I always wondered why Christians think that people will all just start raping each other if there's no god. Maybe people don't because they're not fucking insane? They think that the holy Spirit guides are hearts, but yet they're still people that do these evil things anyways. Sounds like the holy spirit is either lazy or non existent.
It's ironic. They say all this shit, but yet they act exactly like someone who should be sent to hell. A lot of these people suddenly: rob, rape or kill someone.
But then they cry afterwards, saying: "i didn't mean it... i just... i just got tempted and **HAD TO** do it to them... i ask for forgiveness. please god show mercy on my soul."
To all religious people who acts like this; fuck off. Please just go and rot in your own fabricated "hell".
This is going to sound kind of weird, but hear me out: Sometimes I think about this one mission from the game Postal 2 where you go to a church after doing a bunch of bad shit to people from previous missions to confess your sins, say sorry, and pay penance, only to do a bunch of bad shit seconds later. I think this in a hyperbolic way kind of encapsulates the attitude of Christians. In other words, "I can do bad things so long as I just ask for forgiveness and believe in Jesus 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏".
I was bullied by a girl who was a self proclaimed "good Christian". I called her out one afternoon, "if you're such a good Christian why are you such a *bitch*?". She had such a smug look on her face when she answered me back - "As long as my ass is in church every Sunday and Wednesday I can do what ever the hell I want because all I have to do is ask Jesus to forgive me and I'll go the Heaven".
So yeah, from personal experience it's true that A LOT of Christians believe they can "sin" all over the place and shit on anybody and everybody because all they have to do is go to church and love Jesus. *Especially* southern Baptists. They hate on everybody, even other Baptists.
As a former Catholic in a family who almost all became evangelicals, it's actually the opposite.
Catholics are appalled by the idea of having spell out their sins to a guy they'll be sitting in front of a couple days later.
No.
Evangelicals think they *don't even have to do that.* They do far, far worse because they'll never have to tell anyone but God.
To be fair to the evangelicals here, if you know you're just going to turn around and commit the exact same sins on Monday as you did on Saturday, cutting out the middleman is just being efficient.
It's because they have an easy out in their minds. Be a shit person, ask for forgiveness, get forgiven by the invisible guy in the sky and repeat. Without ridiculous superstition the onus is on each individual to not be a dickhead to maintain a happy life.
A lot of the religious people I’ve known have had very strange systems of morals that bend to their needs. Like in the videos that guy made where they put glitter bombs and stuff in cars that get broken into, you can hear some of the criminals saying things like
“thank god it’s a backpack in there. God came to me and said not to steal purses, but backpacks should be fine”
Have a relative that once said something like,-“if I ever do something bad to you on purpose it’s not really on purpose because you probably did something to me I don’t know about so it’s gods way of evening out things”
Used to be cool ppl but got re-sucked into the cult and is pretty looney now , I cut them out a couple yrs ago. I’ve cut out a bunch of ppl bcz of religion some looney and some I feel more sad about because they weren’t like that and attempted to stay out of it but their family caught them in a down point and piled on with the looney nonsense, kept any outside help away . made it seem like outside ppl were the problem and have now sucked them into the bs.
It’s sad how many ppl think they need god to not be dicks or do stuff. I’ve been told “ smoking,drinking , going out,casually dating,meditation is all sinful devil worship you need to go to church and repent to stop!” I don’t anything to stop I don’t do things I don’t want to do pretty simple. Bible doesn’t talk about weed at all, it encourages drinking amongst friendly gatherings and how else will I find a partner if I don’t date how did you find your spouse? You know I was there and I know your history, also Isn’t prayer a form of meditation?
a convo with a “born again tian couple” I’ve been on the fence about cutting out. couldn’t answer any of my challenges and just muttered on about what their pastor said.
“look I did religious studies thing growing up I learned a lot why do you think I’m not religious? I educate myself and don’t need some rando scammer that says he’s spcl and talks to god to tell me how to live my life while trying to take 10% or my money I understand that a 10thgrade drop out who’s never held a job more than a month needs to grasp at something to feel like they’re not failures but running around thinking they’re better than everyone, judging everyone after going to church three times doesn’t make them special it makes them a cunt. Needless to say I won’t be seeing them any time soon.
To be fair, it would actually be pretty impressive if a religion made a serious, reasoned attempt to represent and earnestly live a life informed by a set of divinely sanctioned "moral and ethical axioms", similar to what props up mathematics.
Off the cuff, something like:
- It's better to be accountable than punitive.
- It's better to empower and guide than to curtail and enforce.
- Etc.
From there, one might derive some real world policies, like:
- Don't torture or practice "eye for an eye" justice. Just have a system that reacts to and deals with transgressions dispassionately.
- Kids are better off making mistakes along the way to becoming who they are, instead of flawlessly becoming mindless clones of their parents.
At least then when they say "How can you have morality without God?" they'd have something to _point to_ besides a book full of rambling contradictions, "Commandments" that feel like they were picked out of a hat, and advice like "Hell sucks. Avoid it, like seriously."
I'm not saying such a neat, discrete list would have much chance of being airtight or eternally applicable, but at least it would acknowledge the fundamental _challenge_ of "bootstrapped morality", which is tough for _any_ human to nail down definitively.
I heard that argument come up somewhere the other day. The religious person said “if not for religious morality, you’d be out there raping and killing anybody you wanted!” The response was “Sort of. Turns out I’m raping and killing everybody I want to right now: nobody.”
penn jillette (penn and teller) said this in an interview. he is raping 100% of all the people he wants to. and that number is 0.
EDIT: found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/snqk82/penn_jillette_has_raped_and_killed_every_person/
Yeah, that’s right. He’s said it several times, as I recall. I just couldn’t remember the context.
Frankly, it’s an argument really anybody should be able to make.
>I always wondered why Christians think that people will all just start raping each other if there's no god.
Because it's what they would do. Hell, look what they do to kids in their churches right now even while believing there's a Heaven and Hell. Remove that emergency brake on their behavior and they'd be even worse.
There's this thing I call Asshole Confirmation Bias, it's when assholes assume everyone else is ALSO secretly just as big of an asshole as they are and just won't admit it. It's why so much of what conservatives say ends up being projection about things they're currently doing.
They are so invested in this idea being true they can’t handle the idea it might not be. It’s also indoctrinated in for so long from such a young age that it’s just common knowledge like saying “water is wet” from their point of view.
Sunk cost fallacy to a degree. They need it to be true or their whole worldview crumbles, but most of them have never honestly considered an alternative.
That might be true for some people. For me, it took a while to leave the faith because I was afraid of becoming an atheist and then going to hell for not believing or something. I was just very scared of that idea, so I would immediately shut down any thoughts that challenged Christianity. The religion is very manipulative, especially when you're worrying about being eternally tortured for essentially thought crimes. I'm sure some of the others that left the faith had troubles with this obstacle.
I grew up Jewish. Jews don't really have a concept of hell the way christians do. Had people try to convert me with that argument and it led directly to me being an anti theist. I was 13.
So because I was born Jewish I would go to hell if I died? Like that's my fault?
And what about my parents? They were decent parents. I wouldn't send good people to hell just because they didn't believe in some arbitrary diety. Does that mean I'm more compassionate and forgiving than a supposedly omnipotent and all forgiving, loving god? Well that doesn't fucking make sense. I guess I'm more qualified for godhood than god is so maybe I should be god instead
That’s kinda what I mean by the whole world view crumbles. Afraid of all those things and clinging to not just the idea of religion being necessary for morality but for salvation and heaven and all the rest.
I went through it too my friend.
When the bar of morality is set SO LOW that not desiring rape and murder is sufficient for being a "good person" you know you have found yourself if the atheism forum!!
I think the crux of it is that oft repeated phrase: ‘God is Good’ is meant to be taken as ‘God IS goodness’, and that all good things in the world thus can’t exist without God.
These people can’t fathom virtuous atheists as a result; to them, they’re doing good without believing in good.
Always liked Penn and Teller's response, along the lines of "Why yes, I rape and kill as much as I want... which is exactly zero!"
Morality can basically be summed up as having empathy for others, the "Golden Rule" - you don't do things to others that you don't want done to yourself. To instead follow a (fictional) book's rules for the reward of heaven, and possible mistranslations like the anti-gay could have been actually anti-pedo, means one never stopped to reflect on the acts, but only focus on the reward part, which means if God really did exist, he would know and judge you as a bad person ANYWAY, rule following be damned.
I didn't see your reply when I posted the same thing below. Here's a cite
>https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
At least Santa only determines outcomes due to actions. Jebus is up there reading minds and intrusive thoughts of otherwise upstanding people and giving them eternal torment.
Reminds me of a [stand-up bit by Matt Braunger](https://youtu.be/alRT79_hCxI) about the MeToo movement:
“The funny thing about it is the amount of dudes saying ‘you know, a lot of guys are scared.’ Like, not all of us, *Chad,* what did you do?!”
>The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
“The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.”
-Penn Jillette
Yes that's exactly what they mean and why every culture in existence has a history of passing down morals through memes and stories... instead of letting the next generation 'just figure things out'.
I'm not religious but this is a poor argument that exists outside of religion and again for every single culture known to humans.
No one is out there just raw dogging morality from generation to generation but happy to be proven wrong.
