I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, and a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to 'God' are all answered at about the same 50% rate.
I feel like prayers being answered at a 50/50 rate could be exploited.
Honestly worshipping the sun the river the mountain and the tree makes so much more sense than the abrahamic religions.
Like why shouldn't the spirit of cats be happy when I feed some cats. Why should the god of the mountain not punish me for littering. It simply makes more sense for your spiritual thoughts or emotions to be grounded in specific phenomenon.
Nah, now you're pouring unnecessary godhood onto inanimate objects. They have no agency of their own. You can still worship them for all the good things they bring you in life, but please leave the personifications at the door.
The way I see it, we're all part of the same thing, which is the universe. And since we're included, I see no issue in the personification of the universe.
The way I see it, we’re all part of the same thing, which is the universe. And since we’re included, I see no issue in the personification of the universe.
I actually agree, but nonetheless personifying, and relating emotionally in this way to specifics, is useful because doing the work of actually relating all the cause and effect happening in between everything and a specific thing is generally an impossible task, so a shortcut to emotionally understand some specific as it's categories personification gets you a faster and maybe more detailed conclusion. It's in many ways just a mental shortcut enshrined in culture.
Same with a lot of the abrahamic stories if you read them as you would read Aesop's Fables there is actually a lot of good philosophical or otherwise human insight wrapped up in there.
In many ways it doesn't matter if there is flooding because we angered the sea, or there's flooding because there's a tropical storm and high tide, as long as we realize early enough that there exists a flood and we should seek high ground, warn our peers....
In this same way it mostly doesn't matter if everything is one and specifics are just phenomena of that one thing, like your universe, or what I'd probably just call nature, and others might call god, or if everything is a thing unto itself in constant relation to any other thing. If we draw the right conclusion.
So If you don't litter because the sign at the entrance of the trail told you so, or you believe it to be disrespectful to the mountain, or it is your duty towards nature to not pollute it, nobody cares and/or should care, but crucially any of those ways to think give you a good reason to do the better and harder thing, which is the reason all these ways of thinking exist.
A shortcut or a model of thought devoid of context is neither good nor bad, but in context I see the personified one true god causing much more harm recently. Not that the personified mountain can't be a harmful idea, it's just that in recent history it mostly hasn't been used that way.
If worshiping the Nekogami makes me happy and good to cats while not impeding me otherwise, why shouldn't I.
Teng tools would like to sell you an umbrella
That's probably how those "gods" came into being in folklore. In order for people to be kinder and more considerate, supposed religious scholars used the fear of God as a tool to be better.
Which is based, but down the line bad faith actors use this for personal gain.
Like why shouldn’t the spirit of cats be happy when I feed some cats.
I think this is literally true, if you assume that the spirit of cats is inside the cats, rather than some mystical universal phenomenon.
We used to worship the sun in Europe too. But Christians decided they wanted to test that resolve, when they were helping pagans simulate the conditions of the sun by setting them on fire.
Technically you still do, Jesus basically just consumed Sol Invictus and his cult practices to be palatable to the Roman public.
Same Birthday, same halo iconography, same vision to Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. No seriously, that was originally Sol Invictus before Constantine fully embraced Christianity. The Chai Rho was a symbol of the general concept of righteousness at the time and was used by Constantine because it was a symbol all his multi-faith forces could accept as being a divine message without rubbing them the wrong way for being too partial to one religion or the other.
paganism works well with monotheism if you imagine that all could be a potential avatar of or personification of an overarching identity or deity which has multiple sub personalities due to omnipresence across multiple universes or timelines
So basically how Hinduism does it, they even have their own big trinity!
Also the bit where saint worship is basically just polytheism through a veil of monotheism friendly innuendo.
Yeah similar to Sikh. I have my own suspicions, mainly along the lines of gnosticism
This is the answer to the question I was always wondering about: "It's obvious to me that Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity due to mixing with Roman religion; but what are the exact details, and how did that even come to be?"
