"Thou shall not kill" - God
"What!? But that goes against my base desires!" - A "christian"
Most people have no trouble following Christianitys rules, and if you struggle without Sky Daddy watching your every move, maybe your a bad person.
i dunno. the whole glutony thing. the orgies thing. those can be kinda fun until you're fat and have more STD's than are known to medical science.
the reality is religion- including Christianity- is a form of social control. the rules were established specifically to control people. men, sure. but women especially.
Christianity specifically was also an amalgamation of a lot of other popular myths and religions of the time, as well as the appropriation of various popular pagan rituals like Saturnalia (Xmas), Samhain (Halloween), and Oestara (Easter). Many of the saints fall under this too.
Social control + wrangling popular myths/legends/etc = the most perfectly profitable control mechanism for roughly 2000 years
If all stds were cured, would there still be such a stigma attached to sexual promiscuity? Religion has always suggested getting a sexual disease is gods punishment for debaucherous behaviour.
dunno. probably. It's not like religion has a monopoly on prudishness- there will always be "not enough" weirdos and the "far too much" weirdos. (and then all the people who are too-normal, also being weirdos. Okay so I think humans are weirdos by default.)
STD and unwanted pregnancy
Religion has definitely been coopted for control, but the 10 commandments, and most of Jesus teachings are not really controversial or controlling (The arent progressive in todays terms, but for their time I think they are very reasonable).
The layers of bullshit that has been built on top certainly is controlling.
The whole adultery thing isn’t controlling?
Marriage required recognition by a priest. All sex must happen inside the union if a marriage.
They were literally controlling who had kids with whom.
The whole theft thing protected the rich way more than it did the poor.
The “worship none one beside me” was also about keeping people from leaving.
Murder was about maintaining stability. Remember, murder is the unjustified killing of another. Who do you think was better at justifying it with a little bribe?
But all of that is besides the point that religion vastly predates the Ten Commandments. The only reason that they’re not “progressive” was because as a basic moral code, they’ve been around longer than Moses.
Oh, and forget the whole store of the exile from Egypt and stuff. That’s all justification for genociding their neighbors.
Moving beyond the 10 commandments which are far from the only religious law… ancient Judaism was extremely controlling. Off the top of my head:
There’s a lot more there. And there’s a reason for that. By making it so restrictive, and threatening eternal damnation, it ensures people do what you tell them to do, and there’s plenty of people that- as ardent believers- are terrified and will do all kinds of stupid shit to stay in god’s good graces.
I am concerned you don't know the 10 commandments if you think they're not controversial or controlling.
To name a few most forgotten:
Honor the sabbath day. Only worship yhwh. Don't make any idols. Don't take yhwv's name in vain. And a lesser thought-crime: Don't covet.
Sure, the rest are societally beneficial. But these that are often forgotten are about control and nothing else.
Edit: It's hardly ever brought up that monotheism in Judaism wasn't a thing until much later. So, again, these forgotten rules are about controlling who and even how to worship.
Fair, those three arent the best, but they are also open to interpretation. Honor the sabbath doesnt have to mean hide in a cave all day, could just be treated as take some time to rest. One god, the lords name and idols dont really impact anyone (as most.christians dont follow it anyway, and most athiests dont care either)
And while those may cause a minor impact to someones life, its nothing compared to the control being exerted via abortion bans and other modern religeous bullshit.
It seems like you're just being passive to avoid addressing the fact that these are extremely restrictive.
There is no doubt that the 10 commandments are exclusionary and intended to place any followers under the control of local religious authority.
This is like saying "Oh, we just pick and choose what to follow."
So, if that's the case, what's the point of following any of it? Jesus' words were very specific on that part. "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law and the prophets."
It's not a pick and choose kind of religion, even the christian-addendum.
That may be your interpretation, but its not mine. I am not christian and have no trouble following them, because they are so general and open to interpretation.
It's not a pick and choose kind of religion, even the christian-addendum.
And yet there are hundreds of denominations that do exactly pick and choose. It seems you are the one insisting that you cannot pick and choose. (And obviously church leaders would prefer you dont pick and choose, but usually they do as well).
The overall vibe from my Christian religious education was that as long as you are striving to be a good person, you have a place in Heaven. To err is human, and Jesus died on the cross to absolve mankind of their sins. This made atheism an obvious choice, because I do strive to be a good person, so no need to go to church and have someone else tell me what to do.
So… do you wear clothes made of blended fibers? That’s against scripture.
Do you turn on lights on Saturday/friday night? That’s working on the sabbath,
Are you a man who shaves? A woman who wears short hair?
Perhaps you have a tat?
All against scripture. And unequivocally so.
If your gonna take the rules listed in the bible strictly, then sure. But your definition of Christian values is then far more strict than almost everyone elses interpretation, that its basically a "no true scotsman" kinda deal.
