For all their "christianity", republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical.

Jesus actually teached that everybody deserves to get fed and housed. That everybody deserves healthcare. That people should care for other people in their community. That is essentially the core principles of socialism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 103 points 1 year ago (40 children)

Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.

People holding onto “that’s not what Jesus would do” are just in denial about the cult they participate in.

Jesus is just a tool used to dupe rubes. If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.

    There are a lot of different religions and beliefs in the world, right? Christianity and similar religions are not the only ones that exist, and many religions originated from ancient human primitive tribes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yes and we don’t practice many of those anymore because we know we don’t have to sacrifice people to make sure the sun rises. These primitive ceremonies and practices go away with education and science.

    What’s left are grifters, pedos and people abusing those that are desperate and superstitious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    In your mind there are only monotheistic religions practiced in modern times, and the only other religions practiced in the world involved human sacrifice and those practices are no longer present in modern times?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You can’t call every christian a rube and then make such a simplistic accusation about organized religion. Yes there are (major) flaws with organized religion, but surely you realize your statement is at best hyperbole and at worst moronic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Dawg I ain’t saying organized religion is innocent. But it is false to claim that the sole purpose of religion is to control the masses. Your original comment was also just wrong like bruh, how can you claim that a figure like Jesus (the guy flipping tables in the marketplace, preaching ab how the poor are the most holy, saving the lepers, etc) was actually an evil psychopath who had a long game where he was going to fleece the poor of their wealth and threaten people with eternal damnation so they would follow him. That’s just some braindead conspiracy shit where you’re afraid everyone is out to get you. Grow up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Whatever jesus the human did in the past is irrelevant. He is used as an icon to control people by those who built an organized cult around him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why didn’t you start with that 😭 your original argument sounded so silly. Hell you could’ve said smtn interesting like how an originally innocuous scripture was co-opted for nefarious purposes but instead you just wanted to sound like an 8th grader who found r/atheism for the first time 💔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The over 100 upvotes say otherwise…

    Religion is a cult that’s actively making the world a worse place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    “The over 100 upvotes say otherwise”🤓 grow up lmao

    And buddy we literally agreed ab how scripture/prophets/religious ideas are often co-opted for power over a group of people.

    I’m just tryna let you know that your argument sounded stupid lol. Try using specific evidence for arguments next time.

    For example “religion is a cult…” is an awful start to an argument. 1) wtf is religion, that is a very broad term 2) the religion you’re mentioning is written in the singular, are you trying to say that all world religions are actually the same religion? 3) what about this (singular?) cult is actively making the world worse?

    Instead try saying something like “Zionist politicians purposely mislead their constituents through well chosen scripture in order to garner support for the genocide of thousands.”

    See how my statement was the effectively the same as your argument, but it uses more precise language and points to a specific modern day example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don’t give a shit about your opinion. I’m not going to censor myself or use click bait sounding arguments.

    Religions are fucking cults, every last one of them and I’m done pretending they are not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I’m not going to… use click bait sounding arguments

    religion is a cult that’s actively making the world a worse place

    So what you did there is contradict yourself.

    And considering that you keep responding to my comments and (poorly) defending your argument, you clearly care a lot about my opinion.

    You also really gotta clean up this thesis of yours. Besides the brutal and ignorant simplicity, you need to find a noun other than “cult.” I get what you’re trying to say, but by using cult in this manner you are essentially arguing that we need to change the definition of the word “cult” instead of remove all religion (which seems to be your goal).*

    *I’m not really going to expand more on what I mean by how you use the word “cult” cause it would require me to write a much more interesting essay than your poorly thought out idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.

    What happens when you need a real person to tell you to act like a "decent human being" like every human in existence today? Are we all by nature "evil" because we require third parties to dictate what "good" is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it's embedded in our genes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    This is incorrect. You likely have learned little on your own, especially true regarding behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    I'm not arguing against that, but there definitely is a moral compass embedded in our genes. We've evolved to work and live in a society. Otherwise we would be extinct. You may be taught things that "feel" wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You appear to have never raised children. Being empathetic and kind to children is key so they can learn what empathy and kindness is; without the demonstration (and for many children, the reinforcement) children's instinct are to resort to violence to get their way. Infants start out in the world copying the perspective of their parents, which is It is so critical to be expressively empathetic with infants so they can learn the appropriate mapping of experiences with feelings.

    Children don’t just pick up these values from their parents, but from everyone around them; and in a social group where everyone balances their values against everyone else, norms and traditions form, and now there is an informal religion; and where norms and traditions transcend generations of those practicing, social structures are inevitably built to reinforce the norms into future generations, and now there is a formalized religion.

