

So the problem is communism, not atheism. Them also being atheists is incidental, not the cause of the issue.

[-]

redditcdnfanguy@reddit

No, it isn't.They've seemed to walk hand-in-hand as a symptom of the smug knowitallism that some people just insist on telling other people how to live their lives and do things and all the knowitall stuff like atheism and communism.Thisim and thatism , they're all the same.

You're just another guy giving the left a free ride.The left always gets a free ride.

[-]

me_like_math@reddit

No, it isn't.They've seemed to walk hand-in-hand as a symptom of the smug knowitallism that some people just insist on telling other people how to live their lives

"Dude just let people live their lives" only became a thing after the state became secular and irreligious. Before that, you had to follow the state religion under the threat of violence.

all the knowitall stuff like atheism and communism.Thisim and thatism , they're all the same.

"This is the god. This are his rules. This is what he is doing. This is how the world works. This is what happens and because of that this is what the law should be and this is what should be done and this is what will happen after death and "

How is the religious worldview not a know it all stance? Do you think every religious person is an Unitarian Universalist hippie that believes anything goes?

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

Religion more or less exists as an excuse to tell others how to live their lives.

[-]

Urfrider_Taric@reddit

More or less? that is the only reason 'holy texts' are written.

[-]

MartelSmurf@reddit

Right but it's not a person telling you how to live your life. It's a bunch of morals and values to help you make a good decision in any given situation. No one is perfect that's why Jesus died for your sins. You're going to make mistakes, it isn't over you can try again.

[-]

Urfrider_Taric@reddit

not a person? someone wrote those texts buddy. there's no magic books that write themselves. this isn't hogwarts.

[-]

MartelSmurf@reddit

Yes not a person. Multiple people are scripture and verses in the bible. It is a collection of moral allegories and values compiled by a group of people over a large span of time.

So yes it is not "A" person, nor could you refer to it as someone telling you how to live your life.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Read about the French Revolution.

The plummeting birthrate thing is bullshit, the population began to collapse because the enlightened neckbeards running the show began to purity spiral and kill their own.

[-]

Witty_Finance4117@reddit

The plummeting birth rate thing is real. Every single secular country has a low birthrate. The only countries with high birthrates are

African countries that are too broke to afford condoms
Muslim countries, and Israel, which are full of super religious people.

[-]

me_like_math@reddit

Birth rates are falling worldwide. The profoundly religious Brazil is now bellow replacement.

Everywhere, regardless of religiosity, the real factor correlated with lower birthrates is economic development. Everything else you cook up is wrong

muslim countries

their fertility rates are also falling. Currently, it's 2.9, but it once was 6. They too will reach bellow replacement levels.

[-]

Caine_sin@reddit

Birth rate does not equal life expectancy.

[-]

arbiter12@reddit

If insects prove anything, it's that you absolutely don't need life expectancy to have an overwhelmingly successful species.

Life expectancy of the individual is mostly useless to the species: No one needs a mediocre human to live till age 100.

[-]

Caine_sin@reddit

But we do need to live until atleast 20 odd... to raise the next generation.

[-]

XDDDSOFUNNEH@reddit

Turns out we don't need every woman to pump out 20 babies in the hopes 2 can survive The Wheel of Misfortune.

Let's see what Jamal in Sudan dies of today: AIDS, stoning upon accidentally seeing a woman's face (woman dies too of course), or drinking from the wrong water source?

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

The French Revolution did not end because of atheism. Nor was being an atheist required to take part in the revolution. You're seeing the tiniest scrap of a point and somehow concluding the greentext is mostly accurate with some details wrong. It is 99% wrong.

[-]

iMisstheKaiser10@reddit

Let’s not pretend that the Jacobins were buddies with the Church. They viewed them in the same way they viewed the nobles.

[-]

bordain_de_putel@reddit

Do you need to follow a church to believe in god?

[-]

Rachitiqueboy@reddit

They believed in a "supreme being" so. Not really atheist.

[-]

Holygore@reddit

If we’re in the realm of belief then anything is possible. Make the “claim” a god exists and then you have to back it with evidence and that seems difficult without the church or Bible and probably boils down to “look at the trees” or Spinozas “everything is god” argument.

[-]

bordain_de_putel@reddit

That doesn't answer the question.

[-]

0hryeon@reddit

Right. No one can tell you what fairytales to believe or what house you have to go to mumble to your favourite one

[-]

Holygore@reddit

You didn’t read what I said in the first sentence. “Anything is possible in the realm of belief”.

[-]

iMisstheKaiser10@reddit

No but I need your mom

[-]

Zakaru99@reddit

Do you need to follow a church to belive in the Bible?

[-]

lutzow@reddit

Let's not pretend the Jacobins were atheists either

[-]

arbiter12@reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

[-]

DedOriginalCancer@reddit

It was totally because of atheism, not because the nobles and clerics have been buddy buddy for centuries!

[-]

luckac69@reddit

They were definitely not buddy buddy for centuries 😭

[-]

Mobile_Molasses_9876@reddit

Emoji detected: opinion discarded.

[-]

Blight327@reddit

Nothing says Reddit quite like being confidently wrong. This is one example, you can look into others yourself. Over the Middle Ages and through the renaissance, church and nobility were intrinsically linked. The church legitimized the nobility’s claim to power via divine right, and the nobility funded church’s existence.

[-]

Ruby2312@reddit

Turn out the pigs were eating from the same trough get the same treatment, who know

[-]

EHStormcrow@reddit

litterally this, the whole deal of "French secularity" (laïcité) is seperation of church and state. The Church meddled too much in French affairs and had too strong temporal powers (like the nobles), that's why they were hobbled.

[-]

That_NotME_Guy@reddit

Literally every single socialist and socialist-derived revolutionary ideology was anti-religion.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Oh pardon me, I forgot about deism which comes to the same conclusion as atheism in that God isn't here and man must create his own ethics. I lump them together because they both lead to the same sort of catastrophic conclusion.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

It’s weird to claim morality is only absolute with a supreme being dictating it.

How does the supreme being decide what is moral?

Do they also use reason, but just have more data than us lowly humans who only ate from the tree of knowledge?

Or is something only moral if the supreme being declares it is? Can they declare something moral that we would call immoral, like chucking babies against a wall because your supreme being said their land is your land now? How do we interpret when the supreme being calls something moral?

Or are we sneaking some Zoroastrian theology in here with a supreme being who is always moral, but in combat with some eternally evil being?

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

Morality isn't absolute but it's socially good for people to believe it is. The problem with atheism is precisely that makes people ask these pointless questions. Taboos exist for a reason.

[-]

BackstreetBob@reddit

So stagnancy and dogmatism is the answer? Ask yourself who decides what is taboo, and why they did it. When the pope excommunicated Bruno for daring to ask and experiment, he did it because he wanted to control.