Economics is not
Its real and true about some rules that in no way relate to the real world. Just like a video game has rules, yet it in no way describes reality.
It is real because we all believe it. The video game is a good example, we can shut it down and all your items are gone. Same with economy.
It's real because we practice it. If we stopped commerce that doesn't disprove the existence of the economy, it just ends one existing economy.
If we all stopped talking it wouldn't prove the spoke word is a myth.
To come back to the meme: it implies that while the sun is real, the Christianity isn't. But it is as long as it's practiced, same with economy
Christianity as a practiced religion is real. The figures in Christianity which Christians worship are not, at least we have no hard evidence of them being real.
It doesn't imply that Christianity isn't real, but rather it's the focus of their worship that doesn't exist.
I mean a lot of concepts in economics are descriptive, they note phenomenon that just happen when humans engage in trade or resource allocation amongst each other.
It's basically the three body problem but with sharing according to the maximum satisfaction of want and need instead of gravitational fields.
Are you talking about the science of economics or economy?
Kind of both. The science of economics is full of models with false assumptions and self fulfilling prophecies. Economy exists because we believe it does and because of said self fulfilling prophecies
It's not even a science. It does not use the scientific method. It's the bastard child of statistics and capitalist philosophy.
Economy exists not because we believe it does, but because we agreed to follow particular rules, many of which are enforced by state. It is emergent phenomenon. But it does not make it any less real than any other emergent phenomenon, like air pressure.
The mainstream scholarly consensus is that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE. The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.
The modern-day reboot by that ‘edgy’ writer that never read the original comics as a kid.
The only thing scholars agree on is that he was baptized and he was killed. Nothing in between is supported, it is all fairy tale. All the miracles, bullshit.
Who cares if some mentally ill man 2,000 years ago created some fucked up cult based on the lie that his mother didn't cheat on his father and get pregnant. If I could go back in time I would murder Jesus to save us from the Christofascism we are facing today
A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that's not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.
There’s really not much evidence that he existed at all. Likely just stories borrowed from another religion.
Don’t cut yourself on that edge bud
Oh no, some guy said we should stop being shitty to each other and take care of the poor, and a lot of people agreed. This is literally fascism!
Did you forget the part that if you don't follow the rules to the letter you get tortured for eternity? Sounds pretty fascistic to me.
Jesus never said you have to follow his rules to the letter in order to avoid hell, just that you have to make a sincere effort. After all, he preached that sins could be forgiven if you repent, didn't he?
Meanwhile, the alternative seems to be "just do whatever makes you happy, fuck what anyone else thinks", but that always inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Is that really the world you prefer to live in?
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
So I guess it's not "follow the rules or you go to hell," it's "believe in Jesus or go to Hell." In other words, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are in Hell according to the Bible.
Perhaps, but what does that matter? Is that a good enough reason to want to join them?
Seems like it was a good enough reason for Christians to spend the last 2000 years murdering non-believers.
So because people have murdered for thousands of years we should just continue murdering people, is that what you're saying?
Nope, I'm saying Christians have had no problem murdering unbelievers for the last 2000 years, so maybe Christianity isn't as great as you make it out to be.
People have killed their babies by putting them in microwave ovens. Perhaps microwave ovens aren't as great as they are made out to be.
No one has done that. That's an urban myth. What a terrible attempt at justifying the horrors that Christianity has wrought upon the world.
I think there is more to it than that. Many people have been killed because of that silly book and what it says. People go insane thinking all that stuff is true to the point they are willing to kill others. Also I don't think the bible really says to stop being shitty to people. Only specific people. There is still mention of slaves and women being property. Rape was ok if you pay the girls father. You can't just pick the good parts and ignore the rest like everyone who is religious seems to do.
You're confusing the Old Testament with the New. Yes, there was slavery in the Old Testament, but Jesus never had any slaves nor did He tell people to keep them. He also didn't tell anyone to kill people in His name. If people choose to call themselves Christians but don't keep Christ's commandments, you can't really blame Jesus for that, can you?