    Any social structure can be corrupted by power. To say religion is inherently amoral because it is corrupt is put on intellectual blindfolds to how social values and norms are shared

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We may be speaking of different things. Let me ask you something: do you think the warm feeling you get when you help someone or share a moment of achievement with another person is taught by society?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    There definitely is no evidence to support an inherent "moral compass" in humans or any other animal because there is no evidence to support genetic memory which would be required to pass information without teaching it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The obvious response to this is "companions in guilt". It's a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for "genetic memory", when like logic it's simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    Genes are a type of memory. Instincts aren't taught.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    Define instincts and provide an example of them being inherent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    The entire life of a turtle...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Did you know that the mother communicates to her eggs before leaving the beach? They also have a very complex verbal and non verbal way of communicating which begins even before they hatch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Even assuming you're correct, which I very highly doubt as you have provided no source for your claim that contradicts the overwhelming majority of information you can find online, are you going to tell me flies also communicate with their eggs? Does it continue all the way down to amoebas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Even assuming you’re correct, which I very highly doubt as you have provided no source for your claim that contradicts the overwhelming majority of information you can find online, are you going to tell me flies also communicate with their eggs? Does it continue all the way down to amoebas?

    Search "Turtles speak to eggs" if you want to see an overwhelming amount of information that supports the studies done on Turtle communication. Not only do the mothers speak to their babies in the eggs, the baby turtles speak to each other before they hatch.

    No, because we are talking about Turtles and what studies know about Turtles. I am unsure what we know about how flies communicate, or how amoebas communicate beyond chemical reactions, but that has nothing to do with the facts about Turtles.

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it’s embedded in our genes.

    Feel free to source your bullshit before asking for a source from someone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    We're not talking about turtles but about instincts, that's why I said "assuming you're correct" because even if you are, you're not disproving the existence of instincts, which is pretty much scientific common knowledge. The specific example is not that important for the argument, which you conveniently avoided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    We’re not talking about turtles but about instincts, that’s why I said “assuming you’re correct” because even if you are, you’re not disproving the existence of instincts, which is pretty much scientific common knowledge. The specific example is not that important for the argument, which you conveniently avoided.

    I asked you to provide an example of inherent instincts, you said Turtles, I demonstrated why you were wrong.

    The onus is on you to prove your original hypothesis:

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it’s embedded in our genes.

    I am not avoiding your argument, I am explicitly telling you it is bullshit. This is bullshit and not backed by anything real.

    Feel free to source something or jog on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sigh...

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

    There you go, sources and all. It's very illuminating.

    My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

    https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/ (just an example)

    Now, what exactly is "good" is a philosophical question without an objective answer. But to assume our entire behavior and everything makes a person "good" is learned is pretty disingenuous, at least under the definitions of good I've most commonly come across.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

    A wiki does not an argument make, and your argument fails to explain why compassion and empathy are not universal in our species and a learned behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're not arguing in good faith - the wiki was the source for the existence of instincts you asked for. Also, Wikipedia is a very good resource actually, what difference would it make to you if I just copied the sources referenced in the article?

    I didn't get your second part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    threat of eternal damnation

    And that's what a lot of people get wrong about christianity. Jesus literally said "everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    And what happens with those that don’t believe? Those that doubt for even a second? Burn in hell for all eternity!

    Believe in us or you are forever doomed.

    It’s an ultimatum designed to terrify and control people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    And what happens with those that don’t? Those that doubt for even a second? Burn in hell for all eternity!

    Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.

    It’s an ultimatum designed to terrify and control people.

    If somebody calls himself christian out of fear and terror, then I'm afraid we believe in different gods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.

    Nobody thinks or do you mean you think? Cause you have to be joking yourself if you think there are no worshippers that fear burning in hell for their sins.

    If somebody calls himself christian out of fear and terror, then l'm afraid we believe in different gods.

    How do you know which one is correct? Yours is just an interpretation of another person’s interpretation of events that happened ages ago. The writing in the bible is clear about burning in hell for all eternity and now you are cherry picking what parts you believe in?

    How does any of this shit have any kind of credibility with that level of brain gymnastics.

    I don’t believe in any gods. There are hundreds of versions of god that you don’t believe in, only difference is I don’t believe in one more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Even the apostles doubted many times and nobody thinks they burn in hell right now.

    Nobody thinks or do you mean you think?

    I mean... they are literally called "saint" and guess what it means.

    Cause you have to be joking yourself if you think there are no worshippers that fear burning in hell for their sins.

    Surely there are. If I met such person, I would gladly talk with them, or recommend some literature on this topic.

    How do you know which one is correct? Yours is just an interpretation of another person’s interpretation of events that happened ages ago. The writing in the bible is clear about burning in hell for all eternity and now you are cherry picking what parts you believe in?

    It's not my interpretation, it's the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (and probably other "variants" too, I'm just not aware of the differences).

    I don’t believe in any gods. There are hundreds of versions of god that you don’t believe in, only difference is I don’t believe in one more.

    Okay, that's your choice

  • source
  • parent