Hell, even the church was a step forward once

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

Stagnancy is impossible, even the most dogmatic regime can't reproduce its ideology perfectly. Religions themselves change over time. The answer is slow cultural evolution, trusting the wisdom of millennia of trial-and-error by billions of people (who, in aggregate, are impossibly smarter than us individually), while putting new ideas to the test, starting on a small scale. What the answer definitely isn't is radical and fast social change.

Who decides what is irrelevant, because people's decisions are selected by social forces. The pope was only in the position to put Bruno in trial because the model of centralized church lending legitimacy to the secular authorities had proved effective, and questioning it weakened said legitimacy. The church was indeed a step forward, just like any other institution that manages to establish itself and stand the test of time.

[-]

BackstreetBob@reddit

I see your point, but there are some faults to it. If we trusted the wisdom of our ancestors on medicine, we'd still be talking about the 6 bodily humors, and would view bloodletting as a valid treatment. Or we'd be recommending alternate "treatments" like they do in China. Modern medicine is rather new, historically speaking, and a lot of the developments happened at an incredible pace

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

Morality is absolute, and there are plenty of absurd, pointless, and harmful taboos.

“I support religion, because without it I’d do some really fucked up shit normal society considers taboo,” isn’t exactly a great look, kid.

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

Morality is so absolute that you can prove it rationally/empirically, which is why all societies have long since converged on the "True Morality". Imagine being this delusional...

And the second part is just an appeal to consequences. It doesn't matter if it's not a great look, it's still true.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

Having to use a numerical solution doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution.

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

A numerical solution to morality?

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

Are metaphors too complex for you?

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

I didn't think it was a metaphor because it doesn't work as such. Theorems in math can be proven, and different cultures do converge on the correct solution. There are no countries where people widely believe that Pythagoras was wrong.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

I guess I should have expected you to be mediocre at math too.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

It is moral if this supreme being created the entire universe. It means its morality is the same as every other part of the universe like gravity and light.

Certainly God could declare chucking babies against a wall as moral, but it would be the same as say changing one of the fundamental laws of physics. It isn't something that is done flippantly for similar reasons as to why you just don't arbitrarily change your moral code. In fact you wouldn't change your moral code at all if you were all knowing. And since God is all knowing then his morals don't change.

I don't see God as being in eternal conflict with an eternally evil being, Satan has already been defeated for the last 2,000 years. Now it's just a matter of your choice to enter into a relationship with God or not.

[-]

0hryeon@reddit

Sigh. Such a stupid argument. “God could make mistakes but because he’s all knowing he won’t. And even if he did something I would think is immoral, I would just do what he wants anyway cause he’s god”

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

That's just how it works, we aren't talking about a human who has gaps in their knowledge or has physical limitations that would lead to error.

The question you're asking about God having different morals would be like me asking you what would happen if some objective aspect of the universe was suddenly different. The answer doesn't really matter because it doesn't reflect reality.

"What if the sky was green?"

Uh I don't know, it would be green I guess. Why does that matter?

"Sigh. Such a stupid argument. You really think it's ok for the sky to be green when it's clearly blue."

[-]

0hryeon@reddit

Sure. In your hypothetical situation, I would be an idiot.

It just a very typical religious argument, where the infallibility of god is both the argument for his existence and also the proof. God just being unable to make mistakes is claim you can’t prove (to a reasonable person)because his infallibility is what makes him god.

You can keep twisting that into any shape your religious agenda needs.

I’ve read the “classical theological arguments”, and they aren’t persuasive. It’s telling that religiosity declines when the populace’s education rises.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Sure. In your hypothetical situation, I would be an idiot.

Your hypothetical on the other hand makes me look like an idiot to someone who doesn't view morality as objective. My point is that questioning God changing his mind is the same as questioning some fundamental aspect of the universe.

It is telling that religiosity declines when education rises, just not for the reason you think. As people have more of their needs met they see less reason to form a relationship with God.

This is why there are so many passages in the Bible in which Jesus mentions the rich not being able to enter the kingdom of God. They have their needs and wants in this life fulfilled so they don't have a need or desire to enter into a personal relationship with God and will find something to replace that nagging desire we all have to worship something.

This is why despite adherents to religions being at an all time low people are just as pious and worshipful as ever. They will worship politics, their hedonistic desires, or some other thing either to make them feel like their life has meaning or to distract them from their nihilism.

It's why there are so many mental problems regarding depression and anxiety despite the fact that most people have all their needs fulfilled. It also doesn't help what comes after this life ends.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

They’re not hypotheticals. You apparently just haven’t actually read the Old Testament.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

You're being vague, but I'm assuming you're thinking "the Old Testament says that you should make animal sacrifices, not touch your wife if she's on her period, to circumcize newborn boys, and not to eat pork. The New Testament doesn't command you to do any of that so clearly God changed his mind." Is that correct?

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

No. I’m thinking the about all the times your god told people to chuck babies against walls and take their wives and children as slaves.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

If my view is correct, then that is God enacting justice against the Amalekites. You should really read secular sources about what the Amalekites did to people they didn't like and you'd be doing a lot more than crushing infant skulls. If you are correct then it's only barbaric because it doesn't align with your personal tastes in ethics.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

So you think it is okay to kill babies if their parents are immoral?

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

I would if God commanded me to do it. Instead I've been told to love and forgive my enemies.

I'm not sure why this is a point of contention for you. We already live in a society where baby killing is acceptable so long as they're still in the womb. Their parents are already immoral because they make the choice to murder their own children

[-]

Mobile_Molasses_9876@reddit

Amazing. If your imaginary friend told you that you should smash babies against a wall, you would. This makes you a moral human being in your own mind. Religious people everywhere will say that you aren't a complete fucking psychopath, and they would all be wrong.

The voices in my head are always telling me to do terrible things, but I understand right from wrong. I am better than you.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

I see you haven’t actually read the Bible.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

I see you don't understand the Bible.

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

Come back when you’ve actually read it.

[-]

Prettyflyforafly91@reddit

Only children need a daddy to tell them what's right and wrong. And actual adult has empathy and knows not to do to others what they don't want done to them.

[-]

BoxNz@reddit

Why should I not do to others what I don't want done to myself? How did you come to the conclusion that this is the axiom to use? It sounds like you're just taking Christian morality for granted.

[-]

Prettyflyforafly91@reddit

Because I have a functioning part of my brain that makes me feel pain when I see others in pain. I don't like how that feels. Why would I do something that makes me feel bad?

I suppose the troglodytes of this world don't have that part of the brain, as well as may other parts, probably. So they need external guidance. Like how special needs children need to be told not to eat their own shit. Their brain doesn't have those higher functioning capabilities. Same vein.

