Do you believe in God?

[HenrySwanson]

What? You get that if you don't have anything substantive to contribute you can simply not reply, right? Pretend somone asked you a question that you can't answer without compromising your pathetic arguments.

I think most (all?) of the Christians have noped out of this thread.

I gave my perspective (don't know) and mused that, in 2024, a TV show can be more relevant than the Bible (which is what I presume you were referring to when you talked about what Christianity deems bad).

Not a single one wth a rational foundation. Ever. They're kind of known for that.

Maybe it's (Christianity) another method of control then.

 

[UKMikey]

Southern Baptist Convention: Jesus is too woke. Die, heretic pushes someone off bridge

Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”

A former evangelical leader is sounding the alarm about the direction his religion is headed in.

newrepublic.com

 

[Chris30]

Southern Baptist Convention: Jesus is too woke. Die, heretic pushes someone off bridge

Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”

A former evangelical leader is sounding the alarm about the direction his religion is headed in.

newrepublic.com

That doesn't sound good at all. (Sigh), I have a bad feeling about it. But what can we really do about it? Abusing power is the worst thing anyone can do. You guys should read some of this article about the Clarence Thomas scandal. Crazy stuff.

 

[05XR8]

I guess they think backing Trump will bring back ye good ol days of Reaganomics.

 

[HenrySwanson]

UK Sikh group raises concerns over ‘Islamophobia’ definition

Incorporating "contested definition" of Islamophobia would create "hierarchy of religions", UK Sikh network claims.

www.secularism.org.uk

A prominent UK Sikh group has urged the Government not to introduce a controversial definition of 'Islamophobia' into law.

In the wake of recent attacks on mosques and Muslims by far-right rioters, the Government has announced it is "actively considering" its approach to 'Islamophobia'. This reportedly includes engagement with stakeholders in support of adopting the definition of 'Islamophobia' formulated by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims.

While in opposition, the Labour Party adopted the APPG definition, which defines 'Islamophobia' as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness".

But the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), a charity representing over 130 gurdwaras and other Sikh groups, said adopting the definition into law would have "serious implications" for free speech, including the ability to discuss "historical truths".

In a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, the NSO highlighted how the APPG definition includes claims of Muslims "spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule" as examples of 'Islamophobia'.

This attempt at "revisionism" would characterise discussions of Indian history, the current persecution of religious minorities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and "seminal moments in Sikh history" as expressions of racism, the NSO warned.

The NSO said the right to openly discuss religions, beliefs and history is a basic tenet of "public debate and the free exchange of ideas", which is critical to safeguarding pluralism and "the bedrock of a civilised, free and liberal society."

The NSO also raised concerns the APPG definition is incompatible with equality law, and would promote a "religious hierarchy" where one person's belief is protected whilst another's is penalised.

According to the NSO, a manifestation of the Sikh faith is the "rejection of halal slaughter and meat" due to it being considered "inhumane". But under the APPG definition, objecting to halal slaughter could be viewed as targeting an "expression of Muslimness", and therefore judged an act of racism.

 

[Duke]

I'm still curious why Christians rape children. I know their texts don't explicitly prohibit it but they have to know it's wrong, right? Is it something about the Christian mind? Is it the emphasis on purity, with children presumably being most pure?

I’m… not seeing child molestation as unique among Christians, or even prominent.

 

[TexRex]

I’m… not seeing child molestation as unique among Christians, or even prominent.

I've never said it is. I've actually acknowledged it isn't. But it does seem like it ought to run entirely counter to what it means to be a Christian, but for the total lack of any condemnation of it in Christian doctrine. I'm curious what the point of Christianity is, when it's presented as being a foundation for individual goodness, if it doesn't stop child sexual abuse by its adherents. It's also bizarre to me that consensual sexual acts would be condemned, be they acts by individuals of the same biological sex or by those not bound by marriage, when sexual abuse of children is not.

 

[HenrySwanson]

But it does seem like it ought to run entirely counter to what it means to be a Christian

There are, and have been many evil Christians.