Can I blame a being that claims to be all powerful, all knowing and all good for every bad thing that happens? Yes absolutely. And "mysterious ways" ain't gonna cut it. That's not an argument, it's a cop out. Your god is either not powerful, not all knowing or evil. The reality of our existence proves that your god cannot be all three of those things. Or just maybe...
The truth is that your god doesn't exist so we need to be good to each other and do the right things because they're good and right. We need to do it for survival not because of the threat of hell or whatever. It's not possible to be a moral person and be religious because in the end you're only acting well based on being threatened or rewarded for your actions.
Okay, now that's a very good point. Almost.
As long as someone is acting morally, does it matter whether they do it because they understand morality and can reason it through the way you did, or because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to send them to hell if they don't?
It's not moral to do something only because you are scared of punishment. Having morals would be knowing not to do something because it's wrong and may hurt others and having empathy for those around you.
Look, clearly it would be preferable if people are moral because they have reasoned things through, because then they won't be as likely to fall to temptation or be reasoned out of it. Now I don't know about you, but, I would prefer someone who doesn't murder me because they believe they'll go to hell if they do to someone who does because he believes he'll get away with it.
It's not immoral to believe in Santa Claus, is it?
I'd prefer if someone doesn't murder me because they think murder is bad
That's not what I asked.
Of course it doesn't matter why they do it on a case by case basis but minimizing suffering is a much more straightforward reason to be moral than a spiritual belief that causes cognitive dissonance at its core. To be a Christian you must believe that you're a terrible person and that you can never be good. Even if you can be forgiven you're still an awful sinner. This is told to children starting at 2 years old. Is it any wonder that Christianity has caused more pain and suffering than anything else in human history? If you tell people they're awful then they'll start to believe it. Religion and especially Christianity is rotten at its core which is why it's impossible to be both a moral person and a Christian. There is too much baggage for the mind to deal with. You have to simultaneously love your neighbor while acknowledging that it was right and good for your god to order the slaughter of infant children and torture folks for eternity simply for not knowing about your god's existence. Trying to parse these two stances creates psychosis.
Okay, let's assume you're right and that is indeed a terrible belief system. What's your alternative? It seems to me that you are arguing that we should believe that we already ARE good people and we don't need any forgiveness or grace in order to be good. If anyone disagrees with that and points out something we've done that hurt them, we can just tell them they're wrong because God created us to be perfect and sinless and we don't need to change a single thing. How does that attitude not lead to blatant narcissism in the long run?
If you don't believe there is at least a chance that you might be wrong, there is no reason to ever listen to the complaints of other people, and no reason to ever try to find any compromise. It's simply the law of the stronger. Whoever has the most power makes all the rules because God made them perfect and they don't need to fix a single thing. Isn't that exactly what you are accusing Christians of doing? How do you get morality out of that philosophy?
You've taken so many leaps here that make no sense and are straw manning my argument to extreme levels. Where could you possibly have gotten that I think everyone is perfect and that a god created us that way? Religion, and Christianity in particular, is a terrible belief system and it causes cognitive dissonance and psychosis. Christianity creates pain and suffering and turns otherwise good people into monsters. You've not refuted that at all.
My only system of belief is to minimize suffering. That's it. Morality is obviously complicated but if you keep that in mind with every decision things get a lot more clear. There will always be outliers but if we all attempt to minimize suffering then we will make progress. We won't always be right and we will have to admit when mistakes are made and correct them.
Where could you possibly have gotten that I think everyone is perfect and that a god created us that way?
Well, you said Christianity is terrible because in order to be a Christian you must believe you’re a terrible person and can never be good (which is incorrect BTW, but we’ll save that for later).
So since you said that this was a terrible belief, and you didn’t provide any alternative, I simply took the opposite stance and showed how that isn’t any better. Also, I didn’t say that this is what you were arguing for, I very clearly asked you what your preferred alternative was.