[-]

Atraidis_@reddit

Lol you're a caricature

[-]

ElizabethTheFourth@reddit

Teachable moment. When you attack the person and not their argument, that's called an ad hominem and it's generally considered really fucking dumb.

[-]

havoc1428@reddit

Religion is a creation of man. Used as a guidebook. Therefor the morals themselves are a creation of man. Religion is just cope for our own mortality, but you don't need it to have morals.

[-]

BanzaiKen@reddit

catastrophic conclusion due to Deists

The American democracy and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

There's a difference between being a secular government and an atheist government. An atheist government like the one formed after the French Revolution, or the Soviet Union never last more than a hundred years before collapsing. A secular government puts no stock one way or the other in establishing a national religion.

[-]

BanzaiKen@reddit

The French Revolution was modeled after the American Revolution in which most of the American major players were English Deists. Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine even Washington later. They were also backed up by additional Deists like Pierre Simitierre who created the Great Seals, slogans as well as founding the concept of an American History Museum so he could block references to religion.

Atheism in the French Revolution was shortlived. Herbert was killed by Robespierre who assumed complete control and re-established the idea of a God which even got him killed for it so I dont know what you are getting at. You can go to the National Archives right now and see the first Jefferson Bible Jefferson made as a gift to Bishop James Madison that was supposed to be used to convert Indian tribes. He took a razor to twenty Bibles or so and cut out all of the references to God, miracles or divinity. Deists are Christian, they just rabidly hate churches.

The US is secularish (if you can call the Jefferson Bible and Bishop Madison's policies secular) thanks to Deists not in spite and it was the same for France after Robespierre assumed control. James Madison and Jefferson if anything were afraid of his cousin Bishop James Madison who had militarized his flock into a successful Minuteman crusader army and converted Washington and it's only due to his laid back personality there wasn't more friction.

[-]

Dramatic_Explosion@reddit

Yeah because some clowns can't self regulate and need the threat of a red guy with a pointy goatee poking them with a pitchfork forever to not rape people.

It's the ones who say "without religion why wouldn't you just rape and murder?" Yeah, without the threat of hell those people would do that shit. We need them to believe in religion otherwise prisons would be full. They're basically cavemen.

[-]

cell689@reddit

You talk as if Religion isn't man made.

[-]

Mountainman_11@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

Ehem. The church was certainly targeted during the days of the terror and they did try to replace it with their own "enlightened" cult, which never took off due to most of france still beeing firmly catholic at the time. Only napoleon finally put a stop to deliberate anti-catholic policies in france.

[-]

Charbus@reddit

That’s stupid bro

Better example of an atheist society is N Korea or China read a book

[-]

LineRemote7950@reddit

Damn, you have an incredibly thin grasp of history if this is what you honestly think lmfao.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Show me an atheist government that has lasted longer than a century. Not a secular government, an atheist government.

[-]

Huge-Basket244@reddit

And the lack of this atheist government proves what exactly?

A church backed government has more control, and being a vocally atheist government seems unnecessarily polarizing for your population with no benefit.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Yes, I see you agree with me. You understand why it's a terrible idea.

[-]

varangian_guards@reddit

show me a government that used computers longer than a century, not the job computer, the electronic device.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

You're saying that when it hasn't been a century since computers as we know them have been invented.

There has been several centuries since the first atheist governments have existed, this isn't some recent idea that's a product of the 20th century, hence why the French Revolution is the example I love to use.

In order for your question to work you'd have to wait a few more decades and I'd be able to give you a list.

[-]

varangian_guards@reddit

for most of history in most of the world, Athiesm is very niche.

Revolutionary France wasn't Athiest, it was anti the church with political power. Robespierre was not an atheist, he argued against atheism.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

You're right, it is very niche because of the aforementioned collapse of societies that try to set up a government around it. Without a religion to keep collective morality in check it will take the founding generation and their children dying off or getting to old to have power before everything goes to shit. This is why I use 100 years as a metric for seeing how stable a government is. It shows that the core values that keep everything running are able to be passed on and the next generation won't just throw it away because there's no God and all morals are ever shifting.

Robespierre wasn't an atheist, he was a deist, which makes you technically correct except deism has the exact same issues as atheism. To a deist God created the universe but then he left to go buy cigarettes or whatever and the end result is still a cold, pointless universe where morality is subjective.

His deistic vision was subject to the exact same issues that atheism is subject to, so he ended up getting killed by more radical atheist revolutionaries because like all movements without an objective grasp on morality, the revolution began to purity spiral and devour itself with no means of pumping the brakes.

This is why I lump the two together. Deism and atheism are essentially the same in terms of the horrific effect they have on morality. You might be a good person (whatever that means from your perspective) and you might raise your children to be good, but when you're dead will your descendants have any reason to subscribe to your ideas of what makes someone a good person?

Extrapolate that to the scale of a society and you see why I say atheist governments don't last more than a century.

[-]

varangian_guards@reddit

name me like 5 examples of athiest societies that collapsed?

You're going to need to contend with Confusicsm as it's Athiest.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

All the governments listed have either collapsed or have reformed away from being purely atheistic.

I don't need to contend with Confusicsm at all for multiple reasons. As I said earlier the difference governments that have occupied China have constantly risen and fallen over and over again. When you read about different Chinese dynasties you should think of them more as brand new governments rather than continuations of the previous government. Just because they share a similar culture and have occupied the land for a long time doesn't make them the same government or else you could say the United States is over 400 years old since Europeans have been here for longer than that.

Secondly it's going to be very rare to find many examples of historical Chinese people that are purely Confucianist as it doesn't inherently contradict Buddhism or Taoism so many people have practiced all three without any sort of cognitive dissonance, and Taoists and Buddhists aren't atheistic, or at least Buddhists weren't atheistic until European colonialism tried to recontextualize its theology.

[-]

varangian_guards@reddit

So your argument revolves around a barely 100 year old nation and its puppets.

the non puppets or puppets without land neighbors are the outliers of course. these nations "collapsing" have nothing to do with Atheism and everything to do with the Soviet Union's economic instability and poor leadership leading to the loss of the tent pole that held the tent they lived in.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

The tent pole as you put it is entirely my point. Religion is the tent pole for most societies that hold them up and it can exist for many generations. Atheistic societies only have living people as their tentpole. When that person is dead and there's no religion saying they've become a god or whatever and they're still watching over us then there's no reason a new generation to whom the founder of the government is just a statue or person in a history book should have their vision of the nation maintained, leading to collapse as the morality of the masses scatter in many different directions.

You also mention outliers, but outliers are only a thing in big sets of data when there are numerical values that go way beyond the average. You don't get to disregard other examples as outliers in this scenario.