I'm curious what the point of Christianity is

Of Jesus Christ? Love.

Of Christianity? Control.

 

[TexRex]

So, sick as it is, there's something of a logical consistency to the disregard for consent of children by those who prey upon them and the disregard for consent of the pregnant by those who advocate for the prohibition of abortion (and even contraception!). Both of these things may be attributed to Christians. Now this isn't to say that these things are mutually exclusive or that either applies to all Christians. Certainly Christians frequently cite their "faith" (it's delusion) as the foundation for the latter advocacy. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if the desire to prey upon children is founded upon the same delusion. It should also be said, and I am steadfast in maintaining this position, that thought alone is not harm and one should not be condemned for such thought without having acted upon it in the truest sense (explicitly disregarding roleplay between consenting adults).

There are, and have been many evil Christians.

Okay. Why can't what makes them evil be their having acted upon their beliefs as Christians? I'm not saying it is. I'm wondering if it could be because it seems so inconsistent with Christian belief but for the lack of written condemnation.

I'd suggest this insistence on removing individual action from religious belief is in stark contrast to your having insisted that extremism, especially terrorism, by purported adherents to Islam is the fault of Islam. Now I have come to understand that you're a disingenuous hack that doesn't shy away from these sorts of double standards and so this doesn't come as any kind of surprise to me, but it does still behoove me to point out the contrast.

Of Jesus Christ? Love.

"Jesus Christ" is a figment of a collective delusion. While there may have been an individual so named in antiquity, the apparent overwhelming majority of that which is said of and attributed to the bitch is imagined.

That said, I recently cited "Jesus" having told "Moses" to relay to others that the penalty for gazing upon or touching the foot of Mount Sinai prior to "His" sermon is death. I mean it's not real, but that sure doesn't sound like love to me. It sounds like the bitch was just super full of himself, which brings us back to the priorities on display in the "ten commandments."

Of Christianity? Control.

I mean, sure, but it's also purported to be the teachings of "Jesus Christ." That's actually literally in the name. Even you recognized it as such when you brought up the bitch when quoting me as having spoken of Christianity. Did...did you forget?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Did...did you forget?

Did you forget to answer this:

Which contexts do you use it in, specifically?

 

[EricTheActor]

I’m not religious or even spiritual, I’ve just never felt anything like that. But I have no problem with people who do. I didn’t grow up with religion, it’s just never been a thing. But I do have heaven and hell logistical type questions. Ok so I make it to one of them, is there going to be food? Because if I can’t eat I don’t really think I want to go. Like what if I want tacos up there, or chips and guacamole. Can I get that or do we no longer eat there? Say I get to heaven, is there going to be a grocery stop or like food trucks? Who will work the stores and trucks? Like if you get to heaven aren’t you retired and don’t have to work? Maybe the food just appears? I know for a fact I have half of a pastrami and Swiss sandwich right in front of me. Lettuce tomatoe mustard and pickles. Really good and fresh deli. Will they have fresh cold cuts and Swiss cheese up or down there? If there is no food, I don’t think I’m going to either place, let’s be real here.

 

[TexRex]

Did you forget to answer this:

I alluded to this site's search function as being a means to observing the specific contexts in which I use the word. I suggest it still is. You didn't like that. I don't know how much more specific context can be. I use it when I use it. Use the search function and you can see the context.

Now maybe address that which you avoided to rehash grievance from elsewhere? Or are you just going to validate my observation that you're a disingenuous hack given to double standards rooted in personal ideological bias?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I use it when I use it. Use the search function and you can see the context.

Now maybe address that which you avoided to rehash grievance from elsewhere? Or are you just going to validate my observation that you're a disingenuous hack given to double standards rooted in personal ideological bias?

Why should I answer you when you're, again, failing to answer what I asked?

I'll use an example:

The one bitch what shot at the other bitch was a registered Republican. The first bitch is currently a Republican, though hopefully no longer appears on voter rolls (the rats project so much that I half expect the bitch to still vote). The first bitch, as of July 13th, is the best kind of Republican.

