Christianity Harms Society. Why I Mock Christians

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It's not just Christianity. It's all religions. You guys just have a bigger problem with christians right now because they're the majority.

You may want to think about anonymously reporting your teacher.

Thankfully - the xtians are NOT the majority on earth - not even close.

However - think what a wonderful world it would be if we spent all the money wasted on religions - on feeding the hungry and curing disease - something praying has never done!

I was referring to the US. I have no idea what the majority of the entire world is.

Yea. So much money going into sustaining something useless. Ridiculous.

[Esquilax]

I see this a lot. You have completely disregarded every charitable act that the Church does (most likely because it does not get the same amount of news time). Maybe you can name me an atheist organization that has organized homeless shelters and hospitals across the nation, along with the world. The stance you take is a stance of convenience.

My contention is that the church, in that instance, is merely an apparatus that facilitates natural human charity, that would still exist without the church, while taking a large part of the credit for it. Sure, this apparatus is larger than any atheist one, but then, what would you expect from an organization that's had hundreds of years of undeserved cultural supremacy?

But the charity? That's not dependent on the church.

As for the harm that the Church does, is has to be understood that the Church does not promote harm. It promotes people becoming more humble, truthful, courageous. If I met an atheist who was greedy, selfish liar, could I assume that you were a greedy, selfish liar?

I posted a thread today about the millions of dollars in hush money that the church paid in order to keep the victims of sexual abuse by priests silent: I would say that prioritizing the church's reputation above the vilifying of pedophiles counts as promoting harm... not to mention, it's hardly "humble, truthful of courageous."

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point.

The claim that the video makes is that religion, or believing in fairy tales, is the root of almost everything wrong with this country.
Religion created and promotes unchecked capitalism? No.

I'll remember that next time I see a picture of the golden papal throne.

Religion tells politicians to lie and carry out wars? No.

Actually, yes on the latter case: god justified wars rage throughout the bible, and there's plenty of orders within that book to go to war against... pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with you exactly. Have you read it?

This is a scapegoat tactic that comes from disgust aimed at a particular group of people, like Nazism going after the Jews or the KKK going after blacks. Everything is "their" fault. It has nothing to do with individuals making decisions based on their own self-involved interests.

Everything comes down to individuals in the end, because organizations can't make actions without people. This is just dishonest deflection; the real point of contention is twofold: were those bad actions justified or motivated by the religion involved, and more broadly, should the people claiming to be speaking for the all knowing creator of the universe be conducting themselves in this manner? It's a credibility issue, but you seem to be arguing that, because the church itself didn't rise up out of the ground and perform these actions, therefore it has no culpability.

I will admit that there have been people that twist religion around to justify their dirty ends, but this happens with anything that is looked to as an authority. Science has been twisted around to prove that global warming is false and fossil fuels are the best option. Look at the medical industry - science gets twisted around there to make a buck on medicine people don't actually need that is actually BAD for them! Is this the fault of science? Should I demonize science for creating an industry that causes such harm as leaky anuses? NO.

The difference here is that science also does real, demonstrable good that couldn't have been accomplished without the scientific establishment, while the church does nothing as a tradeoff for the harm that comes out of it. As I said earlier.

But since you seem so sure, then answer me this: can you name one demonstrably real, positive effect of religion, that requires religion and could not be obtained through secular means?

[Michael Schubert]

Another fantastic video(it's really old)from my man-crush dusty.

---

My U.S History teacher, who's a really cool guy and chill as fuck, decided to lecture us on how the U.S is a christian nation. I wanted to put him in his place, but I respected him too much. We were talking about imperialism and he told us how the U.S "taught" christianity to other countries/nations such as the hawaiians(and africans.. can't forget that shit). I wanted to get in front of the whole class and give them this hour long lecture on how christianity is bullshit and everyone and anyone who believes in it chooses to be ignorant. I've done this before, but on a much smaller scale, and things didn't go so well. No matter how much creditable information you have, there's no reasoning with them. They will defend their beliefs until they die. I just don't understand how a 40 year something old man knows of biology, and understands the world is more than a few thousand years old goes to school and preach this filth. Henceforth, I won't give a cup of fucks for anyone's beliefs seeing as they could give even a less of a fuck for mines. These brain-dead christians need to realize that not every one is stupid and foolish. Leave your poison in your own homes and force your own kids to believe it. Actually, that IS how the cycle continues.. parents prey on young children because their minds are weaker and they'll most likely believe anything... like a magical wish granting genie in the sky. Apologies for the rant.. I'm just speaking what's on my mind right now.