[-]

varangian_guards@reddit

You're missing the point that atheism has nothing to do with the problems that the Soviet Union had. and all the other nations were in its trade sphere.

It was either a struggle without the Economic bloc like Cuba or joining the democratic liberal bloc. Atheism wasn't even key to Communism as the reformed states like Cuba have made obvious to us.

If your argument is these nations fell/reformed because of Atheism, I argue Rome fell because it became Christian.

your entire argument would also suggest secular nations would be just as vulnerable to failure.

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

It's a bit disingenuous to call Cuba a communist state anymore. In 2019 when they reformed their economy (the same time they became secular) their new constitution has allowed for private property rights and freer markets. I think we'll see them improving now that they're moving away from what they used to be.

Furthermore, a nation having a secular government isn't the same as a nation having an atheist government. In the US for example most congressmen identify as Christian as well as the president. Even if it's just for show they still have some sort of anchor in which to base their morality. The religion of a secular government is just whatever religion is popular in that society, not that there is no religion at all.

If you're correct in a few more years China will be the sole country that has remained atheist and you'll finally have an example to use as an atheist government that hasn't collapsed under its own flimsy sense of ethics.

[-]

TheRealist99@reddit

Holy regard I haven’t seen such levels of brainlet yet

[-]

realdevilsadvocate@reddit

You think atheism is related to the French Revolution. you are literally a regard

[-]

zekeybomb@reddit

Whyd ypu pick the french revolution of all things when you couldve pointed to soviet era communist countries that were staunchly athiest

[-]

endlessnamelesskat@reddit

Mainly because people see atheism as a product of modernity. They think they live in a period of new and profound enlightenment so they can set themselves apart from the ignorance of the past and that their views are more correct.

Pointing out how such a philosophy has been failing for centuries and isn't anything new and is just one of many viewpoints that have existed for centuries tears that line of thinking down.

[-]

Benjen0@reddit

Well, it's probably bullshit, but using the French revolution as a counter-exemple is unfortunate.

Native French people birthrate started stagnating around 1830-40 if I recall correctly and we have been massively relying on immigration since then to bolster the numbers (some French generals and important political figures as soon as the 1900s had Italian names).

So, all in all, the French revolution would actually go Anon's way.

[-]

orthopod@reddit

Chinese doubled under Mao, despitr him being one of the biggest mass murders.

Stayed roughly the same under Stalin , which might be confirmation, since the population was decimated after WW2, and usually they jump up after something like that

Pol Pot had very low rates.

Hitler, despite being raised Catholic, was vehemently about religion, and tried to make the State, the new "religion". He wasn't around long enough to see.

The atheist dictators really do know how to rack up a body count.

[-]

bethemanwithaplan@reddit

"atheist dictators"

Yeah that was the platform they ran on, yep. Being atheist. Then everyone clapped.

[-]

That_NotME_Guy@reddit

Might not have been, the driving ideology definitely did have that aspect. Marx famously said "religion is the opiate of the masses"

[-]

orthopod@reddit

Stalin did exactly that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)#:~:text=Stalin%20called%20%22to%20bring%20to,disappear%20from%20the%20Soviet%20Union.

Khmer Rouge did something along those lines.

Mao founded the PRC, which was based on Marxist-Lenin principals, . Again remember who declared religion is the opiate of the masses.. it was definitely established that communists were anti religion.

So while it wasn't the only platform, it certainly was an integral part of the running platform.

[-]

Lauris024@reddit

It's marxist ideology, which stalin based his views on, not an atheist ideology. Stalin, who was raised religios, banned it for 2 reasons - to prevent comfort/coping mechanism for the poor and force them to do something with their lives (what a great leader), and 2 - because churches were seen as a power within the union, and that threatens the union. Behind closed doors, Stalin was reported to use religious phrases like "God would never forgive us if we allowed nazis to take Russia", so historians have never made a clear definition of his religious stance, but definitely not a 100% atheist.

[-]

orthopod@reddit

By all accounts, Stalin was an anti-theist.

Initially started in a seminary school, he was expelled and adopted the anti religion aspect of communism then. He shuttered all the churches, and killed/imprisoned thousands of priests.

https://www.history.com/news/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr

[-]

Lauris024@reddit

Me hating on men doesn't make me a woman. Things tend to be more complicated than that.

[-]

Scaredsparrow@reddit

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn5700

[-]

PuckisPuck@reddit

That's what happen with the French Revolution.

They literally made a secular state religion to replace the church called the Cult of Reason.

The revolution is lead by literally dysgenics like Danton and Paul-Jean, two ugly ass individual spiritually and physically. It release individuals like the Marquis de Sade responsible for alot of the most degenerate literatures.

It turn France, one of the most populated and fertile countries in the west into a country that is in a constant demographic crisis.

And of course the atheist regime gets replaced by a dictatorship that sanctions religion.

Same shit happen in the Soviet Union too. The country was demographically being destroy when Lenin legalized homosexuality. Stalin banned it unsurprisingly and restore some aspects of the orthodox church to reinstate some moral order.

[-]

MrNeverSatisfied@reddit

They lost the war against Britain. Then they funded the Brits during the American civil war and the Brits lost. The revolution then happened because people and the economy were destitute.

[-]

Mountainman_11@reddit

They funded the american during the revolution. One of the main reasons the revolution succeeded, not that americans ever showed themselfes gratefull for it.

[-]

Muxer59@reddit

Just find your local atheist Democrat and ask them their gender.

[-]

Kanye_Is_Underrated@reddit

this, first of all.

second, the modern world is basically atheist with religion serving only as tourist attractions and a scam industry against the dumbest people. and its working fine.

[-]

Can-Abyss@reddit

Absolutely reddited take. Something like 4/5ths of the world’s population is religious in some form.

[-]

Kanye_Is_Underrated@reddit

a scam industry against the dumbest people

did you not read? and nobody cares what 4 billion jeets and changs believe

[-]

AdemsanArifi@reddit

Let's not let marginal facts get in the way if such a feel good narrative.

[-]

neriad200@reddit

ahh snesible sarcasm.. I chuckled sensibly

[-]

elphamale@reddit

Not only French revolution but also every Communism wannabes did just what that anon said. But yeah, birthrates and collapse of society were not because of atheism but because idiots who run atheistic societies were idiots.

[-]

Eevee136@reddit

not because of atheism but because idiots who run atheistic societies were idiots

This could be said about literally anything ever

[-]

Frigorific@reddit

Are you telling me that the Chinese population collapsed under Mao?

[-]

Paddy32@reddit

It's happening in Japan and South Korea, but not because of Atheism

[-]

Gwynnbeidd@reddit

Myea. The Soviet Union was a thing that definitely did not happen.

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

Both have numerous inconsistencies with the greentext.