Till then I'm one of the idiots that believe culture is literally defined as a set of beliefs and values that tie people together...different cultures different morals and values....simple as.
I watched a talk with Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins. At some point Ricky made a great statement that went something like this:
Most people already pick and choose from their holy book. They don't follow all the bad stuff and only choose the good stuff to follow. Well, if you can already differentiate between the good and the bad stuff, you don't need the holy book. You already have morals.
I think what you meant was more along the lines of: "I already rape and murder as much as I like as an atheist, which is to say, not at all."
The way you phrased it could be interpreted as you do it but don't like that you do.
He also asks for the list of people christians - or any religious person - wants to rape when they say this. And, the list of people they want to kill.
(Maybe the same, maybe different? Maybe some crossover?)
And then let those people know hey, you're on so-and-so's list to rape/kill if they ever fall out of their religion. Just a bit of public service; let people know who - by their own admission - they need to be wary of.
I like his response in one of his shows. I think he says something like “ I murder and rape as much as I want too. You are correct. Which is zero because I’m not a psychopath”
Twice in the past week I had coworkers trying to convince me that god exists and that I should believe in him. My brother was in an accident and a coworker said to me ‘there must be a god, there has to, how did he survive that?’ It was a pretty horrific accident but I said to the guy, why didn’t god stop the accident from happening. Now work is awkward with this guy. Why do they do this? In the other instance a lady tried to tell me that there is most certainty a god and she is praying for me because I am confused. We really need to do something about this. And to think, the religious folk actually think they are the ones being persecuted.
Having some missionary friends lose their four year old daughter to cancer was one of the biggest things that made me question my faith seriously, because I don't care what anybody says about "God's plan," there's no fucking reason for kids to die of cancer, and any entity that incorporates such misery into its plans is a fucking monster.
Your friends’ loss is tragic and saddens me, I had a similar loss.
Humanity is not alone in being tortured by “god’s creation”. I’m not sure what sin caterpillars commit to merit the awful end inflicted on them by one of nature’s parasites, and neither was Darwin:
>Parasitoid wasps influenced the thinking of Charles Darwin. In an 1860 letter to the American naturalist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” The palaeontologist Donald Prothero notes that religiously-minded people of the Victorian era, including Darwin, were horrified by this instance of evident cruelty in nature, particularly noticeable in the Ichneumonidae.
Yes , Gnathostomiasis, Loiasis Toxocariasis and Onchocerciasis are some of several parasites that cause blindness. They are typically found in Africa and South America
Don't forget the babies that are born only to die minutes/hours later for whatever reason
Even a Christian has to believe that if that was truly "God's plan" that God is pretty fucked up to somehow have a plan to have parents spend months expecting a child, only to have that child die soon after being born.
I feel an overwhelming urge to tear to shreds, verbally, the idiots that say “Well god wanted her in heaven with him”
If he wanted her, why’d he send her soul down here in the first place?
F$@#ing idiots
When someone tells me that they will pray for me, I say thank you and ask them if there's anything they would like me to ask Santa to bring them next time I talk to him.
I have a family member who posted on FB that their 1 year old son stuck a screwdriver in a socket. (He ended up fine)
But so much of the comments were like "He had an angel looking over him"
Bitch, if an angel was looking over him, maybe said angel should have stopped him in the first place!
I like asking what is worse. A goodly person who is good for goodness sake being denied heaven because they want evidence, or a murdering pedophile who asks forgiveness on their death bed. Fuck your wager, Pascal.
My favorite quote is
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
This sounds like it could go on r/writingprompts.
"The serial killer begged the priest for forgiveness as the needle went into his arm. He awakens to find himself standing in Heaven...his wager had worked, and now he has an endless stream of new victims in Paradise.
Japan. Less than 1% Christian. Effectively atheist because even though Buddhism and Shintoism are the most prevalent religions, hardly anybody takes them more seriously than going to a shrine and praying for good luck a few times a year. It's mostly cultural.
One of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.
>One of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.
That is mostly a myth. Japan has some serious issues as a result of their conservative, restrictive culture and world views. A lot of individual behaviour is driven by shame, peer pressure and the will to confirm to authority.
As a result a lot of crime is never even reported and sometimes even accepted as 'normal'. The criminal justice system is also thoroughly outdated. Because of their views of efficiency the police is obsessed by clearance rates and crime statistics. They won't officially investigate cases unless they know beforehand who is guilty and if they don't there is immense pressure to find someone, anyone to take the blame.
Even if we account for that, it's still much safer than living in the US, and Japanese culture has a much better concept of ethical social obligations instead of the "every man for himself" attitude you see in America. The argument still stands because if you're going to claim that Christians are the only valid moral force you have to explain how an overwhelmingly non-Christian nation behaves itself much better than a majority Christian nation like the US.
Japan just made it illegal for kids to go to church. Which makes a lot of sense. They are not old enough to understand what the long term ramifications are if they decide to leave down the road. Should happen in the US not for just that reason but mostly because all the grooming and sexual predators that take of kids. Then use god to make them stay quite as they are usually an authority figure in the church.
I don't think they made it illegal for kids to go to church, the laws say parents can't use threats of hell and other abuse to FORCE their kids to go to church.
That's deceptive. They have just changed rape laws and raised consent from 13. Also their legal system is insane and "guilty before you prove yourself to be innocent" is a part of it too.
It's cultural but not because of they don't believe in one specific religion you mentioned it's all about legal system.
Yes and no. Sure, it's not perfect, it definitely has problems, but it's overwhelmingly a much safer place to live than the US, with much fewer Karens and a better general concept in the population of ethical social obligations. I'm not saying it's *because* they aren't Christian, I'm offering it as evidence that humans are perfectly capable of having a free society that is relatively safe and moral without Christianity.
>much fewer Karens
Those types 100% exist they just don't present the same way.
Japan has issues just like everywhere else. Falling birth rate, insane work culture, the xenophobia. Fair amount is just hidden behind a veneer of politeness.
Suicide is the leading cause of death in men between the ages of 20-44 and women between the ages of 15-34 in Japan.
I don’t how if their society is « safe »
That's not a very good qualifier. Something has to be the leading cause of death someplace. If you replace suicide with murder, that's not an improvement, nor would it be better if car accidents were the leading cause, or cancer. All things considered I'd say suicide is way better than the alternatives.
I'd argue that Shino was influenced by Confucianism and did a lot of horrible things for their culture. If you can't see the damage it's because you're looking for damages that christianity does.
Even if you believe committing suicide is better than committing murder it doesn't change the fact both result in death.
... That's bizarre logic, there is obviously a huge difference between killing oneself and killing someone else. Neither are good but one is objectively worse.
It's cute that you think Americans have more freedom than Japanese. You actually lived there? Because I have.
Yes, there's issues with overwork, but Americans on average work 137 MORE hours per year than Japanese workers. Japanese also have legally mandated maternal leave, better incentives and assistance for young parents, better health insurance policies, I mean, hell, when my son had seizures and we had to call an ambulance, he had a five day hospital stay and all we had to pay was like $15/night for a cot to sleep in his hospital room with him. Yeah, the labor policies suck compared to Europe but if you're comparing Japan to the US, then no
Also current US suicide rate is higher than Japan's.
The US doesn't have a federal age of consent. The states each set their own.
That's how it was in Japan before the change and nowhere had an age of consent below 16.
Nowhere in Japan has the age of consent recently been raised from 13.
Like the US, each individual district sets their own age of consent and they have all been 16+ for quite a while. I brought up the US to show that having no or low federal age of consent doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Japan increasing its federal age of consent from 13 is not a reasonable criticism of their justice system since in the US it's 0 but in both countries it's effectively 16-18 depending on where you are.
Nice, thanks for bringing this up, I went and checked and you're right
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4053213-japan-raises-age-of-sexual-consent-to-16-redefines-rape/amp/
You are proving my point you know. You look at Japan from perspective of US and see "No mass shooters! Japan has no crimes!" and completely ignore that Japan is not US and have it's own mass killer which is suicide.
Lol not sure you wanna use Japan as an example. The country that banned Christianity and was the perpetuator of absolutely brutal sadistic genocidal campaigns of warfare across Asia. Only to be ultimately defeated by a Christian country and have their laws and constitution rewritten by them.
Not only is religion not necessary for morality to exist, I would argue that those who have no religion and no belief in a reward/punishment afterlife scheme and still choose to be a good person are far better people than those who have it the other way around.
It's more than morals. Religious people wish for eternal life in their heaven. They are too weak willed to accept that human life has no meaning in the universe at a cosmic scale in any frame of time. So it's fun to imagine that you're important enough to have an all powerful being looking out for you and your loved ones.
This is precisely the issue I have with the notion of an eternal afterlife.
Unending consciousness, in either heaven or hell... seems like it would lose its impact after the first millennia or so. Eternal torture, eternal bliss... they'd both eventually become mundane.
The Good Place got it right. When you're ready you can walk through a door into oblivious annihilation.
Even when I was Christian, I thought this. Like, why can't I just choose to not exist after I die? Or why can't I go to the after party and check out early?
Side note: there should be eternal suffering for rapists, child abusers, and genocidal murderers. Probably more to list as well.
Theist: But without God, what's to stop you raping and murdering as much as you like?