Religion, and Christianity in particular, is a terrible belief system and it causes cognitive dissonance and psychosis. Christianity creates pain and suffering and turns otherwise good people into monsters. You've not refuted that at all.
And you haven’t proven that this is the case either, or do you happen to have any studies that show that mental illness is more prevalent in Christians than in atheists, or at least the population as a whole? Otherwise I assume you’re just working with anecdotal evidence, such as having been raised by Christian parents whom you consider psychotic. Unfortunately, that’s not enough evidence to condemn all of the approx. 2.4 billion people in the world who consider themselves Christian. Even if, say, all of the Christians in the United States were demonstrably psychotic, that wouldn’t be enough evidence to condemn Christianity as a whole (although it would at least warrant suspicion that the two may be linked).
Now, as far as misrepresenting Christian beliefs goes, you said that Christians believe that people can never be good and therefore must always feel terrible about themselves. That’s not the case. It’s rather that people can never be perfect and therefore should always strive to improve. Do you see the difference? One interpretation says “you’ll never come anywhere close to God’s perfection so you might as well give up and not even try”, the other says “you may not ever reach perfection, but you’ll certainly come closer to it if you keep trying.”
But he didn't perform miracles. The gospels were written centuries later.
The academic consensus is that a guy probably existed who was a preacher whose teachings gave rise to the legend of this miraculous “Jesus”.
Everything that’s assumed to be real about Jesus is completely mundane. A preacher whose followers spread his teachings and fantastically embellished his achievements. Big deal! There are hundreds of guys like that. He’s L. Ron Hubbard without the trillion-year-old spaceships.
Except Jesus didn't make millions of dollars from publishing his philosophy in book format, and L. Ron Hubbard didn't willingly die in order to prove his belief in Xenu or whatever.
Just so everyone knows, this "loving Christian" just excused Christians in Uganda putting LGBT+ people in prison for life.
No, it's true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn't play into my lack of belief in god.
George Carlin agrees.
I feel like prayers being answered at a 50/50 rate could be exploited.
Honestly worshipping the sun the river the mountain and the tree makes so much more sense than the abrahamic religions.
Like why shouldn't the spirit of cats be happy when I feed some cats. Why should the god of the mountain not punish me for littering. It simply makes more sense for your spiritual thoughts or emotions to be grounded in specific phenomenon.
Nah, now you're pouring unnecessary godhood onto inanimate objects. They have no agency of their own. You can still worship them for all the good things they bring you in life, but please leave the personifications at the door.
The way I see it, we're all part of the same thing, which is the universe. And since we're included, I see no issue in the personification of the universe.
I actually agree, but nonetheless personifying, and relating emotionally in this way to specifics, is useful because doing the work of actually relating all the cause and effect happening in between everything and a specific thing is generally an impossible task, so a shortcut to emotionally understand some specific as it's categories personification gets you a faster and maybe more detailed conclusion. It's in many ways just a mental shortcut enshrined in culture.
Same with a lot of the abrahamic stories if you read them as you would read Aesop's Fables there is actually a lot of good philosophical or otherwise human insight wrapped up in there.
In many ways it doesn't matter if there is flooding because we angered the sea, or there's flooding because there's a tropical storm and high tide, as long as we realize early enough that there exists a flood and we should seek high ground, warn our peers....
In this same way it mostly doesn't matter if everything is one and specifics are just phenomena of that one thing, like your universe, or what I'd probably just call nature, and others might call god, or if everything is a thing unto itself in constant relation to any other thing. If we draw the right conclusion.
So If you don't litter because the sign at the entrance of the trail told you so, or you believe it to be disrespectful to the mountain, or it is your duty towards nature to not pollute it, nobody cares and/or should care, but crucially any of those ways to think give you a good reason to do the better and harder thing, which is the reason all these ways of thinking exist.