[-]

PAID-BY-YANG-GANG@reddit

well, the soviet atheist experiment failed in the 40s after they realized that faith is a very good motivator to send people off to their deaths

[-]

nwbell@reddit

And these two examples happened relatively recently. Are there examples that date back further than say.. the 20th century? The green text makes it seem like there's a revolving door of crusaders throughout history

[-]

serious_sarcasm@reddit

Obviously atheism also caused the Bronze Age Collapse.

[-]

NCC_1701E@reddit

The Soviet Union

Present day Russia is also in a state of rising degeneracy, societal collapse and plummeting birth rates. Something tells me atheism isn't to blame here.

[-]

2peg2city@reddit

Right because Russia is so atheist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

[-]

Comrade_Commissar_@reddit

That’s literally his point

[-]

DemonidroiD0666@reddit

People didn't choose to be atheist with the Soviet Union people couldn't choose to be shit. It's fuckin amazes me every time someone compares that to atheists now. Atheists don't run shit but their own lives, the ones still crying over what other people believe are the sadass religious aficionados.

[-]

The_Didlyest@reddit

The Soviet Union forced monasteries to shut down. They sent priests, brothers, sisters to the gulag.

[-]

DemonidroiD0666@reddit

That's the main important group that matters, the religious ones.

[-]

Thranduill-Sylvara@reddit

This is the Soviet Union, you’d have an easier time listing everyone not sent to the Gulag.

[-]

The_Didlyest@reddit

Lol you're right. They even sent their best rocket scientist to the gulag.

[-]

Chreed96@reddit

And China, North Korea...

[-]

UpboatOrNoBoat@reddit

Neither of those are relevant at all to the greentext lmfao

[-]

moistmeter69@reddit

The French revolution and the former Soviet states come to mind as an example

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

Both have major, major differences to the greentext.

Having more atheist people than you had previously and then the country eventually collapsing for some reason is not the same thing as everyone turning atheist and the country collapsing because of that fact

[-]

moistmeter69@reddit

Well the Soviet Union collapsed because they went commie, and being a commie goes hand and hand with being atheist.

The French Revolution absolutely resulted in social decay that led to the restoration of the monarchy, you’re insane if you deny that.

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

I'm an atheist, and I'm not a communist. Millions of others think the same. I'm confident that most atheists are not communists, by a wide margin.

The French Revolution ended because France was at war with most of Europe for 15 years, and even a military genius like Napoleon couldn't make that a winnable battle. You can say that France was ultimately at war so much because the rest of Europe found their Revolutionary ideals unacceptable, but there was certainly more to it than "because atheism". Especially since as time went on, Revolutionary France moved more and more towards a "Freedom of Religion" based stance, where each person could believe what they wanted as long as they didn't impose it on others. The early ridiculousness with the Reign of Terror, where dechristianisation was actually a major policy aim, died off long before the French Revolution as a whole ended.

[-]

moistmeter69@reddit

Not all atheists are communists, but atheism is an inseperable part of communism. You can’t have communism without atheism.

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

That doesn't link atheism to the end of civilizations. It just proves atheism can't avert the end of a civilization, which I don't think anyone would have denied anyway.

[-]

Dsingis@reddit

There have been several states in which state-atheism was the state "religion" for lack of a better term. They all either died and failed, or are such totalitarian hellholes, that nobody would want to live there given the chance to live somewhere else. The birthrate thing is not true, but the thing about people (society in general) becoming "pieces of shit" like the post put it, that is true.

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

It's happening right now in the States. Minus the crusade.

[-]

PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit

everyone becomes atheist

look around

400,000 churches

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

look around

400k churches

look at statistics

30% of Americans are atheist

since the 70s, % of religious Americans drops from 90% to 60%

issatrend.jpg

[-]

cell689@reddit

Hate to be that guy, but correlation does not imply causation.

[-]

Liebermode@reddit

look inside empty

[-]

mooimafish33@reddit

Lmao maybe don't make them so fucking weird and lame and people might show up. Nobody wants to listen to some old fuck yap while your kids get molested by the youth pastor anymore.

[-]

Nounboundfreedom@reddit

LOL

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

<3

[-]

lostendlost@reddit

The only thing I can think of is the Christero Revolution is Mexico because the president who was an atheist outlawed religion and forced everybody to pledge allegiance to him. The christeros won in the end but the only people who supported the president were the people already in power because they stood to gain from his regime.

[-]

brinclj@reddit

Average human mind needs a belief system to operate, something stable that can withstand disasters of all kinds not only in personal but also societal scale. So called atheists are no better from the religious, they just switched jesus for an internet persona or some pop pseudo scientist. The vast majority of population is simply too dumb to function without someone else telling them what to believe - they literally choose to be followers.

[-]

Sleep-more-dude@reddit

Not me, i'm a butterfly dreaming of being a man.

[-]

DemonidroiD0666@reddit

Speak for yourself.

[-]

brinclj@reddit

"i am not like the other girls"

yes you are

[-]

DemonidroiD0666@reddit

Haha do it again.

[-]

ZodiAddict@reddit

Yeah dude, you’re the one island out there

[-]

mooimafish33@reddit

My life is identical to 80% of American Christians, except I don't go to church on Easter and Christmas.

[-]

GothmogTheOrc@reddit

Telling on yourself here, mate

[-]

leastemployableman@reddit

It's not that atheism is bad it's that there are a lot of people who behave like animals if there isn't "Eternal Damnation" for misbehaving. Overcoming nihilism after becoming atheist is the true litmus test. If someone needs God to prevent themselves from harming other people, then they are no better than an animal.

[-]

Macslionheart@reddit

Where are these massive groups of atheist people in history who behave like animals?

[-]

Sleep-more-dude@reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Here is a fun one, Johnstown, jim Jones.

[-]

Ninjachibi117@reddit

...the cult leader?

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

And open Marxist, yes . And as the typical lefty pretended to be a different race in order to get some perks.

[-]

Ninjachibi117@reddit

Do you understand the inherent irony in describing a cult as atheist?

[-]

theBrineySeaMan@reddit

TBF, he started with Christianity as his launching point.

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Yes, as he said, a Marxist Christian . When karl marx was an atheist who entire ideology was atheism .

[-]

Ok-Night-8519@reddit

reddit.com

[-]

TH3_F4N4T1C@reddit

The containment zone

[-]

meatenjoyer618@reddit

Pretty much where they're all at to be honest

[-]

chrill2142@reddit

I don't think that was his argument at all. Just that it's only religious people that think that we need GOD or the bible to tell us what and what not to do, whereas atheists and secularist function just fine without a presence of god or bible. Atheists are running around killing and raping as much as they want to, which is not a all.