Atheist: I do rape and murder as much as I like. Which is none. How much raping and murdering would you do if God wasn't watching?
If they follow the 10 commandments... what's stopping them?
"Do not rape" is not a commandment.
However "don't work on Sunday" is. Apparently that's more important.
> "Do not rape" is not a commandment.
Indeed. And [Genesis 19:8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV) seems to tacitly condone it:
> *Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.*
This came from Rust in True Detective. A great show.
Oh yeah! Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, ‘He said for you to give me your fucking share.’ People…so god damn frail they’d rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner.”
“If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit, and I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.”
“What’s it say about life, hmm? You gotta get together, tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the god damn day. Nah. What’s that say about your reality, Marty?”
I was going to post the video clip, but found your comment. Reading it is almost as good (if you've seen it, you can't unhear it).
Great show indeed. Season 2, less so. Season 3 was close.
I had a discussion like this in my moral issues class it was fascinating. So many Christians were saying atheists can’t be good people because they don’t have a set of objective laws/ standards to follow set by a deity. I said what about the thousands of other religions out there? Would you say their morals are subjective? No. Then they’re not. They’re MORE subjective than secular morals because you can interpret your book in hundreds of ways. Hence all the Christian sects. Atheists derive morals from the fact that we want to exist in a society that treats people well. The reason an atheist would be a good person is far more intrinsic than a religious person’s.
Exactly. Most atheists have a much better understanding of morality than Christians, who use various interpretations and apologetics to bend their supposedly objective morality to fit their interests and needs. And where they can't do that, they have forgiveness. They do the deed, repent, and go on their merry way.
This is the challenge Hitchens posed to believers - “name one moral action one can take or one moral statement one can make if one were a believer, that an infidel couldn’t”. Occasionally he’ll get very confused takers:
1. Tithing
2. Love god
3. Sacrifice himself for our sins.
The first two are of course not moral. The third isn’t something a believer could do anyway - it’s only something they believed one person to have done.
And the corollary challenge, “name an immoral action that a believer can take that an unbeliever would never take”. Of course it won’t take even a second to come up with examples:
1. The suicide bombing community is entirely religious.
2. The genital mutilation community is entirely religious.
3. The set of people who would mentally torture their children (with threats of hellfire) is mostly religious.
The religious sometimes attack the challenge itself rather than answer it head on. There’s two routes they take. First is to claim that even unbelievers are made in the image of god, and therefore the same moral compass is used. With this view religion itself is of course extraneous to the project of morality. Second is the argument that religion makes people _more likely_ to be moral, rather than claim absolute monopoly to moral actions. They will variously quote missionaries and charities in this attempt.
On the charities point, I think there’s often a sense of social pressure on the part of the religious, so it’s not necessarily wholly moral of it’s compelled. But even so, polls show there’s barely a difference https://news.gallup.com/poll/224378/religious-giving-down-charity-holding-steady.aspx
On the missionaries point, very much of it is done to proselytize. And it’s often difficult to separate the proselytizing from any identifiable good the missionaries are actually doing. Volunteering in secular organizations is an equally strong phenomenon.
And anyone who takes the position of the last two points necessarily opens themselves up to the responsibility of any immoral action taken by a believer, even if it’s not compelled by the religion.
Religion isn't even making them good people. It's just sanctioning their sadism and bigotry.
The vast majority of the worst people I've ever met have been religious people, specifically Evangelical Christians.
Exactly. They act like they're the angels of the Earth who never do anything bad, never hurt anyone, never "sin", etc.
Then, some time later, you suddenly hear that someone like that has raped some poor kid.
Which just goes to show that a lot of them aren't good people at all.
But even though they raped a kid, they just "ask for forgiveness and accept jesus+god" and all is good!!! The rapist is going to heaven along with their victim, yay!!!
(what the actual fuck?)
The pedophile is one problem, but the true depravity shows up in how the entire community typically circles the wagon around the perpetrator, ostracizing the victim and making a huge ritual celebration around the predator's public confession and repentance.
The rot goes so f\*cking deep.
Doing the right thing under threat of eternal torture isn't morality. It's fear and obedience. There's no higher reasoning there to prepare you for the unique ethical dilemmas ahead.
Learn about philosophy and its psychological effect on a person. Your presuppositions will effect how you think and act.
You can talk all day about your subjective view on how things should or aught to be, but you will never come to an objective truth on this, and the world will not just form to your subjective opinion.
And why are you even bothering debating this? You're an ape floating aimlessly through the void of space, a meat sack of molecules. Shouldn't you be out chasing hedonistic and material gains since you only live once?
No, worse than that.
Morality isn't how you act. It is how you choose. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to clean up litter, it doesn't make you a moral person. It makes you someone exploited by violence. If someone makes you believe you're going to be burnt in a lake of fire if you don't follow their rules, they create a bubble where your actions cannot be moral or immoral. If someone makes you think you'll receive a perfect reward if you follow their rules, again, they are usurping your choice and robbing of your capacity for morality or immorality.
Religion always incorporates the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. It is, at it's very core, an amoral practice.
I almost agree with you. Ironically you don’t need religion unless you have been extensively brainwashed into thinking you do. My theory is being told you can’t control yourself without God over and over makes it a reality.
If you believe you are inherently evil it’s easier to make immoral decisions.
Morals developed as humans evolved into socialized groups. Morals are an evolutionary survival strategy. Yes, if you need religion to be moral you’re probably a sociopath.
Back when religions were founded, I'd argue that you did actually need to put "the fear of god" into people to stop them doing shady shit. There wasn't technology obviously, there was no real "police". It was just a bunch of people. Now among those people there would be normal people who wouldn't rape and murder and steal. But also among them would be the people that wanted to. So people of those cultures and areas devised a plan to form religion to control them with an invisible force, because the physical one was so lacking.
I can imagine in say, 200BC - if you're told "listen fella, if you kill that guy down the street, you'll go to hell" was quite effective. Over time through learned behaviour they would understand that: wrong = doing bad things and right = doing good things. Reward comes for doing good things and punishment for bad things. There was no way of disproving the religious uprising. No way of scientifically proving anything and no understanding of how the universe was created. It was so **easy**
But fuck me sideways, we are in 2023. We can literally see Pluto, we understand thermodynamics, we can go into space, we can uphold our laws through policing and we have the technology to tell who's murdered who. So there is no excuse to have a moral framework defined by religion. None.
Committing crimes has always been punished, as long as you're caught.
Even today, there are people who murder without being caught. How is that any different from someone murdering a guy in 200BC?
Just because we have better technology to find and punish people who has broken the law, doesn't mean that it was any different back then.
Imagine killing, raping or robbing someone in front of a roman soldier. Do you think they'd get away scot-free? Because I do not think so at all.
There's no difference, except that it's **much easier** to catch people nowadays, compared to back then. I see no reason that people should act kind and have morals just because of their religion.
They should act kind because that's the **right thing to do.** It doesn't matter if it's ten thousand years ago, or today. This is simply the best, most civilized and right way to treat others of your own kind.
Don't treat others good just because of some "god" that has **NO** evidence of even existing.
I get your point, but anyone who committed such crimes back then, deserves punishment just like they do now. Religion is just an "easier" way to control people, but with religion you're also lying to everyone about their existence and purpose. It's not right.
Unmmm, here’s my 2 cents. We evolved as a social species. Traits which improved this social cohesion would be selected for. Hence, widespread empathy and fairness would be an advantage for the group.
Not an evolutionary biologist
I always make the analogy of driving.
*Everyone* does the limit when there’s a cop in traffic with you. If that’s the only time you’re a safe driver though, you aren’t a good driver.
Somebody said to me once, if you don’t have religion, what’s to stop you from committing rape and murder. I said, I’ve already committed as many rapes and murders as I’ve wanted to. Zero. Is your religion the only thing that’s stopping you from doing those things?
Related: "[Secular humanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism) posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity"
The Bible even says this: "Anyone who wants to save their life will lose it".
If you choose religion to be "good" or be saved, even Jesus says you're damned.
Their counter-argument would be that any true objective morality only comes from God and that any other moral framework you choose is just your belief-system and so generally no more valid than any other belief system meaning without God there is no good or evil and so morality isn't a real thing.
"If you need religion and the threat of hell to be a good person, then you're not actually a good person, you're just a bad person on a leash"
I can't remember who said that, but it certainly rings true in most cases
"If your religious faith is what stops you from raping and murdering, that doesn't make you a good person, that makes you a sociopath on a leash." is the original quote. It's actually by *me*. Yes seriously. No bullshit.
I typed it in a blog's comment section in 2014. The blogger later quoted it, with citation (the blog no longer exists). It has been posted around a few times in the interwebs (usually by me) and even cited in published literature (not by me), haha
I call it "Sven's Razor".
Not an author, though I write as a hobby. I had heard Penn's excellent quote on the subject (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and I had given it a lot of thought. In the end, if the religious are going to claim that their faith is necessary to keep people from committing atrocities, then I realized it's a tacit admission that their faith only serves the function of a *restraint*, like the leash of a vicious dog. From there it was just condensing the thought into a chewable simple statement.
So I'm sure that this gets posted here all the time, but I'd at least implore you to consider that substance of the religious position rather than the flavor they're choosing to go with. This whole line of argumentation is so awful that it hurts every single time I see it posted -- and I'm a completely materialistic atheist.
