this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
650 points (98.1% liked)
Atheism
6162 readers
925 users here now
Community Guide
Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Statement of Purpose
- This is a support and conversation community for people who don't believe in gods.
- Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
- If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.
Acceptable
- Honest questions or conversations.
- Discussions on parenting or advice.
- Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
- Atheist memes. We can have fun!
- News headlines relevant to atheism.
Unacceptable
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
- Anything against site rules.
- Illegal and/or NSFW material.
- Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
- Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
- Personal attacks or flaming.
Inadvisable
- Self promotion or upvote farming.
- Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
Connect with Atheists
- Matrix: #atheism:envs.net
Help and Support Links
- Freedom From Religion Foundation
- The Secular Therapy Project
- Secular Students Alliance
- Black Nonbelievers
- The Clergy Project
- Atheist Alliance International
- Sunday Assembly
- Atheist Ireland
- Atheism UK
- Atheists United
Streaming Media
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
- Atheist Debates - Matt Dillahunty
- Rationality Rules
- Friendly Atheist
- Making Sense with Sam Harris
- Cosmic Skeptic
- Genetically Modified Skeptic
- Street Epistemology
- Armored Skeptic
- NonStampCollector
Orgs, Blogs, Zines
- Center for Inquiry
- American Atheists
- Humanists International
- Atheist Republic
- The Brights
- The Angry Atheist
- History for Atheists
- Rationalist International
- Atheist Revolution
- Debunking Christianity
- Godless Mom
- Atheist Freethinkers
Mainstream
Bibliography
Start here...
...proceed here.
- God is Not Great (Hitchens)
- The God Delusion (Dawkins)
- The End of Faith (Harris)
- Why I Am Not a Christian (Russell)
- Letter to a Christian Nation (Harris)
Proselytize Religion
From Reddit
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.
Like putting the shopping cart back where it belongs
Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.
What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.
The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn't "eternal damnation" (an idea that wasn't really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.
The existence of a consequence also doesn't establish whether or not you're a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an "eternal reward/punishment" as a consequence that goes above any individual actor's failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.
That's why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the "honor system" and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.
I think this is also why there's more "criminality" in opressed communities. Why would I work or sacrifice to uphold a system that is unfair to me? If I don't believe in it, if I don't see benefit from it, why should I attach my own ethics to it?
I can't believe someone made such a good post and still got downvoted for it. It's not a disagree button...
I didn't downvote the other person... but isn't it kind of a disagree button? What are the buttons for, if not to vote up the things you like, down the things you don't, and thus float the "best" to the top?
I guess one can respectfully disagree, given that we're kinda debating philosophy, or one can structurally disagree, and maybe those result in different kinds of voting behaviour.
People are getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in the op too, so yeah.
Not really, no.
Would you want x done to you?
If not, don't do it to others.
It's as simple as that.
I wouldn't want to get bombed. Therefore, I refuse to defend Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, because it might involve bombing other people.
I wouldn't want to get fired, therefore I will not remove a direct report who is sexually harassing a coworker.
I wouldn't want to gain weight, therefore I will refuse to feed my young child.
We're taking about morally good and bad here.
Killing people in self defense might be necessary, but that doesn't make it good.
Killing people is morally bad, even if it's someone no one in their right mind would hesitate to murder if given the opportunity, like Putin.
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn't you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren't in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
Morality varies widely by individual and culture.
Pro-Life folks have been saying this for decades.
Ffs, Zionists have been saying this.
You need more than just platitudes to build a moral foundation
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It's simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
By what standard?
Killing people is wrong. This is an immortal and unquestionable truth that everyone has always agreed upon
We didn't have a proper moral foundation until very recently, so disregard everything older than several hundred years ago.
What?