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

Pretty much every communist revolution involves purging teachers, scholars, clergy, intellectuals, people with opposing values.

[-]

Macslionheart@reddit

Right and I would argue that isn’t exclusive to atheists considering almost any of the more numerous religious take overs do the exact same thing hence why I asked the original commenter to kinda point out where the distinction is

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

Right and I would argue that isn’t exclusive to atheists considering almost any of the more numerous religious take overs do the exact same thing hence why I asked the original commenter to kinda point out where the distinction is

Sure but I was replying to your post about massive group of atheists acting like wild animals.

You can just apply this behavior to a group of human who think their tribalistic ideology is morally superior to others. It really doesn’t have to be about religion vs non-religion

[-]

csharpminor_fanclub@reddit

why did you even quote the whole comment

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

Why not

[-]

csharpminor_fanclub@reddit

the same reason you didn't quote my whole comment

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

Which comment? The one before your reply to mine?

Because I didn’t want to

[-]

Macslionheart@reddit

Yeah I agree with you like I said I’m just trying to point out to the guy that there’s no indicator that once you get rid of religion people just start committing mass murder.

[-]

cry_w@reddit

I think this judgement is being leveled at people who aren't atheist based on how they would behave without feeling the possibility of divine judgement.

[-]

ojojojson@reddit

Yes it scares me that religious people ask why without faith, people would not just go around raping and killing anyone they want, unknowingly implying that the threat of eternal damnation is the only thing holding those people back from doing those things.

[-]

meatenjoyer618@reddit

overcoming nihilism after becoming atheist bla bla bla

Do you think every new atheist thinks "if I have no God I have nothing to look forward to"?

[-]

leastemployableman@reddit

No, but some people do. A good number of people choose to act moral and righteous because religion tells them to do it rather than out of internal desire to do good. Fear of hell and the promise of an afterlife has been used as a tool to keep things civil since religion came to be.

[-]

theBrineySeaMan@reddit

If religion is the only way to maintain order then why have people done bad stuff since time eternal? They do it in the name of god a lot too. Seems like a flawed logic to think that Religion has any significant influence in keeping people from doing bad since it hasn't done a good job of it.

[-]

meatenjoyer618@reddit

Nothing I disagree with there. It's just the initial emphasis on the "nihilism challenge" that I find a little saturated. Many atheists choose to become so because they'd rather devote their lives to the exploration of questions and answers. Over time I've grown to believe some people are born with a natural and authentic interest in the arts and sciences of life — people who tend to become atheists.

[-]

The_Wonder_Bread@reddit

I would be the majority of modern atheist "conversions" happen simply because people were mad at their parents for waking them up early on Sundays. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the number of people who reached atheism as a result of the "I seek the answers to the cosmos. I derive my purpose from answering the unanswered questions. I have tested the hypothesis of religion and found it lacking" mentality is probably in the single-digit percentages of the modern atheist population.

Most people don't think very hard to begin with.

[-]

philmarcracken@reddit

there are a lot of people who behave like animals if there isn't "Eternal Damnation" for misbehaving

This isn't a moral victory for those people; they were unstable before introduction to theism. They're now just an animal on a leash.

[-]

terrible_misfortune@reddit

when did 4ch start becoming more on the religious side?

[-]

lucifersam01@reddit

Such as ?

[-]

InquisitorMeow@reddit

Because people become uneducated and uneducated poor people have children.

[-]

ErectPikachu@reddit

The lower half of this comment section is a cesspool

[-]

Nightblade20@reddit

Am I the only one confused about what BioShock's Rapture has to do with all that? As far as I know from playing the first game, the city just collapsed and stayed collapsed. Correct me if I'm wrong tho

[-]

Stigles@reddit

Bioshocks are bad games, the themes are idiot level

[-]

Ok-Champion1999@reddit

When did all this happen?

[-]

1tiredman@reddit

If Kamala wins, this will happen

[-]

SpaceCaseSixtyTen@reddit

i hope trump wins so i can see more funny memes

[-]

Rumplestiltsskins@reddit

According to trump if Kamala wins the world is going to end so sorry if I thinks that's stupid fear mongering

[-]

ReallyDumbRedditor@reddit

If Kamala wins, everyone becomes Trans. Then everyone ropes because they are Trans. Thus, the end of the world.

[-]

nullv@reddit

Who wouldn't want to shoot bees out of their arm?

[-]

BringBackSoule@reddit

and repopulate the planet with the objectively best insect? Yes sir.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Immatt55@reddit

I don't know if an elderly black woman is the champion to atheism you think she is.

[-]

AdemsanArifi@reddit

With enough schizophrenia, everywhere, all the time

[-]

KneeDeepInTheDead@reddit

in the collective mind of idiots

[-]

PJ7@reddit

Pretty rich using the word crusade for atheists 'attacking' religious people.

Could've picked a better world there. We all know who really does the crusading.

Also, is 4chan religious now? Teh fuck?

[-]

hitops@reddit

Lmao source???

[-]

downtowngirlvibes@reddit

History.

[-]

IxnayOnTheXJ@reddit

Sure maybe if you can’t read

[-]

Shnazzyone@reddit

Guessing OP is a pedophile. Can we talk about how religion is directly tied to the creation of slavery, child molestation, opposition to science, the KKK, naziism, putin. Seems like all the most athiest countries are also the most stable and happy. Not sure what world op is looking at.

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Dude, you're dumb. Intellectuals created racism under the idea of evolution, especially things like the white man burden. Hitler was inspired by eugenics in America to go full Aryan supremacist. Kkk was created by rich and influential democrats to keep black people down, and the part you bring up is when the Confederate leadership created their own Bible to justify slavery in South America. Slavery really . Other than Christian, tell me one group that was anti slavery throughout the years. Really, child molestation you are a slop consuming idiot. So, there were no pedophiles around the world before religion? Dude, why is it that people like you fear reality? The most atheist place in the world, other than China, which is a shit hole morality and financially if you don't come from the red blood line or sell your sold. They are all unhappy,heavily medicated,lack purpose, and have no communities are unable to have lasting relationships.

[-]

Shnazzyone@reddit

Ever hear the term pseudo intellectual?

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Have you ever heard the term dennis Krueger ?

[-]

YourOverlords@reddit

Collapse happens when you have inequity in wealth to a high degree and add to the mix corrupt, weak, self serving "leaders" and voila! Collapse. Every. Damned. Time.

[-]

Bossgalka@reddit

This was made by a religious person. Religious people truly can't fathom anyone having a shred of decency or humanity without the threat of eternal damnation or being reincarnated as a bug.

I agree that people used to really suck, they still do, but they used to, too, and religion was a great way to quell the dumb ones and keep order. That's probably still true today to some degree, but a lot of people aren't religious anymore and get by in society all the same as the ones that are. I've met my share of moral atheists (even obnoxiously so) and I've met my share of cheating, lying, violent religious people. People are people and will act like shit on average, whether they have religion or not.