---

This reminds me of that bumpersticker I once saw that had a picture of Jesus Christ, and it said "Adults shouldn't have imaginary friends".

[GodsRevolt]

My contention is that the church, in that instance, is merely an apparatus that facilitates natural human charity, that would still exist without the church, while taking a large part of the credit for it. Sure, this apparatus is larger than any atheist one, but then, what would you expect from an organization that's had hundreds of years of undeserved cultural supremacy?

But the charity? That's not dependent on the church.

Not dependent, but made necessary. As a Catholic in a privileged position I am expected to use the goods that I own in moderation and save the best for guests, the sick, and the poor.

I posted a thread today about the millions of dollars in hush money that the church paid in order to keep the victims of sexual abuse by priests silent: I would say that prioritizing the church's reputation above the vilifying of pedophiles counts as promoting harm... not to mention, it's hardly "humble, truthful of courageous."

You do not condone it, and neither does the Church. You and the Church are in agreement. Paragraph 2389 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I'll remember that next time I see a picture of the golden papal throne.

This is witty but fails to make the point I believe you were shooting for.

Actually, yes on the latter case: god justified wars rage throughout the bible, and there's plenty of orders within that book to go to war against... pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with you exactly. Have you read it?

This is the "Old woman and her Bible" routine. It is convent to say that the Bible justifies wars to the reader because there are verses that do so. It is also convent to say the Bible does not justify wars because there are verses that do so.

So I will correct my statement. There is something called a just war, but it is not to be taken lightly and should only be pursued when all other options have failed.

Everything comes down to individuals in the end, because organizations can't make actions without people. This is just dishonest deflection; the real point of contention is twofold: were those bad actions justified or motivated by the religion involved, and more broadly, should the people claiming to be speaking for the all knowing creator of the universe be conducting themselves in this manner? It's a credibility issue, but you seem to be arguing that, because the church itself didn't rise up out of the ground and perform these actions, therefore it has no culpability.

Bold added.

I am arguing that the Church is not responsible because, like I said, the Church does not promote harm. When someone does so, whether they be a participant in the Church or not, they are acting OUTSIDE of the Church's expectations.

And this is the root of your problem. You cannot seem to separate the Church and its believers. It is unfair scapegoating, as if all the bad in the world comes from the Church, the only pedophiles in the world are priests, and whenever someone who claims to be a Christian ends up on the news for doing something wrong it proves that the whole system is fucked up and full of heartless morons.

The Church is what interprets the Bible, the sole authority, and if you looked into what it had to say instead of stealing quotes from quotes from quotes, you might be able to expand your world view and not be so single minded.

The difference here is that science also does real, demonstrable good that couldn't have been accomplished without the scientific establishment, while the church does nothing as a tradeoff for the harm that comes out of it. As I said earlier.

But since you seem so sure, then answer me this: can you name one demonstrably real, positive effect of religion, that requires religion and could not be obtained through secular means?

You are going to laugh at this but -

Guilt

and the need to say that you are sorry.
Society requires nothing in this regard, only that you pay for what you did wrong through some sort of punishment. Religion requires it, even when you don't get caught. Religion gave us "I'm sorry" and the secular world is trying to dispose of it.

[Ryantology]

You are going to laugh at this but -

Guilt

and the need to say that you are sorry.
Society requires nothing in this regard, only that you pay for what you did wrong through some sort of punishment. Religion requires it, even when you don't get caught. Religion gave us "I'm sorry" and the secular world is trying to dispose of it.