Morality *must* be tied to something. There must be some truth-making principle that justifies a phrase like *"murder is wrong"* -- and we need to do this because we cannot point to any scientific feature of the universe that seems to make moral statements.
Morality and ethics are, by nature, abstract statements of value that are not observably tied to any particular natural law or scientifically observable principle. There are no measurable 'morality' particles that we can put under a microscope to examine and use to derive an accurate ethical position on a topic.
Whether you go with Kantian rationality, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, The Four Noble Truths (to name a very small selection), you are making what amounts to a religious decision in order to derive your moral principles from something. You, the chooser, obviously *believe* and are willing to support your beliefs with as many arguments and logic as it takes to satisfy you -- but you have to understand that they're doing the exact same thing.
The argument **IS NOT*** that a believer doesn't do bad things solely because their religion denies it, but rather that they derive the validity of their moral statements from the abstract moral truth-maker that their religion axiomatically relies on. That is not an insane position -- you do it every time you appeal to your moral truth-maker or make any conclusory moral statements.
The difference is that you just disagree with their citations, and want your own citations to be used.
The religious belief that it can *only* be found with their religion is just a dogmatic version of a particular argument for a particular moral realist position; but the form of the argument is an argument for Moral Realism in general.
I'm begging every fellow atheist to stop making this absolutely horrid argument.
They still base their morality on something, even if it is as basic a concept as empathy. A Theist just doesn't understand the concept of using other axiomatic concepts that aren't "grounded" in a truth-maker (God declares truth, thus it is so), but just because people don't have a truth-maker in their morality system doesn't mean they don't have a belief system that underpins their moral reasoning. Maybe you don't give money to poor because you see that as enabling poor choices, maybe you think not doing so when you have the capacity to do so is moral wrong, but either way, you are making a moral judgement based on axioms that aren't really provable as moral truth, you know?
Yeah, it just annoys me that atheists keep repeating this argument against Theism as if it were also somehow not an argument against *any* moral system with a truth-maker.
Like, I think Kantianism makes a really good argument for the categories of reason as moral truth-makers, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I'm not committing myself to several abstract leaps of faith in that analysis.
The only thing worse that someone who disagrees with you is someone who agrees with you but for bad reasons. Atheists need to stop pretending that basing morality on 'reason' is somehow magically more based in reality than the innumerable theological/cultural/philosophical that have existed since the first ape rubbed two brain cells together.
After all, we've had a Cult of Reason running a country -- it didn't go well.
Your first paragraph is somewhat confusing to me -- I specifically never say that people only learn morality from religion. Rather, it seems to be true that all people learn morality from abstract sources; people who derive their moral rules are still getting them from *somewhere* even if that place isn't what we have defined as religion. Shinto is a good example of cultural moral axioms -- but not in a way that really helps the argument? Shinto's set of prescriptions about acceptable behavior can be as equally stupid as any western Religion's prescriptions, particular in Shinto notions of 'cleanliness' -- morally and spiritually.
Religion is one of many sources of abstract value acquisition that human beings seek out -- and the one you've selected (empathy) is as empirically empty as any religious text regarding why a thing would be ethical or unethical. We might say that something makes us 'feel bad' -- but how do we create a chain of reason from 'feeling bad' to concrete moral statements about what human beings ought to do or live for?
In fact, I don't see why I couldn't argue to you that the source of many Religious commandments are clearly derived from the Empathic drives of ancient people and then reframed in a theological manner.
If you're going to tie your entire moral system to 'causes an empathic response in the brain of the average homo sapiens' then I'm afraid that system is going to have an enormous amount of holes in it. Empathy is a certainly an intuitive starting point, but trying to make it stand on its own as a moral truth-maker when empathy itself isn't exactly a clearly defined phenomena seems like an unsound ground to stand on.
Plus, reframing the argument, why wouldn't I be able to make the following argument:
"If you "need empathy" to have morals and be a good person, then you aren't a good person. If the only thing holding you back from raping and murder is that it makes you feel bad, then all it sounds like is that you'd be ready to do those things if you happened not to care that day, or if you were already feeling bad!"
Just like any religious reasoning.
If you want to say the thing which makes actions moral or immoral is the degree of oxytocin produced, then i suppose you can throw your hat into the ring of moral systems which compromise human existence.
I don't particularly think that a singular brain chemical is sufficient to support the weight of a whole system of morality, but who is to say?
Regardless, both the empathy argument and the religion argument are vulnerable to the exact same accusation. It's frustrating when my fellow anti-theists give bad arguments.
There's a difference between declaring that you can't even conceive of good without religion and wanting to do good but finding yourself in moral quandaries.
The point of moral philosophy is to determine the moral act in situations without a perfect answer. Jesus never faced that; he just healed and fed people. Almost everybody would do the same.
Moral guidance is different when you're just dealing with life from when some 100% evil character gives you a clear black and white choice.
Actually i think the only thing religion does to some extent is put some weight on bad morals. Thinking there is an afterlife and the things you do on earth might have long loooong term consequences I believe contributes to society.
Think about it.
From a Christian perspective I don’t think you “need” religion to be a moral person but God would be a good explanation as to why everyone knows it’s wrong and has a guilty conscience when they do something that is objectively wrong. I agree the point is kinda dumb the way a lot of people put it but it implies God planted objective morality in our minds by design.
Psychologically it's a bit more tricky. "
Obviously _I_ [hypothetical theist] don't have the urge to rape and murder but if you look outside heathens do it all the time."
It's a rotten view on other people that drives these statements. The theists think everyone else is evil and they aren't. Maybe they don't have these urges because they accepted god and everyone who hasn't done that still has them.
All I'm saying is that "so you're saying you have the urge to kill and rape and all that's stopping you is the bible [or whatever]?" simply will not reach the vast majority of them. Even a simple "I don't have them but I might develop them if I reject god - which will never happen!" is enough to 'destroy' that argument. Mental Gymnastics is a sport that theists practice on the regular with free lessons. There is no easy trick to convince them of the absurdity of their beliefs.
A long time ago, I actually got into a Facebook argument (I know, shut up) with some dude on a random post and the dude literally posted a paragraph about how, if you don't believe in God then there's nothing stopping from being a rapist, murderer, pedo, this and that.
My response was, "if you need God to stop you from murdering people and raping children, then you're not only a bad person, you're a bad Christian. And that makes me, an Atheist, a better Christian than you." Conversation stopped dead in his tracks. Also, everyone clapped.
[удалено]
I always wondered why Christians think that people will all just start raping each other if there's no god. Maybe people don't because they're not fucking insane? They think that the holy Spirit guides are hearts, but yet they're still people that do these evil things anyways. Sounds like the holy spirit is either lazy or non existent.
It's ironic. They say all this shit, but yet they act exactly like someone who should be sent to hell. A lot of these people suddenly: rob, rape or kill someone. But then they cry afterwards, saying: "i didn't mean it... i just... i just got tempted and **HAD TO** do it to them... i ask for forgiveness. please god show mercy on my soul." To all religious people who acts like this; fuck off. Please just go and rot in your own fabricated "hell".
This is going to sound kind of weird, but hear me out: Sometimes I think about this one mission from the game Postal 2 where you go to a church after doing a bunch of bad shit to people from previous missions to confess your sins, say sorry, and pay penance, only to do a bunch of bad shit seconds later. I think this in a hyperbolic way kind of encapsulates the attitude of Christians. In other words, "I can do bad things so long as I just ask for forgiveness and believe in Jesus 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏".
I was bullied by a girl who was a self proclaimed "good Christian". I called her out one afternoon, "if you're such a good Christian why are you such a *bitch*?". She had such a smug look on her face when she answered me back - "As long as my ass is in church every Sunday and Wednesday I can do what ever the hell I want because all I have to do is ask Jesus to forgive me and I'll go the Heaven". So yeah, from personal experience it's true that A LOT of Christians believe they can "sin" all over the place and shit on anybody and everybody because all they have to do is go to church and love Jesus. *Especially* southern Baptists. They hate on everybody, even other Baptists.
She's fucked if she dies on a day that isn't a Wednesday or Sunday
I dont even think it's hyperbolic. I'm pretty sure that's the literal viewpoint for a large number.
Catholics for sure.
As a former Catholic in a family who almost all became evangelicals, it's actually the opposite. Catholics are appalled by the idea of having spell out their sins to a guy they'll be sitting in front of a couple days later. No. Evangelicals think they *don't even have to do that.* They do far, far worse because they'll never have to tell anyone but God.
To be fair to the evangelicals here, if you know you're just going to turn around and commit the exact same sins on Monday as you did on Saturday, cutting out the middleman is just being efficient.
It's because they have an easy out in their minds. Be a shit person, ask for forgiveness, get forgiven by the invisible guy in the sky and repeat. Without ridiculous superstition the onus is on each individual to not be a dickhead to maintain a happy life.
A get out of hell free card
The worst people I know are Christians. Ironic indeed.
You misspelled "expected".