• What makes these two individuals "bitches"?
• If the shooter identified as a female, would you use the term?

Now maybe address that which you avoided to rehash grievance from elsewhere? Or are you just going to validate my observation that you're a disingenuous hack given to double standards rooted in personal ideological bias?

Have I avoided it? What makes you think that I have?

 

[TexRex]

What makes these two individuals "bitches"?

The one bitch initiated force against another absent legitimate threat of imminent physical violence justifying defensive action. The other bitch incites vitriol at disfavored individuals, entities and groups by deranged followers and disdains the founding principles of the United States of America even going so far as rejecting democracy and seeking to disenfranchise a majority of the voting public that participated in the 2020 presidential election. Though you didn't bring it up even as you quoted part of the post in which I did, I also called "Jesus Christ" a bitch and that's because the prospect of Christians being offended at the affront to their sky daddy sparks joy in me.

Clearly the context is varied and just maybe it isn't easily explained without referring to individual use which may be observed by utilizing this site's search function.

If the shooter identified as a female, would you use the term?

Did they? I know some asserted in the immediate aftermath that either they did or that they may otherwise fit into the LGBT community in an effort to sow collective derision at those in said community.

I'm not in the habit of indicating what may or may not have happened in hypothetical situations. For one, it just isn't itself compelling (though I acknowledge it may validate particular viewpoints when utilized to that end), but also it can't be falsified. It's actually the basis of an informal logical fallacy--hypothesis contrary to fact or, more simply, counterfactual. We've been over this before. For some reason that I can't understand, unless it's the viewpoint validation thing, you're drawn to this sort of bad faith argumentation.

Have I avoided it?

Yes.

What makes you think that I have?

You having quoted a small portion of my remarks used in one context and using them as a springboard to rehash grievance from some time ago and another thread entirely while not responding to direct solicitation. I know you understand this and I recognize that it's your objective to feign ignorance.

...

Back to my questioning. I'll pick that which I'm most interested in because it's the bit I find most pathetic.

Why would Islam be a cause of harm while some Christians are just bad apples and belief doesn't inform their harmful actions? Is your being or having been a Christian, which you have indicated, motivation to give that particular stupid and wrong belief a pass while another draws your ire?

And to be clear, I'm referring to Christianity here because it's the delusion I observe as very commonly being the one which has offered "God" as its primary sky daddy. I know some other delusions refer to the same sky daddy but I gather they use different names.

Christianity certainly isn't the only delusion I refer to as such, or even that I mock more generally. I'm pretty equal opportunity in that regard. I once referred to the Muslim prophet as a pedophile because the bitch is said to have married a nine-year-old girl to justify sexual predation shortly thereafter. Despite my lack of respect for various collective delusions, I find the notion of using force of law to prohibit religious exercise when such violates no rights to be abhorrent. People should be free to believe stupid and wrong things because belief itself is not harm even when acting on belief, even possibly as sexual predation by Christians, may be.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The one bitch initiated force against another absent legitimate threat of imminent physical violence justifying defensive action. The other bitch incites vitriol at disfavored individuals, entities and groups by deranged followers and disdains the founding principles of the United States of America even going so far as rejecting democracy and seeking to disenfranchise a majority of the voting public that participated in the 2020 presidential election. Though you didn't bring it up even as you quoted part of the post in which I did, I also called "Jesus Christ" a bitch and that's because the prospect of Christians being offended at the affront to their sky daddy sparks joy in me.

Clearly the context is varied and just maybe it isn't easily explained without referring to individual use which may be observed by utilizing this site's search function.

OK....so why not "jackass" or "douche" - why "bitch"?

Did they? I know some asserted in the immediate aftermath that either they did or that they may otherwise fit into the LGBT community in an effort to sow collective derision at those in said community.

I'm not in the habit of indicating what may or may not have happened in hypothetical situations. For one, it just isn't itself compelling (though I acknowledge it may validate particular viewpoints when utilized to that end), but also it can't be falsified. It's actually the basis of an informal logical fallacy--hypothesis contrary to fact or, more simply, counterfactual. We've been over this before.