A shortcut or a model of thought devoid of context is neither good nor bad, but in context I see the personified one true god causing much more harm recently. Not that the personified mountain can't be a harmful idea, it's just that in recent history it mostly hasn't been used that way.
If worshiping the Nekogami makes me happy and good to cats while not impeding me otherwise, why shouldn't I.
Teng tools would like to sell you an umbrella
That's probably how those "gods" came into being in folklore. In order for people to be kinder and more considerate, supposed religious scholars used the fear of God as a tool to be better.
Which is based, but down the line bad faith actors use this for personal gain.
I think this is literally true, if you assume that the spirit of cats is inside the cats, rather than some mystical universal phenomenon.
We used to worship the sun in Europe too. But Christians decided they wanted to test that resolve, when they were helping pagans simulate the conditions of the sun by setting them on fire.
Technically you still do, Jesus basically just consumed Sol Invictus and his cult practices to be palatable to the Roman public.
Same Birthday, same halo iconography, same vision to Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. No seriously, that was originally Sol Invictus before Constantine fully embraced Christianity. The Chai Rho was a symbol of the general concept of righteousness at the time and was used by Constantine because it was a symbol all his multi-faith forces could accept as being a divine message without rubbing them the wrong way for being too partial to one religion or the other.
paganism works well with monotheism if you imagine that all could be a potential avatar of or personification of an overarching identity or deity which has multiple sub personalities due to omnipresence across multiple universes or timelines
So basically how Hinduism does it, they even have their own big trinity!
Also the bit where saint worship is basically just polytheism through a veil of monotheism friendly innuendo.
Yeah similar to Sikh. I have my own suspicions, mainly along the lines of gnosticism
This is the answer to the question I was always wondering about: "It's obvious to me that Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity due to mixing with Roman religion; but what are the exact details, and how did that even come to be?"
Economics is not
Its real and true about some rules that in no way relate to the real world. Just like a video game has rules, yet it in no way describes reality.
It is real because we all believe it. The video game is a good example, we can shut it down and all your items are gone. Same with economy.
It's real because we practice it. If we stopped commerce that doesn't disprove the existence of the economy, it just ends one existing economy.
If we all stopped talking it wouldn't prove the spoke word is a myth.
To come back to the meme: it implies that while the sun is real, the Christianity isn't. But it is as long as it's practiced, same with economy
Christianity as a practiced religion is real. The figures in Christianity which Christians worship are not, at least we have no hard evidence of them being real.
It doesn't imply that Christianity isn't real, but rather it's the focus of their worship that doesn't exist.
I mean a lot of concepts in economics are descriptive, they note phenomenon that just happen when humans engage in trade or resource allocation amongst each other.
It's basically the three body problem but with sharing according to the maximum satisfaction of want and need instead of gravitational fields.
Are you talking about the science of economics or economy?
Kind of both. The science of economics is full of models with false assumptions and self fulfilling prophecies. Economy exists because we believe it does and because of said self fulfilling prophecies
It's not even a science. It does not use the scientific method. It's the bastard child of statistics and capitalist philosophy.
Economy exists not because we believe it does, but because we agreed to follow particular rules, many of which are enforced by state. It is emergent phenomenon. But it does not make it any less real than any other emergent phenomenon, like air pressure.
Pfft I bet he believes the moon is real too /s
So is Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Yeshua of Nazareth possibly existed.
Jesus is the comic version of that.
What about supply side jesus?
The modern-day reboot by that ‘edgy’ writer that never read the original comics as a kid.
The only thing scholars agree on is that he was baptized and he was killed. Nothing in between is supported, it is all fairy tale. All the miracles, bullshit.
Who cares if some mentally ill man 2,000 years ago created some fucked up cult based on the lie that his mother didn't cheat on his father and get pregnant. If I could go back in time I would murder Jesus to save us from the Christofascism we are facing today
A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that's not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.
There’s really not much evidence that he existed at all. Likely just stories borrowed from another religion.