If you want to insist that the only true Christian is someone who follows scripture verbatim and never strays, fine, they are super controlled and oppressed.
“No true Scotsman” kind of how religion goes, yes? It’s why the Protestants fought the Catholics, the Catholics fought the Orthodox .. and everyone else and everyone fought the Muslims.
There are always varying degrees of adherence, and this is also true of every religion that exists. You or any other believer might find particular rules absurd, and that is their business, but I’m willing to bet if you look at any single congregation, they’re going to have rules prescribing behavior in strange ways.
The Amish, for example. Or drinking alcohol. Or wearing certain types of clothes and wearing hair a certain way.
Not talking with members of the opposite sex is another common one.
mainstream Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical alike) are all apposed to abortion.
Social control.
Just because the specifics change over time doesn’t mean it’s not there. In fact it’s there to such a degree that Christians in the US are trying to exert it on everyone- abortion, laws about who can marry whom. Porn consumption. Subject matter in libraries… video games…
All of it is social control. And they do not like being told to fuck off.
I'm not a believer, at all. I went to a Christian school for an education, and that was all. Neither of my parents were religious, and my Christian grandma married my Muslim grandfather. I am very much comfortably on the outside looking in here.
I'm not disputing that churches themselves are not based around social control, only that the core values as they were expressed to me are not that controlling.
To grossly simplify, if Jesus had just said "Be nice to each other", most of us wouldn't consider that overtly controlling. When a church later extrapolates that to "Every egg is life, killing life isnt nice, abortion is banned", thats when it becomes control.
If you think that its impossible to seperate the church structures from the core beliefs, thats perfectly reasonable. The evidence is firmly in your favour. I am well aware of the bullshit being pushed by these "churches" in the US, and we have the exact same issues in Australia.
Anyway, thanks for you comments, i think we have both made our points, I wont waste any more of your time.
Sex besides and before marriage and same sex partners are not avoidable desires like killing
As someone who grew up in the bible belt, who had too many questions for the Lutheran church and was asked to leave.
I could not reconcile the Church's desire to HARM people that weren't a part of it. Jesus was a love all hippy from THEIR scriptures.
Supply Side Jesus is anathema to actual christian practice.
Hence, I parted from the church, and found my own way. It took more effort than listening to a pontificating asshole to achieve, but I'm comfortable with my beliefs. The struggle, the pain, the blood, the tears. All worth it.
For reference, I am a Hecatean witch because Trivia visited me on three occasions. More than Jebus has done.
It takes some insane levels of mental gymnastics to go from "Love thy neighbour" to "Let them die if they are poor or brown".
If more people took your path (spending the time to analyse their own beliefs) the world would be in a lot better place. I was never part of a church, so I didnt have to take the same path, but I appreciate it cant have been easy.
I dont know much about Hecatean or Trivia, but it is refreshing the the "Cult" section on wikipedia doesnt end with "and then they all killed themselves" 😄. From a quick skim (which probably over simplifies it), but it seems fairly chill 🙂.
You mean they have no problem following those rules that are not specific to a religion and are (in some form or another) necessary for a civilized society. But the rules that define Christianity are more or less meaningless to someone not following it, and a lot of Christians are pretty loose about them as well. "No idols"? "No other gods"? "Keep the sabbath holy"? "Don't use god's name in vain"?
The "trick" about religions is that they are part necessary rules and customs that keep society going, and then they mix in their own, and that conglomerate keeps people bound to a religion and religions around even in "enlightened" times when people should be aware that those rules are not anything divine.
Essentially yes. The general rules are easy to follow, the more esoteric ones that actual Christians often ignore are also very easy to ignore.
No arguments on your second point either, churches absolutely use the baseline values as a gateway to get people in the door, and then begin layering more control one you are in. Eg. Evangelicals, properity gospels, scientology.
It's funny how every time they say atheist can't answer certain question it's actually easy to answer.
That's 'cause none of them socialize outside their little church group and never get the chance to test out their ideas
The whole “atheists can’t answer this question” and “atheists can’t explain this” thing is really getting old.
Especially when it's just an assumption and they don't actually ask any atheists.
@FlyingSquid @ekZepp
& especially when several prominent atheists instantly answer & explain 'this'.
The primary desire, from the people who invented religion, is to control other people.
So, in that regard, it very much is fulfilling mans desires.
Ok, well then what about your average adherents? Yup, them too. They very much want to be able to control what other people do, and since organized religion enables that, of course they're down with it.
The problem with the question is the asker doesn't comprehend what the basis of religion and "mans desires" actually is.
Because Paul was a vulnerable/covert narcissist, which is characterized in part by a focus on shame and unworthiness.
People with this personality talk about themselves significantly more than other people do in their writing.
Paul's undisputed letters have him talking about himself way more than the other letters, to the point other contemporary people even appear to have commented on it. As he wildly varies from "I'm the least of the apostles" to "I'm not less than the greatest."