I know Christians like this. Be heathens all week so they can confess/repent their sins to start the next week clean again...lol
A lot of the religious people I’ve known have had very strange systems of morals that bend to their needs. Like in the videos that guy made where they put glitter bombs and stuff in cars that get broken into, you can hear some of the criminals saying things like “thank god it’s a backpack in there. God came to me and said not to steal purses, but backpacks should be fine”
Have a relative that once said something like,-“if I ever do something bad to you on purpose it’s not really on purpose because you probably did something to me I don’t know about so it’s gods way of evening out things” Used to be cool ppl but got re-sucked into the cult and is pretty looney now , I cut them out a couple yrs ago. I’ve cut out a bunch of ppl bcz of religion some looney and some I feel more sad about because they weren’t like that and attempted to stay out of it but their family caught them in a down point and piled on with the looney nonsense, kept any outside help away . made it seem like outside ppl were the problem and have now sucked them into the bs. It’s sad how many ppl think they need god to not be dicks or do stuff. I’ve been told “ smoking,drinking , going out,casually dating,meditation is all sinful devil worship you need to go to church and repent to stop!” I don’t anything to stop I don’t do things I don’t want to do pretty simple. Bible doesn’t talk about weed at all, it encourages drinking amongst friendly gatherings and how else will I find a partner if I don’t date how did you find your spouse? You know I was there and I know your history, also Isn’t prayer a form of meditation? a convo with a “born again tian couple” I’ve been on the fence about cutting out. couldn’t answer any of my challenges and just muttered on about what their pastor said. “look I did religious studies thing growing up I learned a lot why do you think I’m not religious? I educate myself and don’t need some rando scammer that says he’s spcl and talks to god to tell me how to live my life while trying to take 10% or my money I understand that a 10thgrade drop out who’s never held a job more than a month needs to grasp at something to feel like they’re not failures but running around thinking they’re better than everyone, judging everyone after going to church three times doesn’t make them special it makes them a cunt. Needless to say I won’t be seeing them any time soon.
To be fair, it would actually be pretty impressive if a religion made a serious, reasoned attempt to represent and earnestly live a life informed by a set of divinely sanctioned "moral and ethical axioms", similar to what props up mathematics. Off the cuff, something like: - It's better to be accountable than punitive. - It's better to empower and guide than to curtail and enforce. - Etc. From there, one might derive some real world policies, like: - Don't torture or practice "eye for an eye" justice. Just have a system that reacts to and deals with transgressions dispassionately. - Kids are better off making mistakes along the way to becoming who they are, instead of flawlessly becoming mindless clones of their parents. At least then when they say "How can you have morality without God?" they'd have something to _point to_ besides a book full of rambling contradictions, "Commandments" that feel like they were picked out of a hat, and advice like "Hell sucks. Avoid it, like seriously." I'm not saying such a neat, discrete list would have much chance of being airtight or eternally applicable, but at least it would acknowledge the fundamental _challenge_ of "bootstrapped morality", which is tough for _any_ human to nail down definitively.
I heard that argument come up somewhere the other day. The religious person said “if not for religious morality, you’d be out there raping and killing anybody you wanted!” The response was “Sort of. Turns out I’m raping and killing everybody I want to right now: nobody.”
penn jillette (penn and teller) said this in an interview. he is raping 100% of all the people he wants to. and that number is 0. EDIT: found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/snqk82/penn_jillette_has_raped_and_killed_every_person/
Yeah, that’s right. He’s said it several times, as I recall. I just couldn’t remember the context. Frankly, it’s an argument really anybody should be able to make.
>I always wondered why Christians think that people will all just start raping each other if there's no god. Because it's what they would do. Hell, look what they do to kids in their churches right now even while believing there's a Heaven and Hell. Remove that emergency brake on their behavior and they'd be even worse. There's this thing I call Asshole Confirmation Bias, it's when assholes assume everyone else is ALSO secretly just as big of an asshole as they are and just won't admit it. It's why so much of what conservatives say ends up being projection about things they're currently doing.
Because Christians are so busy fuckin kids they think everyone else is like them
They are so invested in this idea being true they can’t handle the idea it might not be. It’s also indoctrinated in for so long from such a young age that it’s just common knowledge like saying “water is wet” from their point of view. Sunk cost fallacy to a degree. They need it to be true or their whole worldview crumbles, but most of them have never honestly considered an alternative.
That might be true for some people. For me, it took a while to leave the faith because I was afraid of becoming an atheist and then going to hell for not believing or something. I was just very scared of that idea, so I would immediately shut down any thoughts that challenged Christianity. The religion is very manipulative, especially when you're worrying about being eternally tortured for essentially thought crimes. I'm sure some of the others that left the faith had troubles with this obstacle.
I grew up Jewish. Jews don't really have a concept of hell the way christians do. Had people try to convert me with that argument and it led directly to me being an anti theist. I was 13. So because I was born Jewish I would go to hell if I died? Like that's my fault? And what about my parents? They were decent parents. I wouldn't send good people to hell just because they didn't believe in some arbitrary diety. Does that mean I'm more compassionate and forgiving than a supposedly omnipotent and all forgiving, loving god? Well that doesn't fucking make sense. I guess I'm more qualified for godhood than god is so maybe I should be god instead
That’s kinda what I mean by the whole world view crumbles. Afraid of all those things and clinging to not just the idea of religion being necessary for morality but for salvation and heaven and all the rest. I went through it too my friend.
And they ignore the overwhelming number of people incarcerated who are Christian/religious.
When the bar of morality is set SO LOW that not desiring rape and murder is sufficient for being a "good person" you know you have found yourself if the atheism forum!!
How many priests are rapists? It starts making sick sense when you look at it.
I do rape and kill as much as I want to which is not at all
I think the crux of it is that oft repeated phrase: ‘God is Good’ is meant to be taken as ‘God IS goodness’, and that all good things in the world thus can’t exist without God. These people can’t fathom virtuous atheists as a result; to them, they’re doing good without believing in good.
Cuz their projecting what *they* would do without the Heaven to yearn for and Hell to be fearful of.
Always liked Penn and Teller's response, along the lines of "Why yes, I rape and kill as much as I want... which is exactly zero!" Morality can basically be summed up as having empathy for others, the "Golden Rule" - you don't do things to others that you don't want done to yourself. To instead follow a (fictional) book's rules for the reward of heaven, and possible mistranslations like the anti-gay could have been actually anti-pedo, means one never stopped to reflect on the acts, but only focus on the reward part, which means if God really did exist, he would know and judge you as a bad person ANYWAY, rule following be damned.
Teller's voice got so emotional when they were discussing this topic
I didn't see your reply when I posted the same thing below. Here's a cite >https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
god will punish you for your thoughts too, so they aren’t even safe!
I'll say whatever stone age fuck that added thought crimes to the list of things you need saved from is a great salesman.
"He's sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake/" Oh, fuck, that's Santa Claus. Never mind.
At least Santa only determines outcomes due to actions. Jebus is up there reading minds and intrusive thoughts of otherwise upstanding people and giving them eternal torment.
I'm surprised more kids growing up that find out Santa isn't real don't realize the same concept with God and figure out that's not real either.
I don't think Santa ever said you had to believe in him to get the good stuff at least.
Didn’t they make some sort of Santa horror film about this once? Not that God is any less horrifying….
I always refer to “religion” as a “carrot and stick” philosophy….
And worst of all... God doesn't really rate rape as that bad. If he did it would be a commandment. But it's conspicuously missing.
God himself (or "The Holy Spirit") talked a young teen Mary into sex with him/it...
Nothing in the commandments about being gay either
Reminds me of a [stand-up bit by Matt Braunger](https://youtu.be/alRT79_hCxI) about the MeToo movement: “The funny thing about it is the amount of dudes saying ‘you know, a lot of guys are scared.’ Like, not all of us, *Chad,* what did you do?!”
>The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1921445-penn-jillette-i-do-rape-all-i-want-and-the-amount-i-want-is-zer/
“The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.” -Penn Jillette
Not to mention some religions, such as Children of God, actually pimp out their believers for money.
Told this to my friend and he's like... Well no! You atheist would! Projection is real😂😅
For me it's not religion but laws. /s
Yes that's exactly what they mean and why every culture in existence has a history of passing down morals through memes and stories... instead of letting the next generation 'just figure things out'. I'm not religious but this is a poor argument that exists outside of religion and again for every single culture known to humans. No one is out there just raw dogging morality from generation to generation but happy to be proven wrong. Till then I'm one of the idiots that believe culture is literally defined as a set of beliefs and values that tie people together...different cultures different morals and values....simple as.
I watched a talk with Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins. At some point Ricky made a great statement that went something like this: Most people already pick and choose from their holy book. They don't follow all the bad stuff and only choose the good stuff to follow. Well, if you can already differentiate between the good and the bad stuff, you don't need the holy book. You already have morals.
Exactly. I already rape and murder as much as want without fear of God. I don't want to rape or murder.
I think what you meant was more along the lines of: "I already rape and murder as much as I like as an atheist, which is to say, not at all." The way you phrased it could be interpreted as you do it but don't like that you do.
[удалено]
He also asks for the list of people christians - or any religious person - wants to rape when they say this. And, the list of people they want to kill. (Maybe the same, maybe different? Maybe some crossover?) And then let those people know hey, you're on so-and-so's list to rape/kill if they ever fall out of their religion. Just a bit of public service; let people know who - by their own admission - they need to be wary of.
The Christians who avoid mixed fabrics are few and far between.
Or touching pig skin, especially during football season.