Don’t cut yourself on that edge bud
Oh no, some guy said we should stop being shitty to each other and take care of the poor, and a lot of people agreed. This is literally fascism!
Did you forget the part that if you don't follow the rules to the letter you get tortured for eternity? Sounds pretty fascistic to me.
Jesus never said you have to follow his rules to the letter in order to avoid hell, just that you have to make a sincere effort. After all, he preached that sins could be forgiven if you repent, didn't he?
Meanwhile, the alternative seems to be "just do whatever makes you happy, fuck what anyone else thinks", but that always inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Is that really the world you prefer to live in?
John 3:18
So I guess it's not "follow the rules or you go to hell," it's "believe in Jesus or go to Hell." In other words, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are in Hell according to the Bible.
Perhaps, but what does that matter? Is that a good enough reason to want to join them?
Seems like it was a good enough reason for Christians to spend the last 2000 years murdering non-believers.
So because people have murdered for thousands of years we should just continue murdering people, is that what you're saying?
Nope, I'm saying Christians have had no problem murdering unbelievers for the last 2000 years, so maybe Christianity isn't as great as you make it out to be.
People have killed their babies by putting them in microwave ovens. Perhaps microwave ovens aren't as great as they are made out to be.
No one has done that. That's an urban myth. What a terrible attempt at justifying the horrors that Christianity has wrought upon the world.
I think there is more to it than that. Many people have been killed because of that silly book and what it says. People go insane thinking all that stuff is true to the point they are willing to kill others. Also I don't think the bible really says to stop being shitty to people. Only specific people. There is still mention of slaves and women being property. Rape was ok if you pay the girls father. You can't just pick the good parts and ignore the rest like everyone who is religious seems to do.
You're confusing the Old Testament with the New. Yes, there was slavery in the Old Testament, but Jesus never had any slaves nor did He tell people to keep them. He also didn't tell anyone to kill people in His name. If people choose to call themselves Christians but don't keep Christ's commandments, you can't really blame Jesus for that, can you?
Can I blame a being that claims to be all powerful, all knowing and all good for every bad thing that happens? Yes absolutely. And "mysterious ways" ain't gonna cut it. That's not an argument, it's a cop out. Your god is either not powerful, not all knowing or evil. The reality of our existence proves that your god cannot be all three of those things. Or just maybe...
The truth is that your god doesn't exist so we need to be good to each other and do the right things because they're good and right. We need to do it for survival not because of the threat of hell or whatever. It's not possible to be a moral person and be religious because in the end you're only acting well based on being threatened or rewarded for your actions.
Okay, now that's a very good point. Almost.
As long as someone is acting morally, does it matter whether they do it because they understand morality and can reason it through the way you did, or because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to send them to hell if they don't?
It's not moral to do something only because you are scared of punishment. Having morals would be knowing not to do something because it's wrong and may hurt others and having empathy for those around you.
Look, clearly it would be preferable if people are moral because they have reasoned things through, because then they won't be as likely to fall to temptation or be reasoned out of it. Now I don't know about you, but, I would prefer someone who doesn't murder me because they believe they'll go to hell if they do to someone who does because he believes he'll get away with it.
It's not immoral to believe in Santa Claus, is it?
I'd prefer if someone doesn't murder me because they think murder is bad
That's not what I asked.
Of course it doesn't matter why they do it on a case by case basis but minimizing suffering is a much more straightforward reason to be moral than a spiritual belief that causes cognitive dissonance at its core. To be a Christian you must believe that you're a terrible person and that you can never be good. Even if you can be forgiven you're still an awful sinner. This is told to children starting at 2 years old. Is it any wonder that Christianity has caused more pain and suffering than anything else in human history? If you tell people they're awful then they'll start to believe it. Religion and especially Christianity is rotten at its core which is why it's impossible to be both a moral person and a Christian. There is too much baggage for the mind to deal with. You have to simultaneously love your neighbor while acknowledging that it was right and good for your god to order the slaughter of infant children and torture folks for eternity simply for not knowing about your god's existence. Trying to parse these two stances creates psychosis.