[-]

MP-Lily@reddit

Not all religions have eternal damnation or ranked reincarnations either.

[-]

ojojojson@reddit

Says anon while living in a rich secular state.

[-]

Noamias@reddit

I am so confused by posts like these that assume that without religion people are inclined to do bad deeds, or that religion always prevents bad behavior

[-]

downtowngirlvibes@reddit

It’s not about bad deeds in general, it’s about degeneracy.

[-]

Choppie01@reddit

I mean im quite satisfied in Czechia, we still toppin the atheism board

[-]

downtowngirlvibes@reddit

Your women are whores.

[-]

creepjax@reddit

When has this ever happened?

[-]

Greeny3x3x3@reddit

This entire thread is a disaster of causation and correlation

[-]

No_Medium3333@reddit

Humans notice patterns

[-]

cry_w@reddit

Even where they don't meaningfully exist, yes.

[-]

downtowngirlvibes@reddit

They usually do exist.

[-]

Mangeytwat@reddit

I'm going to have to point you to every theocratic society and how they end up and then turn around and point you to the social democracies in europe where religion is a niche hobby.

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

Thank God there is no rise of white people converting to Islam because of the obvious failures of liberalism and the boner hatred against religion (oddly only Christianity). Can you say that if you are breed out and exterminated like muslim tend to do.

[-]

SlyguyguyslY@reddit

This hasn't happened. I will say that people get nihilistic and hedonistic because they only became atheists to enable their own negative behaviors. This is even more ironic because people will often use religion for the exact same thing.

[-]

Free-Design-8329@reddit

The issue with atheism is that the current atheists on the left are blind believers of “science” which is all well and good for some things like evolution but we all see how stupid the ones on the left are for believing in baskin robbins 31 genders. Or watching them blindly obey the government in regards to covid (2 more weeks by the way).

The thing with “science” isn’t really science, it’s just a follow the masses/appeal to authority argument just like religion is. No one actually reproduces the experiments or studies these things themselves, they just listen to other people who tell them “this is what happened”. Just like religion. You’ve even got the low IQ equivalent of religious puritans like the liberal left who vehemently attack people and start riots. Even attempted multiple assassinations on a presidential candidate. 500 years ago, they’d be burning people at the stake in the Spanish Inquisition. They claim to follow science but most of their science is just listening to scientists/authority figures/academia manipulate studies/advice to push a narrative. And they blindly listen because they assume that smarter people are correct

[-]

Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit

So we are going to act like eugenics and marxism,socialism,communism, and the creation of racism and the 100s of millions of dead under the guise of the scientific utopian model is not a thing. How about we address the elephant in the room that you clearly don't understand Christianity other than the buzzword like media you consume.

[-]

sheleelove@reddit

Atheism is for idiots

[-]

Lauris024@reddit

This reads like a bible. Delusional people talking about stories that never happened.

[-]

RCBroeker@reddit

Nature abhors a vacuum

[-]

samfishertags@reddit

so does my dog

[-]

philmarcracken@reddit

you named your dog Vacuum?

[-]

LibertyPrimeDeadOn@reddit

then why is the vast, vast, vast majority of the universe composed of vacuum?

[-]

criticalkid2@reddit

Not enough nature to abhor it, I suppose.

[-]

ZodiAddict@reddit

Because it’s not

[-]

RCBroeker@reddit

From LiveScience:

By definition, a vacuum is devoid of matter. Space is almost an absolute vacuum, not because of suction but because it's nearly empty.

The fact that matter even exists to fill the mostly empty universe if proof of the statement.

[-]

Toxic_Behavior_God@reddit

Nuh uh

[-]

RCBroeker@reddit

k

[-]

Toxic_Behavior_God@reddit

Nuh uh

[-]

lurker_archon@reddit

Yes, and Nature hates it.

How do I know? I'm Nature.

[-]

Nelstech@reddit

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[-]

TH3_F4N4T1C@reddit

It’s all pendulum bullshit

[-]

Sionliar@reddit

When has this ever happened lol

[-]

UKnowImRightKid@reddit

Christianity set a list of rules for a better society

Atheists claim that the promise of a reward (heaven) or a punishment (hell) is childish because moral values and ethics comes or must come from within a person and not from a "Sky wizard daddy" (their words)

Fast forward to 2024, atheism is very popular among people ages from 13 to 40 years old , celebrities presume as freethinking atheists is the norm, celebrities set the values for the plebeians in which moral ethics are seen as good and which not, in society, in the past believing in GOD was a must, now is the contrary, religious people is seen as stupid retrograde "right winger extremist" because for the new society every christian is like a westboro church christian, there is no spectrum , so it is safe to assume we are now a society driven by the new values set by an atheist society

Preliminary results? Pregnant "men" and PDF file rings all over the elite circles

Christian Chads that understand God's message understand that after death is just communion, you go back to the GOD which is ALL, then you come back eternally as different forms of energy, Hell and Heaven are places ON EARTH and you ascend to Heaven or descend to Hell here in this life based in your decisions, having no moral compass is a sure way to hell.

If Atheists really want to make a point about atheism , you need to do better , Christianfags marry have babies and dress boring while having vanilla sex, but a lot better than be a basement dweller with a pokemon shirt living with his parents beating his meat 5 times a day and saying that he now she identifies as a xer/xer while moderating a sub on reddit all high on his anxiety meds while explaining how religion is bad.

[-]

UnplacatablePlate@reddit

Half of Christf*gs follow an organization that raped children and covered it up. Christf*gs also created a literal pedo sex cult, and did a million other fucked up things I can't be bothered to mention, so I'd recommend you stop throwing stones from your glass house.

[-]

UKnowImRightKid@reddit

You mean catholics? yeah and ? im not talking about religious institutions, half of the scientists are sold to big pharma , that does not changes the concept and values of "Science" that only affirms humans are still humans and do wrong things when they conspire and have power

You need to learn the difference between the map and the territory, also you are committing a logical fallacy, if Satan tells you that if you jump from a 12 story building you gonna die it doesn't make it a lie just because he is a known liar , use your head, the message may be true or not depending on its won , not on the messenger.

Inb4: "But religiooonn baad mmkay!!"

People is bad and stupid and if you let them create their own moral compass they just end up on the floor ass up , repent of your ways, get a bath , get a job and get yourself a family

[-]

UnplacatablePlate@reddit

You mean catholics? yeah and ? im not talking about religious institutions, half of the scientists are sold to big pharma , that does not changes the concept and values of "Science" that only affirms humans are still humans and do wrong things when they conspire and have power

"Science" isn't a belief, at least not in the way Christianity is; you can be scientist who doesn't believe in "the values of Science" and you can believe in "the values of Science" without being a scientist. You can't believe in Christianity without being a Christian and vice versa.