I didn't actually know this.

And yes, you've been over this before but I was asking in a general sense.

I.e. If this was the shooter.

Would you use the word bitch? You see how much easier it would have been if you answered the initial question?

Yes.

Ah, you are right. In that, you are wrong occasionally.

I haven't avoided it but merely pulled you up on something before answering. And with that:

Back to my questioning. I'll pick that which I'm most interested in because it's the bit I find most pathetic.

Why would Islam be a cause of harm while some Christians are just bad apples and belief doesn't inform their harmful actions? Is your being or having been a Christian, which you have indicated, motivation to give that particular stupid and wrong belief a pass while another draws your ire?

Where am I disagreeing with you that the belief in Christianity, and Christian scripture could inform Christians to commit abuse against children? It's not as overt as Islam encouraging violence but you can certainly make the argument that it's there. The major difference seems to be that there is a huge oversight in the Bible rather than passages condoning it. Or do you see them as equal???

And to be clear, I'm referring to Christianity here because it's the delusion I observe as very commonly being the one which has offered "God" as its primary sky daddy. I know some other delusions refer to the same sky daddy but I gather they use different names.

Christianity certainly isn't the only delusion I refer to as such, or even that I mock more generally. I'm pretty equal opportunity in that regard. I once referred to the Muslim prophet as a pedophile because the bitch is said to have married a nine-year-old girl to justify sexual predation shortly thereafter.

I think many believe he married her when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when 9.

That said, I recently cited "Jesus" having told "Moses" to relay to others that the penalty for gazing upon or touching the foot of Mount Sinai prior to "His" sermon is death. I mean it's not real, but that sure doesn't sound like love to me. It sounds like the bitch was just super full of himself, which brings us back to the priorities on display in the "ten commandments."

What do you mean by this?

 

[TexRex]

OK....so why not "jackass" or "douche" - why "bitch"?

Fewer letters? I don't know. Why "jackass" or "douche" and not "bitch"? I'm not really opposed to using the former. I've just used the latter. Why does my using the latter cause you such consternation? Is it wrong to call the would-be assassin a bitch? Trump? "Jesus"? Why?

I didn't actually know this.

Trans woman falsely identified as Trump shooter in far-right smear

A viral X post, which labeled an image of a random trans woman as Trump's shooter, was amplified by Alex Jones

www.yahoo.com

And yes, you've been over this before but I was asking in a general sense.

In a general sense it still hinges on that which did not happen.

I.e. If this was the shooter.

Would you use the word bitch?

Uh...okay, so I'm pretty sure that's Taylor Swift. You should stop because this is just aggressively stupid. Maybe seek professional help. I sincerely think you could stand to benefit.

You see how much easier it would have been if you answered the initial question?

You asked for specific context. How I've actually used it is specific context. The site's search function yields actual use. Even though I know now that it would trigger an apparent psychotic episode, it still seems to me to be the most logical response especially given that I use it in contexts of such variety that explaining the reasoning isn't feasible, even if I gave use any thought.

Ah, you are right. In that, you are wrong occasionally.

What?

I haven't avoided it but merely pulled you up on something before answering.

"I wasn't avoiding it, I just hadn't answered it yet"?

Where am I disagreeing with you that the belief in Christianity, and Christian scripture could inform Christians to commit abuse against children?

I framed this better in the post that you avoided but for the last few words you chose to quote.

[Why can't what makes them evil be their having acted upon their beliefs as Christians? I'm not saying it is. I'm wondering if it could be because it seems so inconsistent with Christian belief but for the lack of written condemnation.

I'd suggest this insistence on removing individual action from religious belief is in stark contrast to your having insisted that extremism, especially terrorism, by purported adherents to Islam is the fault of Islam. Now I have come to understand that you're a disingenuous hack that doesn't shy away from these sorts of double standards and so this doesn't come as any kind of surprise to me, but it does still behoove me to point out the contrast.]