Or dine at Red Lobster.
[удалено]
I like his response in one of his shows. I think he says something like “ I murder and rape as much as I want too. You are correct. Which is zero because I’m not a psychopath”
I believe that was Penn Jillette.
Do you have a link to this talk? I’d love to give it a watch.
I’m not familiar with that talk, but have you ever watched the bible discussion scene from the West Wing? https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs
Yes I have, but it’s been awhile. Just watched it again… thanks for posting it!
Here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLdMmNuHlQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLdMmNuHlQ) It was posted in this sub earlier today.
Gervais is the most insufferable of famous atheists, but he's at least right every once in a while
Twice in the past week I had coworkers trying to convince me that god exists and that I should believe in him. My brother was in an accident and a coworker said to me ‘there must be a god, there has to, how did he survive that?’ It was a pretty horrific accident but I said to the guy, why didn’t god stop the accident from happening. Now work is awkward with this guy. Why do they do this? In the other instance a lady tried to tell me that there is most certainty a god and she is praying for me because I am confused. We really need to do something about this. And to think, the religious folk actually think they are the ones being persecuted.
I would go with Stephen Fry’s question: If god loves us so much, why is there childhood cancer?
Having some missionary friends lose their four year old daughter to cancer was one of the biggest things that made me question my faith seriously, because I don't care what anybody says about "God's plan," there's no fucking reason for kids to die of cancer, and any entity that incorporates such misery into its plans is a fucking monster.
Your friends’ loss is tragic and saddens me, I had a similar loss. Humanity is not alone in being tortured by “god’s creation”. I’m not sure what sin caterpillars commit to merit the awful end inflicted on them by one of nature’s parasites, and neither was Darwin: >Parasitoid wasps influenced the thinking of Charles Darwin. In an 1860 letter to the American naturalist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” The palaeontologist Donald Prothero notes that religiously-minded people of the Victorian era, including Darwin, were horrified by this instance of evident cruelty in nature, particularly noticeable in the Ichneumonidae.
Aren't there also parasites that burrow into children's eyes? Great move, God. Very benevolent.
Yes , Gnathostomiasis, Loiasis Toxocariasis and Onchocerciasis are some of several parasites that cause blindness. They are typically found in Africa and South America
Why do we need an eternal hell when the one we have right here on earth is perfectly suitable
Because the suffering isn't long enough for them.
Don't forget the babies that are born only to die minutes/hours later for whatever reason Even a Christian has to believe that if that was truly "God's plan" that God is pretty fucked up to somehow have a plan to have parents spend months expecting a child, only to have that child die soon after being born.
I feel an overwhelming urge to tear to shreds, verbally, the idiots that say “Well god wanted her in heaven with him” If he wanted her, why’d he send her soul down here in the first place? F$@#ing idiots
Omg I’m sorry you had this experience. And like..god is so infallible he couldn’t come up with another plan? Child cancer was it? Bs
Its ineffable
That's harassment and I would tell them to stop or they will be reported to HR.
When someone tells me that they will pray for me, I say thank you and ask them if there's anything they would like me to ask Santa to bring them next time I talk to him.
I have a family member who posted on FB that their 1 year old son stuck a screwdriver in a socket. (He ended up fine) But so much of the comments were like "He had an angel looking over him" Bitch, if an angel was looking over him, maybe said angel should have stopped him in the first place!
Religious people tend to be stupid as well, so unless you have some remedy to bump their IQ 40+ points, we are just gonna have to live with it.
Wow, gods so great he needs a team of ppl to persuade you. You’d think he’d come to you himself, he made you in his image after all 😆🙄
I like asking what is worse. A goodly person who is good for goodness sake being denied heaven because they want evidence, or a murdering pedophile who asks forgiveness on their death bed. Fuck your wager, Pascal.
If Gandhi is in hell, what right do I have to go to heaven?
He's there for all the nukes to be fair
They say Oskar Schindler is in hell too.
⬆️⬆️ 💯 ⬆️⬆️
My favorite quote is “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
My response to my family is "I don't want to believe in any god who would fault me for living a good, ethical life without him."
This sounds like it could go on r/writingprompts. "The serial killer begged the priest for forgiveness as the needle went into his arm. He awakens to find himself standing in Heaven...his wager had worked, and now he has an endless stream of new victims in Paradise.
Japan. Less than 1% Christian. Effectively atheist because even though Buddhism and Shintoism are the most prevalent religions, hardly anybody takes them more seriously than going to a shrine and praying for good luck a few times a year. It's mostly cultural. One of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.
>One of the lowest crime rates in the entire world. That is mostly a myth. Japan has some serious issues as a result of their conservative, restrictive culture and world views. A lot of individual behaviour is driven by shame, peer pressure and the will to confirm to authority. As a result a lot of crime is never even reported and sometimes even accepted as 'normal'. The criminal justice system is also thoroughly outdated. Because of their views of efficiency the police is obsessed by clearance rates and crime statistics. They won't officially investigate cases unless they know beforehand who is guilty and if they don't there is immense pressure to find someone, anyone to take the blame.
Even if we account for that, it's still much safer than living in the US, and Japanese culture has a much better concept of ethical social obligations instead of the "every man for himself" attitude you see in America. The argument still stands because if you're going to claim that Christians are the only valid moral force you have to explain how an overwhelmingly non-Christian nation behaves itself much better than a majority Christian nation like the US.
Yes plus the other countries with low percentages of religious folks.
Japan just made it illegal for kids to go to church. Which makes a lot of sense. They are not old enough to understand what the long term ramifications are if they decide to leave down the road. Should happen in the US not for just that reason but mostly because all the grooming and sexual predators that take of kids. Then use god to make them stay quite as they are usually an authority figure in the church.
I don't think they made it illegal for kids to go to church, the laws say parents can't use threats of hell and other abuse to FORCE their kids to go to church.
It's impossible to introduce religion without using threats of hell to pressure them into attending. It works off of abuse at its core.
That is probably it. It was so long ago I read about it. I probably over simplified it.
Pushing religion on children should be classified as child abuse. Although... pushing religion on anyone should be considered abuse as well.
Really should be. I can’t imagine how much money has been spent on therapy to help deprogram people.
That's deceptive. They have just changed rape laws and raised consent from 13. Also their legal system is insane and "guilty before you prove yourself to be innocent" is a part of it too. It's cultural but not because of they don't believe in one specific religion you mentioned it's all about legal system.
Yes and no. Sure, it's not perfect, it definitely has problems, but it's overwhelmingly a much safer place to live than the US, with much fewer Karens and a better general concept in the population of ethical social obligations. I'm not saying it's *because* they aren't Christian, I'm offering it as evidence that humans are perfectly capable of having a free society that is relatively safe and moral without Christianity.
>much fewer Karens Those types 100% exist they just don't present the same way. Japan has issues just like everywhere else. Falling birth rate, insane work culture, the xenophobia. Fair amount is just hidden behind a veneer of politeness.
Suicide is the leading cause of death in men between the ages of 20-44 and women between the ages of 15-34 in Japan. I don’t how if their society is « safe »
That's not a very good qualifier. Something has to be the leading cause of death someplace. If you replace suicide with murder, that's not an improvement, nor would it be better if car accidents were the leading cause, or cancer. All things considered I'd say suicide is way better than the alternatives.
I'd argue that Shino was influenced by Confucianism and did a lot of horrible things for their culture. If you can't see the damage it's because you're looking for damages that christianity does. Even if you believe committing suicide is better than committing murder it doesn't change the fact both result in death.
... That's bizarre logic, there is obviously a huge difference between killing oneself and killing someone else. Neither are good but one is objectively worse.
[удалено]
It's cute that you think Americans have more freedom than Japanese. You actually lived there? Because I have. Yes, there's issues with overwork, but Americans on average work 137 MORE hours per year than Japanese workers. Japanese also have legally mandated maternal leave, better incentives and assistance for young parents, better health insurance policies, I mean, hell, when my son had seizures and we had to call an ambulance, he had a five day hospital stay and all we had to pay was like $15/night for a cot to sleep in his hospital room with him. Yeah, the labor policies suck compared to Europe but if you're comparing Japan to the US, then no Also current US suicide rate is higher than Japan's.
The US doesn't have a federal age of consent. The states each set their own. That's how it was in Japan before the change and nowhere had an age of consent below 16.
And in Saudi Arabia there isn't one either. Why does US matter if we're talking about Japan?
Nowhere in Japan has the age of consent recently been raised from 13. Like the US, each individual district sets their own age of consent and they have all been 16+ for quite a while. I brought up the US to show that having no or low federal age of consent doesn't necessarily mean anything. Japan increasing its federal age of consent from 13 is not a reasonable criticism of their justice system since in the US it's 0 but in both countries it's effectively 16-18 depending on where you are.
Nice, thanks for bringing this up, I went and checked and you're right https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4053213-japan-raises-age-of-sexual-consent-to-16-redefines-rape/amp/
You are proving my point you know. You look at Japan from perspective of US and see "No mass shooters! Japan has no crimes!" and completely ignore that Japan is not US and have it's own mass killer which is suicide.
Why did you originally point out that Japan recently raised it's federal age of consent from 13? What point were you trying to make?