>You need to learn the difference between the map and the territory, also you are committing a logical fallacy, if Satan tells you that if you jump from a 12 story building you gonna die it doesn't make it a lie just because he is a known liar , use your head, the message may be true or not depending on its won , not on the messenger.

You're moving the goal post you said individuals needed Christianity to be good people now you're saying ignore whether or not Christianity actually makes good people and instead focus on whether it's message is good. Also if a message comes from pedophiles that's a pretty good reason to be suspicious of their message.

>People is bad and stupid and if you let them create their own moral compass

You mean like that time in the roman empire where a Jewish preacher ended creating a new moral compass and then people kept interpreting what he said to fit their own moral compasses? If Christianity actually gave people a solid moral compass there wouldn't have been so much disagreement on it, Christianity wouldn't have been used to justify slavery or the oppression of women or massacring cities.

[-]

UKnowImRightKid@reddit

"Science" isn't a belief, at least not in the way Christianity is; you can be scientist who doesn't believe in "the values of Science" and you can believe in "the values of Science" without being a scientist. You can't believe in Christianity without being a Christian and vice versa.

"Science its a belief, you are mistaken resolutions and results from science with the concept of science which was a moral compass ethics and procedure which can also needs a belief system which a lot of scientists and amateur followers failed to follow thus corruption

You're moving the goal post you said individuals needed Christianity to be good people now you're saying ignore whether or not Christianity actually makes good people and instead focus on whether it's message is good. Also if a message comes from pedophiles that's a pretty good reason to be suspicious of their message.

Nobody is moving any goal posts i made the point that truths are unaltered by the messenger, and again you mix concepts maybe you are doing it out of malice or purposely idiot, if a PDF file says you need water to live its true , why he approached to you to say that its suspicious but you somehow gets confused with those interactions are you in the spectrum?

You mean like that time in the roman empire where a Jewish preacher ended creating a new moral compass and then people kept interpreting what he said to fit their own moral compasses? If Christianity actually gave people a solid moral compass there wouldn't have been so much disagreement on it; Christianity wouldn't have been used to justify slavery or the oppression of women or massacring cities.

No i mean when political power got into it like atheism got in to communism which has nothing to do with the original message and compass which made many people , not you and it seems not your parents, live peaceful fulfilling lives instead of your generation that wants to cuts their dicks and tits to feel like they belong

[-]

UnplacatablePlate@reddit

"Science its a belief, you are mistaken resolutions and results from science with the concept of science which was a moral compass ethics and procedure which can also needs a belief system which a lot of scientists and amateur followers failed to follow thus corruption

I can barely understand this so I'm just not going to respond since I don't have clear grasp of what you saying.

Nobody is moving any goal posts i made the point that truths are unaltered by the messenger, and again you mix concepts maybe you are doing it out of malice or purposely idiot, if a PDF file says you need water to live its true , why he approached to you to say that its suspicious but you somehow gets confused with those interactions are you in the spectrum?

You made the point about how Atheism leads to worse societal outcomes than Christianity and now you switched to talking about whether or not Christianity's message is good or not; that's textbook moving goal posts. And I know I need water to live so it doesn't matter what the pedophile says, if however a pedophile recommends I take my child to a particular park I am going to be suspicious. The point being that while a message might be true regardless of who says it, certain groups of people are going to have ulterior motives and so their messages deserve extra care/examination.

No i mean when political power got into it like atheism got in to communism which has nothing to do with the original message and compass which made many people , not you and it seems not your parents, live peaceful fulfilling lives instead of your generation that wants to cuts their dicks and tits to feel like they belong

So if Christianity and the morals Atheists have can both be so easily corrupted why is Christianity better?

[-]

Ok-Night-8519@reddit

this comment is for real responding to an imaginary post

[-]

Hegeric@reddit

Christian Chads understand that if they rope enough they might eventually get a good spawn. If you're born third worlder or autistic, just try again.

[-]

NutsackAnnihilator@reddit

Least insane christcuck

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

christian

chad

Pick one

[-]

UKnowImRightKid@reddit

1 Timothy 2:12 up your ass biaatch

[-]

JasminTheManSlayer@reddit

Using a biblical verse to try to silence a woman after she dabbed on you and your religion.

Woman: 1

Christian Cuck: 0

[-]

UKnowImRightKid@reddit

Refer to the biblical verse again

[-]

Huge-Basket244@reddit

Anon needs to take his meds before history class, not after.

[-]

DevilGuy@reddit

So this is some new kind of brainrot right?

[-]

Legoking@reddit

Gigachads create gigatimes

[-]

Afoolfortheeons@reddit

I was on that path, but then I started my own cult, and I'm well on the path of finding the woman who will give birth to my first wife.

[-]

ElezerHan@reddit

Estonia is mostly atheist. They are doing fine

[-]

BrazilianEstophile@reddit (OP)

N-NO.... THIS CAN'T BE TRUE.....

[-]

Snuke2001@reddit

Replace religion with "different beliefs" and you can apply this to all of history

[-]

AsianEiji@reddit

stop using the same religion every time.

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

Because cultural evolution exists, and dysgenic ideas are selected out of the culture just like dysgenic genes are selected out of the genome.

[-]

applepumper@reddit

I believe it’s because religion gives a foundation and structure to NPCs. Without that they have to find their own in a godless world. We already know how morally hypocritical some of them are with religion in place. Without it those same people take it too far trying to find meaning in a meaningless world

[-]

acbagel@reddit

This pattern is basically all of world history, though at times the religion of atheism has been substituted for just other religions...

[-]

killahtomato@reddit

Warhammer

[-]

ErwinRommelEz@reddit

Mate the Emperor is totally not a god, the aura is just a coincidence

[-]

Waly98@reddit

Anon never been outside

[-]

Nutaholic@reddit

Less so everyone becomes degenerate and more so that atheist regimes are usually extremely repressive and violent.

[-]

physsijim@reddit

Ah, the Circle of Religious Life.

[-]

TargetedDoomer@reddit

Most atheists say they need a world without religion, yet they only provide incoherent drivel when asked how they discern what’s good & bad

In reality, they only follow the dominant trend of society like sheep — which currently happens to be a subjective harm principle that inconsistently hinges on consent

They’ll allow you to sodomise an unrelated man — provided there is consent — but not your brother.

Why’s that? Because incest is bad. Why is it bad? It just is. But, even if they bite the bullet and allow this perverse action, fundamental questions remain: what constitutes harm? Why is it bad? Do we have the totality of facts to be able to measure it for any given act? Why does consent matter?

[-]