Okay, let's assume you're right and that is indeed a terrible belief system. What's your alternative? It seems to me that you are arguing that we should believe that we already ARE good people and we don't need any forgiveness or grace in order to be good. If anyone disagrees with that and points out something we've done that hurt them, we can just tell them they're wrong because God created us to be perfect and sinless and we don't need to change a single thing. How does that attitude not lead to blatant narcissism in the long run?
If you don't believe there is at least a chance that you might be wrong, there is no reason to ever listen to the complaints of other people, and no reason to ever try to find any compromise. It's simply the law of the stronger. Whoever has the most power makes all the rules because God made them perfect and they don't need to fix a single thing. Isn't that exactly what you are accusing Christians of doing? How do you get morality out of that philosophy?
You've taken so many leaps here that make no sense and are straw manning my argument to extreme levels. Where could you possibly have gotten that I think everyone is perfect and that a god created us that way? Religion, and Christianity in particular, is a terrible belief system and it causes cognitive dissonance and psychosis. Christianity creates pain and suffering and turns otherwise good people into monsters. You've not refuted that at all.
My only system of belief is to minimize suffering. That's it. Morality is obviously complicated but if you keep that in mind with every decision things get a lot more clear. There will always be outliers but if we all attempt to minimize suffering then we will make progress. We won't always be right and we will have to admit when mistakes are made and correct them.
Well, you said Christianity is terrible because in order to be a Christian you must believe you’re a terrible person and can never be good (which is incorrect BTW, but we’ll save that for later).
So since you said that this was a terrible belief, and you didn’t provide any alternative, I simply took the opposite stance and showed how that isn’t any better. Also, I didn’t say that this is what you were arguing for, I very clearly asked you what your preferred alternative was.
And you haven’t proven that this is the case either, or do you happen to have any studies that show that mental illness is more prevalent in Christians than in atheists, or at least the population as a whole? Otherwise I assume you’re just working with anecdotal evidence, such as having been raised by Christian parents whom you consider psychotic. Unfortunately, that’s not enough evidence to condemn all of the approx. 2.4 billion people in the world who consider themselves Christian. Even if, say, all of the Christians in the United States were demonstrably psychotic, that wouldn’t be enough evidence to condemn Christianity as a whole (although it would at least warrant suspicion that the two may be linked).
Now, as far as misrepresenting Christian beliefs goes, you said that Christians believe that people can never be good and therefore must always feel terrible about themselves. That’s not the case. It’s rather that people can never be perfect and therefore should always strive to improve. Do you see the difference? One interpretation says “you’ll never come anywhere close to God’s perfection so you might as well give up and not even try”, the other says “you may not ever reach perfection, but you’ll certainly come closer to it if you keep trying.”
Yes I can. It's his fault.
Fantastic, then I'll blame you for all the people killed by atheists because you didn't do anything to prevent it.
I don't care what you do lol
Okay, I'm going to keep preaching the words of Jesus then.
But he didn't perform miracles. The gospels were written centuries later.
The academic consensus is that a guy probably existed who was a preacher whose teachings gave rise to the legend of this miraculous “Jesus”.
Everything that’s assumed to be real about Jesus is completely mundane. A preacher whose followers spread his teachings and fantastically embellished his achievements. Big deal! There are hundreds of guys like that. He’s L. Ron Hubbard without the trillion-year-old spaceships.
Except Jesus didn't make millions of dollars from publishing his philosophy in book format, and L. Ron Hubbard didn't willingly die in order to prove his belief in Xenu or whatever.
Just so everyone knows, this "loving Christian" just excused Christians in Uganda putting LGBT+ people in prison for life.
https://lemmy.today/comment/3451312
Sure buddy XD
No, it's true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn't play into my lack of belief in god.