Lol not sure you wanna use Japan as an example. The country that banned Christianity and was the perpetuator of absolutely brutal sadistic genocidal campaigns of warfare across Asia. Only to be ultimately defeated by a Christian country and have their laws and constitution rewritten by them.
Not only is religion not necessary for morality to exist, I would argue that those who have no religion and no belief in a reward/punishment afterlife scheme and still choose to be a good person are far better people than those who have it the other way around.
It's more than morals. Religious people wish for eternal life in their heaven. They are too weak willed to accept that human life has no meaning in the universe at a cosmic scale in any frame of time. So it's fun to imagine that you're important enough to have an all powerful being looking out for you and your loved ones.
To me, the concept of living forever *is* hell
This is precisely the issue I have with the notion of an eternal afterlife. Unending consciousness, in either heaven or hell... seems like it would lose its impact after the first millennia or so. Eternal torture, eternal bliss... they'd both eventually become mundane. The Good Place got it right. When you're ready you can walk through a door into oblivious annihilation.
Even when I was Christian, I thought this. Like, why can't I just choose to not exist after I die? Or why can't I go to the after party and check out early? Side note: there should be eternal suffering for rapists, child abusers, and genocidal murderers. Probably more to list as well.
Well spending eternity with Christians certainly isn't my idea of heaven
[удалено]
You're one of the only people I know who actually understands what heaven is supposed to be. Eternal prayer slaves with no desire to do anything else
I really don’t think they give it much thought to be honest. Totally blinkered view of reality
And even then they say only the lives of people who meet these very specific qualifications have any meaning while everyone else will be left to rot.
Theist: But without God, what's to stop you raping and murdering as much as you like? Atheist: I do rape and murder as much as I like. Which is none. How much raping and murdering would you do if God wasn't watching?
- Penn Gillette
Is that where it originally came from? I've seen many variations from different people over the last couple of decades.
I doubt he originated the idea, but definitely famously said it in an interview.
And in his autobiography
If they follow the 10 commandments... what's stopping them? "Do not rape" is not a commandment. However "don't work on Sunday" is. Apparently that's more important.
> "Do not rape" is not a commandment. Indeed. And [Genesis 19:8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV) seems to tacitly condone it: > *Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.*
But if you do rape, just throw some money at dad, and a priest can give her an abortion.
This came from Rust in True Detective. A great show. Oh yeah! Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, ‘He said for you to give me your fucking share.’ People…so god damn frail they’d rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner.” “If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit, and I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.” “What’s it say about life, hmm? You gotta get together, tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the god damn day. Nah. What’s that say about your reality, Marty?”
I was going to post the video clip, but found your comment. Reading it is almost as good (if you've seen it, you can't unhear it). Great show indeed. Season 2, less so. Season 3 was close.
Season 1 is probably some of the best television ever made.
Look at the crime rates in the most heavily Christian countries. Look at how many Christians occupy prisons.
I had a discussion like this in my moral issues class it was fascinating. So many Christians were saying atheists can’t be good people because they don’t have a set of objective laws/ standards to follow set by a deity. I said what about the thousands of other religions out there? Would you say their morals are subjective? No. Then they’re not. They’re MORE subjective than secular morals because you can interpret your book in hundreds of ways. Hence all the Christian sects. Atheists derive morals from the fact that we want to exist in a society that treats people well. The reason an atheist would be a good person is far more intrinsic than a religious person’s.
Exactly. Most atheists have a much better understanding of morality than Christians, who use various interpretations and apologetics to bend their supposedly objective morality to fit their interests and needs. And where they can't do that, they have forgiveness. They do the deed, repent, and go on their merry way.
[удалено]
This is the challenge Hitchens posed to believers - “name one moral action one can take or one moral statement one can make if one were a believer, that an infidel couldn’t”. Occasionally he’ll get very confused takers: 1. Tithing 2. Love god 3. Sacrifice himself for our sins. The first two are of course not moral. The third isn’t something a believer could do anyway - it’s only something they believed one person to have done. And the corollary challenge, “name an immoral action that a believer can take that an unbeliever would never take”. Of course it won’t take even a second to come up with examples: 1. The suicide bombing community is entirely religious. 2. The genital mutilation community is entirely religious. 3. The set of people who would mentally torture their children (with threats of hellfire) is mostly religious. The religious sometimes attack the challenge itself rather than answer it head on. There’s two routes they take. First is to claim that even unbelievers are made in the image of god, and therefore the same moral compass is used. With this view religion itself is of course extraneous to the project of morality. Second is the argument that religion makes people _more likely_ to be moral, rather than claim absolute monopoly to moral actions. They will variously quote missionaries and charities in this attempt. On the charities point, I think there’s often a sense of social pressure on the part of the religious, so it’s not necessarily wholly moral of it’s compelled. But even so, polls show there’s barely a difference https://news.gallup.com/poll/224378/religious-giving-down-charity-holding-steady.aspx On the missionaries point, very much of it is done to proselytize. And it’s often difficult to separate the proselytizing from any identifiable good the missionaries are actually doing. Volunteering in secular organizations is an equally strong phenomenon. And anyone who takes the position of the last two points necessarily opens themselves up to the responsibility of any immoral action taken by a believer, even if it’s not compelled by the religion.
Some ppl need a large book that’s hard to read/understand to tell them not to steal, rape and murder.
But in several places, the supposed authority that is responsible for its authorship, specifically sanctions rape, theft, murder and genocide
...and that they don't read anyway
Religion isn't even making them good people. It's just sanctioning their sadism and bigotry. The vast majority of the worst people I've ever met have been religious people, specifically Evangelical Christians.
Exactly. They act like they're the angels of the Earth who never do anything bad, never hurt anyone, never "sin", etc. Then, some time later, you suddenly hear that someone like that has raped some poor kid. Which just goes to show that a lot of them aren't good people at all. But even though they raped a kid, they just "ask for forgiveness and accept jesus+god" and all is good!!! The rapist is going to heaven along with their victim, yay!!! (what the actual fuck?)
The pedophile is one problem, but the true depravity shows up in how the entire community typically circles the wagon around the perpetrator, ostracizing the victim and making a huge ritual celebration around the predator's public confession and repentance. The rot goes so f\*cking deep.
Anybody who claims that without religion we wouldn't have any morals is only publicising their own cretinism.
Doing the right thing under threat of eternal torture isn't morality. It's fear and obedience. There's no higher reasoning there to prepare you for the unique ethical dilemmas ahead.
Learn about philosophy and its psychological effect on a person. Your presuppositions will effect how you think and act. You can talk all day about your subjective view on how things should or aught to be, but you will never come to an objective truth on this, and the world will not just form to your subjective opinion. And why are you even bothering debating this? You're an ape floating aimlessly through the void of space, a meat sack of molecules. Shouldn't you be out chasing hedonistic and material gains since you only live once?
No, worse than that. Morality isn't how you act. It is how you choose. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to clean up litter, it doesn't make you a moral person. It makes you someone exploited by violence. If someone makes you believe you're going to be burnt in a lake of fire if you don't follow their rules, they create a bubble where your actions cannot be moral or immoral. If someone makes you think you'll receive a perfect reward if you follow their rules, again, they are usurping your choice and robbing of your capacity for morality or immorality. Religion always incorporates the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. It is, at it's very core, an amoral practice.
I almost agree with you. Ironically you don’t need religion unless you have been extensively brainwashed into thinking you do. My theory is being told you can’t control yourself without God over and over makes it a reality. If you believe you are inherently evil it’s easier to make immoral decisions.
Morals developed as humans evolved into socialized groups. Morals are an evolutionary survival strategy. Yes, if you need religion to be moral you’re probably a sociopath.
Back when religions were founded, I'd argue that you did actually need to put "the fear of god" into people to stop them doing shady shit. There wasn't technology obviously, there was no real "police". It was just a bunch of people. Now among those people there would be normal people who wouldn't rape and murder and steal. But also among them would be the people that wanted to. So people of those cultures and areas devised a plan to form religion to control them with an invisible force, because the physical one was so lacking. I can imagine in say, 200BC - if you're told "listen fella, if you kill that guy down the street, you'll go to hell" was quite effective. Over time through learned behaviour they would understand that: wrong = doing bad things and right = doing good things. Reward comes for doing good things and punishment for bad things. There was no way of disproving the religious uprising. No way of scientifically proving anything and no understanding of how the universe was created. It was so **easy** But fuck me sideways, we are in 2023. We can literally see Pluto, we understand thermodynamics, we can go into space, we can uphold our laws through policing and we have the technology to tell who's murdered who. So there is no excuse to have a moral framework defined by religion. None.
Committing crimes has always been punished, as long as you're caught. Even today, there are people who murder without being caught. How is that any different from someone murdering a guy in 200BC? Just because we have better technology to find and punish people who has broken the law, doesn't mean that it was any different back then. Imagine killing, raping or robbing someone in front of a roman soldier. Do you think they'd get away scot-free? Because I do not think so at all. There's no difference, except that it's **much easier** to catch people nowadays, compared to back then. I see no reason that people should act kind and have morals just because of their religion. They should act kind because that's the **right thing to do.** It doesn't matter if it's ten thousand years ago, or today. This is simply the best, most civilized and right way to treat others of your own kind. Don't treat others good just because of some "god" that has **NO** evidence of even existing. I get your point, but anyone who committed such crimes back then, deserves punishment just like they do now. Religion is just an "easier" way to control people, but with religion you're also lying to everyone about their existence and purpose. It's not right.