The belief here is that child sexual predation isn't wrong. It certainly isn't condemned, even as consensual sexual acts are.

It's not as overt as Islam encouraging violence but you can certainly make the argument that it's there. The major difference seems to be that there is a huge oversight in the Bible rather than passages condoning it. Or do you see them as equal???

The Bible prescribes a penalty for adultery, which is to say consensual sexual intercourse between a woman who is married and a man to whom she is not married. That penalty is death by stoning. The penalty still applies to the woman in cases of rape where she hasn't sufficiently protested such that others are alerted though they may be in earshot.

The Bible prescribes a penalty for sodomy, which is to say consensual sexual intercourse betwen two men. That penalty is death. The method of execution is not specified.

The Bible prescribes a penalty for blasphemy, which is to say speech which insults subjects of particular religious delusion. That penalty is death by stoning. I'm a big blasphemer. It's fun. George Carlin is my spirit animal. Religious delusion should be mocked.

No mention of child sexual predation, though. Weird.

I don't see them as equal. I don't know enough about either to do any kind of comparison. They're both frequently stupid and wrong. Where each says to do good, I mean fine, but I think people tend to be good even in the absence of religious belief. I'd suggest that it was the observance of goodness in people that inspired the texts. They don't have divine origins. They were written by men.

I think many believe he married her when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when 9.

Okay. Maybe I'm mistaken. What I understood to be the claim is still gross. If that's the actual claim, it's worse. I think I'm justified in calling the prophet a pedophile either way. Frequently child sexual abuse is about power, but I get the sense that there was actual attraction in this case. Gross.

Whether pedophilia or power, I don't think it's wrong to refer to the bitch as such.

What do you mean by this?

The penalty for getting too close to where "Jesus" was supposed to speak being death is unhinged, even as a fiction. It doesn't say love to me at all. Also I gather the method of execution here was also stoning. Everybody must get stoned.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why does my using the latter cause you such consternation?

Not avoiding this, just seeing if you can figure it out....

Uh...okay, so I'm pretty sure that's Taylor Swift. You should stop because this is just aggressively stupid. Maybe seek professional help. I sincerely think you could stand to benefit.

Someone who looks like a stereotypically beautiful woman.

I will apologise here as I should have said: "someone who looks like this". Although....

The one bitch initiated force against another absent legitimate threat of imminent physical violence justifying defensive action.

I thought using force against another seeking to deprive rights is justified according to your previous posts? Why is the shooter a "bitch"?

If you don't deal in hypotheticals at all, would you call Candace Owens a "bitch" (and no, I'm not bothered to trawl through your posts to see if you have)?

"I wasn't avoiding it, I just hadn't answered it yet"?

Yep.

I framed this better in the post that you avoided but for the last few words you chose to quote.

[Why can't what makes them evil be their having acted upon their beliefs as Christians? I'm not saying it is. I'm wondering if it could be because it seems so inconsistent with Christian belief but for the lack of written condemnation.

What is inconsistent with Christian belief?

I'd suggest this insistence on removing individual action from religious belief is in stark contrast to your having insisted that extremism, especially terrorism, by purported adherents to Islam is the fault of Islam. Now I have come to understand that you're a disingenuous hack that doesn't shy away from these sorts of double standards and so this doesn't come as any kind of surprise to me, but it does still behoove me to point out the contrast.

Oh, it's not like we haven't done this before:

Islam - What's your view on it?

They're not real. Why is that a problem? Sure. Religion is delusion. It makes people think all sorts of stupid and wrong things. But those stupid and wrong things, including any bigotry therein, are still thought alone and violate no rights. I guess I just don't consider thinking stupid and...

www.gtplanet.net

The belief here is that child sexual predation isn't wrong. It certainly isn't condemned, even as consensual sexual acts are.

The Bible prescribes a penalty for adultery, which is to say consensual sexual intercourse between a woman who is married and a man to whom she is not married. That penalty is death by stoning. The penalty still applies to the woman in cases of rape where she hasn't sufficiently protested such that others are alerted though they may be in earshot.