Literally the pre-Pauline attitude in Corinth is "everything is permissible for me" which was in line the with apocryphal attitude that you shouldn't pray, fast, or give alms and should just be honest and not do the things you hate, and to focus on self-discovery as the religion owes you and not the other way around.
The problem is Paul's the most influential figure in what survived, including his reversal of "everything is permissible" or his push back on the reluctance to allow religious officials to profiteer, which ultimately led to a religion that looks exactly like what you'd expect from a vulnerable narcissist figurehead.
This is really interesting, I'd love to read / listen to more about this, do you have any resources?
THANK YOU. I'm glad that I'm not the only person in this world who've read the new testament and come up with this conclusion.
For every apologist that goes:
If Christianity is a man made religion then why does it go against man's desires?
There is another that says:
God wrote his morality into our hearts, and since ~some~ biblical commandments align with our morality, that means the Bible is true
Make up your minds, folks.
That's why the belief of the devil is so convenient for a lot of Christians.
Everything deemed good relative to their current social barometer is obviously from God, and everything they think is bad is from Satan.
And if you point out that the concept of Satan effectively arose from a lazy editor rewriting a polytheistic tale under monotheistic reform and that a deity of light having an adversary makes no sense as light's anti-particle is just itself, you get the quintessentially Christian "well I don't know about that" or "I'll have to ask my pastor about that."
To which the best you can do is offer up Upton Sinclair's famous quote to fall on deaf ears: "Do not expect a man to understand a thing that his paycheck depends on him not understanding."
Agree on the "getting old". It is not my job to justify my belief. If you want to change mine, then you need a good set of arguments.
Can I justify my beliefs? Sufficiently for myself, which is all I care to do.
Easy. Cuz it doesn't. You're promising everlasting happiness if u do what you're told. That's exactly in line with mans desires of being rewarded and feeling good about them selves.
Christianity is ONLY the belief that Jesus was a Messiah. That's it.
As a naturalist, the thing I'm particularly annoyed about is it took me fifty years to figure out how to not be an asshole. That leaves me less than half my life to work towards a net positive. (And I'm still producing a fuckton of material waste, just by living.)
Then there's also the thing about facing pollution as a great filter, and if somehow the species survives that one, a dozen or so other great filters stand between us and sustainable colonies on other worlds. If we die off, the universe won't even blink.
It's nice to be able to imagine we're God's favorite, that our species is special, and even that God has personal interest in me. (This is not consistent with the entire Abrahamic narrative, though it is a major Evangelical selling point, and is believed by millions of Evangelical parishioners.)
We're not God's favorite. Even the earth, The aggregate of our joy and suffering is an infinitesimal speck, tiny and lost in an unfeeling universe. No one watches. No one cares. No one will care when the last human perished from famine or the elements.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time, lost in space
And meaning.
So when it comes to grokking bad news, I'm pretty sure naturalism has Christianity beat.
Well, yes an no. We watch, we care, we exist a most importantly, we know to exist. That alone make us quite fking special. We may actually be one the rarest state of matter in the whole universe, "thinking matter". That's quite something in my book.
Sure! A lot of atheists find spiritual satisfaction in just having lived, or in finding our connection to stars and to the beginning of the universe. But modern Christianity promises immortality and purpose. Granted, it doesn't match well with the material world as we understand it, but it's a comforting myth they need.
(Curiously, it also promises forgiveness, as if the typical Christian has engaged in war profiteering or marketed Fentanyl or let their workers perish in a burning factory. I've done shitty things, but nothing that might piss off a reasonable god. I suspect this is the case with most folk, so I'm not sure why so many folk are desperate for forgiveness.)
The whole point of absurdism is coming to terms with our mortality and purposeless, to find our own way, or a satisfactory sense of purpose in an existence that doesn't bear one out.
Part of the path to naturalism is coming to terms with that insignificance, whether it is to acknowledge it and move on, or decide that some aspect of it is significance enough.
As above I agree up to a point. In the end ideas like "significance" and "purposes" are just humans constructs and can ultimately being find in different aspects of someone life, just like "happiness". Even without a human-centric universe, or any grain of spirituality, we can still see our existence as an "Happy incident" of casuality, and find our own purpose. In some regards, the grandiose promises made by the religions are even "reductive", compared to what our potential as species can archive. Or we can simply "be" end enjoy our little vacancy away from the entropy in all his many wonderful aspects.
@ekZepp
I have a desire not to be tortured for eternity in a hell created by the being who is demanding I love it unconditionally, without credible evidence of it's existence. All because this being loves me & wants to forgive me for the sin of being descended from a woman who used the free will she didn't have to not be tricked by this beings lie into not eating a magic apple.
Fortunately, this is over ruled by my desire to live my life without being sucked into believing illogical bullshit.
Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
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!
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
Start here...
...proceed here.
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.