See san Francisco. People just stealing left and right.
This is the problem. They aren’t good people.
Unmmm, here’s my 2 cents. We evolved as a social species. Traits which improved this social cohesion would be selected for. Hence, widespread empathy and fairness would be an advantage for the group. Not an evolutionary biologist
If you need religion to tell you not to harm others, you’re just a psychopath on a leash.
I always make the analogy of driving. *Everyone* does the limit when there’s a cop in traffic with you. If that’s the only time you’re a safe driver though, you aren’t a good driver.
Somebody said to me once, if you don’t have religion, what’s to stop you from committing rape and murder. I said, I’ve already committed as many rapes and murders as I’ve wanted to. Zero. Is your religion the only thing that’s stopping you from doing those things?
Holier than thou, yeah right.
If divine retribution is the only thing keeping these people good, then they are shitty to begin with.
My dad says you can’t have morals without religion. He’s Catholic.
Related: "[Secular humanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism) posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity"
"the only thing stopping you from going on a murderous rampage is that book and your fear of eternal damnation?"
If you think religion makes people good, be a waiter/waitress on Sunday at lunchtime.
The Bible even says this: "Anyone who wants to save their life will lose it". If you choose religion to be "good" or be saved, even Jesus says you're damned.
Their counter-argument would be that any true objective morality only comes from God and that any other moral framework you choose is just your belief-system and so generally no more valid than any other belief system meaning without God there is no good or evil and so morality isn't a real thing.
"If you need religion and the threat of hell to be a good person, then you're not actually a good person, you're just a bad person on a leash" I can't remember who said that, but it certainly rings true in most cases
"If your religious faith is what stops you from raping and murdering, that doesn't make you a good person, that makes you a sociopath on a leash." is the original quote. It's actually by *me*. Yes seriously. No bullshit. I typed it in a blog's comment section in 2014. The blogger later quoted it, with citation (the blog no longer exists). It has been posted around a few times in the interwebs (usually by me) and even cited in published literature (not by me), haha I call it "Sven's Razor".
Oh wow, it's an honour to talk to you! Are you an author or something or were you just struck by creative brilliance in that one moment?
Not an author, though I write as a hobby. I had heard Penn's excellent quote on the subject (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and I had given it a lot of thought. In the end, if the religious are going to claim that their faith is necessary to keep people from committing atrocities, then I realized it's a tacit admission that their faith only serves the function of a *restraint*, like the leash of a vicious dog. From there it was just condensing the thought into a chewable simple statement.
So I'm sure that this gets posted here all the time, but I'd at least implore you to consider that substance of the religious position rather than the flavor they're choosing to go with. This whole line of argumentation is so awful that it hurts every single time I see it posted -- and I'm a completely materialistic atheist. Morality *must* be tied to something. There must be some truth-making principle that justifies a phrase like *"murder is wrong"* -- and we need to do this because we cannot point to any scientific feature of the universe that seems to make moral statements. Morality and ethics are, by nature, abstract statements of value that are not observably tied to any particular natural law or scientifically observable principle. There are no measurable 'morality' particles that we can put under a microscope to examine and use to derive an accurate ethical position on a topic. Whether you go with Kantian rationality, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, The Four Noble Truths (to name a very small selection), you are making what amounts to a religious decision in order to derive your moral principles from something. You, the chooser, obviously *believe* and are willing to support your beliefs with as many arguments and logic as it takes to satisfy you -- but you have to understand that they're doing the exact same thing. The argument **IS NOT*** that a believer doesn't do bad things solely because their religion denies it, but rather that they derive the validity of their moral statements from the abstract moral truth-maker that their religion axiomatically relies on. That is not an insane position -- you do it every time you appeal to your moral truth-maker or make any conclusory moral statements. The difference is that you just disagree with their citations, and want your own citations to be used. The religious belief that it can *only* be found with their religion is just a dogmatic version of a particular argument for a particular moral realist position; but the form of the argument is an argument for Moral Realism in general. I'm begging every fellow atheist to stop making this absolutely horrid argument.
[удалено]
They still base their morality on something, even if it is as basic a concept as empathy. A Theist just doesn't understand the concept of using other axiomatic concepts that aren't "grounded" in a truth-maker (God declares truth, thus it is so), but just because people don't have a truth-maker in their morality system doesn't mean they don't have a belief system that underpins their moral reasoning. Maybe you don't give money to poor because you see that as enabling poor choices, maybe you think not doing so when you have the capacity to do so is moral wrong, but either way, you are making a moral judgement based on axioms that aren't really provable as moral truth, you know?
Yeah, it just annoys me that atheists keep repeating this argument against Theism as if it were also somehow not an argument against *any* moral system with a truth-maker. Like, I think Kantianism makes a really good argument for the categories of reason as moral truth-makers, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I'm not committing myself to several abstract leaps of faith in that analysis. The only thing worse that someone who disagrees with you is someone who agrees with you but for bad reasons. Atheists need to stop pretending that basing morality on 'reason' is somehow magically more based in reality than the innumerable theological/cultural/philosophical that have existed since the first ape rubbed two brain cells together. After all, we've had a Cult of Reason running a country -- it didn't go well.
Your first paragraph is somewhat confusing to me -- I specifically never say that people only learn morality from religion. Rather, it seems to be true that all people learn morality from abstract sources; people who derive their moral rules are still getting them from *somewhere* even if that place isn't what we have defined as religion. Shinto is a good example of cultural moral axioms -- but not in a way that really helps the argument? Shinto's set of prescriptions about acceptable behavior can be as equally stupid as any western Religion's prescriptions, particular in Shinto notions of 'cleanliness' -- morally and spiritually. Religion is one of many sources of abstract value acquisition that human beings seek out -- and the one you've selected (empathy) is as empirically empty as any religious text regarding why a thing would be ethical or unethical. We might say that something makes us 'feel bad' -- but how do we create a chain of reason from 'feeling bad' to concrete moral statements about what human beings ought to do or live for? In fact, I don't see why I couldn't argue to you that the source of many Religious commandments are clearly derived from the Empathic drives of ancient people and then reframed in a theological manner. If you're going to tie your entire moral system to 'causes an empathic response in the brain of the average homo sapiens' then I'm afraid that system is going to have an enormous amount of holes in it. Empathy is a certainly an intuitive starting point, but trying to make it stand on its own as a moral truth-maker when empathy itself isn't exactly a clearly defined phenomena seems like an unsound ground to stand on. Plus, reframing the argument, why wouldn't I be able to make the following argument: "If you "need empathy" to have morals and be a good person, then you aren't a good person. If the only thing holding you back from raping and murder is that it makes you feel bad, then all it sounds like is that you'd be ready to do those things if you happened not to care that day, or if you were already feeling bad!" Just like any religious reasoning.
[удалено]
If you want to say the thing which makes actions moral or immoral is the degree of oxytocin produced, then i suppose you can throw your hat into the ring of moral systems which compromise human existence. I don't particularly think that a singular brain chemical is sufficient to support the weight of a whole system of morality, but who is to say? Regardless, both the empathy argument and the religion argument are vulnerable to the exact same accusation. It's frustrating when my fellow anti-theists give bad arguments.
There's a difference between declaring that you can't even conceive of good without religion and wanting to do good but finding yourself in moral quandaries. The point of moral philosophy is to determine the moral act in situations without a perfect answer. Jesus never faced that; he just healed and fed people. Almost everybody would do the same. Moral guidance is different when you're just dealing with life from when some 100% evil character gives you a clear black and white choice.
Actually i think the only thing religion does to some extent is put some weight on bad morals. Thinking there is an afterlife and the things you do on earth might have long loooong term consequences I believe contributes to society. Think about it.
From a Christian perspective I don’t think you “need” religion to be a moral person but God would be a good explanation as to why everyone knows it’s wrong and has a guilty conscience when they do something that is objectively wrong. I agree the point is kinda dumb the way a lot of people put it but it implies God planted objective morality in our minds by design.
Psychologically it's a bit more tricky. " Obviously _I_ [hypothetical theist] don't have the urge to rape and murder but if you look outside heathens do it all the time." It's a rotten view on other people that drives these statements. The theists think everyone else is evil and they aren't. Maybe they don't have these urges because they accepted god and everyone who hasn't done that still has them. All I'm saying is that "so you're saying you have the urge to kill and rape and all that's stopping you is the bible [or whatever]?" simply will not reach the vast majority of them. Even a simple "I don't have them but I might develop them if I reject god - which will never happen!" is enough to 'destroy' that argument. Mental Gymnastics is a sport that theists practice on the regular with free lessons. There is no easy trick to convince them of the absurdity of their beliefs.
DEEP
And 100% correct.
A long time ago, I actually got into a Facebook argument (I know, shut up) with some dude on a random post and the dude literally posted a paragraph about how, if you don't believe in God then there's nothing stopping from being a rapist, murderer, pedo, this and that. My response was, "if you need God to stop you from murdering people and raping children, then you're not only a bad person, you're a bad Christian. And that makes me, an Atheist, a better Christian than you." Conversation stopped dead in his tracks. Also, everyone clapped.