The Bible prescribes a penalty for sodomy, which is to say consensual sexual intercourse betwen two men. That penalty is death. The method of execution is not specified.

The Bible prescribes a penalty for blasphemy, which is to say speech which insults subjects of particular religious delusion. That penalty is death by stoning. I'm a big blasphemer. It's fun. George Carlin is my spirit animal. Religious delusion should be mocked.

No mention of child sexual predation, though. Weird.

Hence my belief; Jesus was about love and Christianity is about control.

Okay. Maybe I'm mistaken. What I understood to be the claim is still gross. If that's the actual claim, it's worse. I think I'm justified in calling the prophet a pedophile either way. Frequently child sexual abuse is about power, but I get the sense that there was actual attraction in this case. Gross.

Whether pedophilia or power, I don't think it's wrong to refer to the bitch as such.

Yes, Muhammad was a child sexual abuser.

It is a problem when Muslims see him as the "perfect human believer".

The penalty for getting too close to where "Jesus" was supposed to speak being death is unhinged, even as a fiction. It doesn't say love to me at all. Also I gather the method of execution here was also stoning. Everybody must get stoned.

Did Jesus set out that penalty? Sorry, I'm confused.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[HenrySwanson]

If there is a hell I can't wait to see what's in store for him, considering his evil acts and his probable belief in suicide being a sin.

Meanwhile, such an investigation needs to continue:

Sex abuse survivors dispute Southern Baptist leadership and say federal investigation is ongoing

The status of a federal investigation into a leading Southern Baptist agency’s handling of sexual abuse is unclear.

apnews.com

 

[HenrySwanson]

Pakistani man in Canada charged with planned mass shooting of Jewish New Yorkers

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, 20, arrested near US border after allegedly planning attack with undercover agents

www.theguardian.com

Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise again:

https://archive.ph/isvZJ

What lessons can we take from 2014-2019?

EDIT: And now Trump is telling his mainly Christian morons that a Harris win would blow Israel off the map.

 

[TexRex]

That's a shame. I want so badly to be delighted by this Christian child molester killing itself but I can't. It seems the bitch understood that its actions are likely to cause physical and emotional harm and didn't want to endure similar in prison. On the one hand, prisons absolutely need to do a better job of protecting inmates from harm, including sexual violence, but at the same time I can't feel bad about a Christian child molester getting raped, and I expect fellow inmates would deliver on that and more. So it's a shame that the bitch killed itself. Same end but without the suffering.

 

[Duke]

Can we please just berking END religion now? Please?!

 

[TexRex]

Can we please just berking END religion now? Please?!

I'm critical of religion because stupid and wrong belief abound, but I don't need religion to not exist. Eliminating religion doesn't eliminate stupid and wrong belief. There's all manner of stupid and wrong belief unrelated to religion. Also stupid and wrong belief isn't harm.

Do you get rid of Christian child molesters by getting rid of Christianity? Yes! But you also get rid of Christian child advocates and Christian pediatric cardiothoracic surgeons. "Christian"--as any other religion or stupid and wrong belief more broadly--isn't a meaningful correlation because stupid and wrong belief is so prevalent.

Individuals who do either good or bad exist in both the presence of and the absence of religion.

 

[Duke]

But at least people will be killing each other for understandable things, like wealth or resources, instead of unknown and by definition unknowable beliefs.

 

[HenrySwanson]

But at least people will be killing each other for understandable things, like wealth or resources, instead of unknown and by definition unknowable beliefs.

I really do think there would be a statistically significant reduction in homophobia/transphobia if religion disappeared overnight.

It can elevate the person, corrupt them or have little effect.

We are seeing the effects of the sons of Abraham going to war yet again and it shows little sign of slowing.

 

[TexRex]

But at least people will be killing each other for understandable things, like wealth or resources, instead of unknown and by definition unknowable beliefs.

Also racial hatred, infidelity (real or perceived), because of the colors one is wearing, to conceal other heinous acts, or any number of other reasons. That one killed for something wholly removed from religion is not a reasonable thing in which to find solace.

Stupid and wrong belief isn't the harm. The harm is the harm.

 

[Duke]

Religion is certainly not the only reason people harm each other. Even competition for resources aside, as you point out, there are other dividing factors.

But how much racism is driven by the religious differences hammered into so much of the world for so long?

How much violence is driven by differences in perceived morality, based on religious differences?

And do you really think the overall level of violence would stay the same, if we removed religious differences as a motive? You don’t think it would go down?

 

[TexRex]

Religion is certainly not the only reason people harm each other. Even competition for resources aside, as you point out, there are other dividing factors.

But how much racism is driven by the religious differences hammered into so much of the world for so long?

How much violence is driven by differences in perceived morality, based on religious differences?

And do you really think the overall level of violence would stay the same, if we removed religious differences as a motive? You don’t think it would go down?

People are very good at finding reasons to hate other people. If any religion says to hate anyone, it's because people put it there. Religion doesn't shape people. People shape religion. Indeed people re-shape religion. It's why so many--and so many variations on them--exist. People make religion fit their lives. If anyone doesn't, it's because they haven't been so compelled. What they have been told to believe, and possibly who they have been told to hate, simply works for them. It's Emo Philips on the bridge. People are also very easily manipulated by those who know how to talk to them. You don't need religion to manipulate someone. You don't even need religion to manipulate someone into perpetrating harms, including heinous ones, against others. Often the easiest way to do that is to tell them that they are a victim, that someone poses a threat to them, and that you can protect them. Donald Trump isn't religious--anyone not completely gone can see that--and yet he's playing pied piper to so very many rats.

How do you distinguish a subjective morality founded upon religious belief from one founded upon a different religious belief or one not founded upon religious belief? An objective morality is one which revolves around respect for others's natural rights, which are themselves founded upon reciprocity. Live and let live. Do unto others. That sort of thing. Morality exists in the absence of religion. Again, it's man shaping religion rather than religion shaping man. You get clues when morality is founded upon religious belief rather than not when that morality gets subjective. You can't necessarily tell which religion (for one, there are so many overlaps), but you get these notions of morality which don't factor rights or even defy them, like, but certainly not limited to, prohibitions on consensual sexual intercourse. Look at the idea that fornication outside of the marriage bed is immoral. Even when individuals who are married wander, they violate the trust of their spouse but they don't violate their spouse's rights. And the unmarried? I mean who is likely to be most concerned with when and with whom the unmarried has sexual intercourse? Parents, and especially fathers of girls and young women. Then you have things like dietary restrictions, which, while possibly established at least partly on logic such as for food safety reasons, don't concern rights at all.

And I'm not in the habit of predicting the outcomes of hypothetical scenarios and I'm critical of any argumentation to that effect. I have been very recently and even in this very thread. It's masturbation; it feels good but it's not productive. I can no more produce evidence supporting my position than you can yours when it hinges on the imagined. If you eliminate religion, you still have people who are very good at finding reasons to hate other people.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Have any atheists here prayed since becoming an atheist?

An Atheist’s Prayer | HDS News Archive

news-archive.hds.harvard.edu

"Is not prayer a study of truth? A venture of the soul into the unfound infinite? No one ever prayed heartily without learning something.”

Emerson wasn’t wrong.

I still don't pray on my own, my spiritual practices don't involve talking when no one but me is there to hear. But I no longer run from prayer. I am learning something. Can an atheist pray, and why would she want to? After today, let the answers to these questions be a little less clear, and let us remember how it can feel to pray the prayers of others with our whole hearts, to stop TRYING, for half a breath, to make a prayer fit neatly into our theology, and just let it come. To open ourselves up to some change, to pray heartily, and to learn something.

 

[Chris30]

There are, and have been many evil Christians.

Of Jesus Christ? Love.

Of Christianity? Control.

Evil? In what way? I don't even want to know, but I'm curious. Unless they hurt children or abused certain people.