Your religion insists that we be sorry for being made the way that we are, for possessing the nature that we possess, for having the innate flaws we cannot help having. It is insane to be sorry for being human, or to be sorry for what someone did long before I was born, or to be sorry for a "original sin" which is obviously fictional, and I don't need any religion to be sorry for any specific wrongdoings of which I am actually personally responsible for. The vast majority of the 'sins' that Jesus allegedly died for were never truly anybody's fault in the first place.

That I can be sorry even though there's nobody requiring it of me makes my contrition automatically more genuine, anyway.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Eh. Society does require that you say you're sorry. Ever been in fight? That's the one word both side tries their hardest to make the other one say first. Society appreciates guilt, shame, etc. That's why we cry, that's why we blush, because it's evolutionarily favoured that we can express our guilt and cause others to empathize with us. How often have politicians and corporations apologized for shit they said/did? Ever tried going to work late and refusing to say sorry? This is a ridiculous argument.

[GodsRevolt]

Your religion insists that we be sorry for being made the way that we are, for possessing the nature that we possess, for having the innate flaws we cannot help having.

My religion insists that we always strive to be better than who we already are, and the first step is admitting that you are not perfect.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Your religion insists that we be sorry for being made the way that we are, for possessing the nature that we possess, for having the innate flaws we cannot help having.

My religion insists that we always strive to be better than who we already are, and the first step is admitting that you are not perfect.

Assertions without evidence, dismissed as such.

Anyway, that's pretty basic common sense whether or not someone is religious. Everyone knows they're not perfect, almost everyone understands that perfection is a concept and not a logically sound reality. Well, except the religious, who seem to think their god is perfection.

[Esquilax]

Not dependent, but made necessary. As a Catholic in a privileged position I am expected to use the goods that I own in moderation and save the best for guests, the sick, and the poor.

Which is why I have such trouble with the Vatican, filled with art and treasure: it's fairly clear that your leaders- the ones ostensibly closest to god- don't agree with you there.

You do not condone it, and neither does the Church. You and the Church are in agreement. Paragraph 2389 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So then why are the archbishops aware of the hush money being dispensed? See, this is the problem: you're clinging to the rules your church has set in place, while ignoring the level to which they're being broken when it favors the church. But what use are the words, if they aren't backed up with deeds? Tyrannies across the world have been built on the backs of shiny, happy words masking the degree to which those words don't apply to the people in power. You're happy to put the words on a pedestal as the good thing, but the actions don't matter because they're performed by people and not the words, which completely ignores the fact that the people ignoring the words are the ones who get to interpret them in ways that are binding to the rest of you.

This is witty but fails to make the point I believe you were shooting for.

The point is that an organization so committed to wealth that they coat their headquarters in gold can't be claimed to not endorse rampant capitalism.

This is the "Old woman and her Bible" routine. It is convent to say that the Bible justifies wars to the reader because there are verses that do so. It is also convent to say the Bible does not justify wars because there are verses that do so.

I am already aware of the extent to which your holy book contradicts itself.

So I will correct my statement. There is something called a just war, but it is not to be taken lightly and should only be pursued when all other options have failed.

You might want to correct that further, because those just wars in the bible include a lot of child murder and forced marriage and so on.

Bold added.

I am arguing that the Church is not responsible because, like I said, the Church does not promote harm. When someone does so, whether they be a participant in the Church or not, they are acting OUTSIDE of the Church's expectations.

So that official church doctrine against birth control, up to and including lying about condoms and AIDS in Africa... that's not promotion of harm? Officially sanctioned hush money to quiet villification of pedophiles while they're shuffled around to avoid prosecution isn't promotion of harm?

You've got to understand, "the church" isn't a thinking being: it doesn't have expectations, and I'm not about to bring god's supposed expectations into play until you can demonstrate the existence of such a being. The church is populated by people, and the ones causing the harm here are the ones positioning themselves as being close to god, the ones that speak for him. The ones who get to determine the rules. Your entire argument basically boils down to the idea that, because these people spout ingratiating platitudes on one side while failing to live up to them on the other, we shouldn't hold this collection of holy folks apparently elected by an ineffable god to task for them.

And this is the root of your problem. You cannot seem to separate the Church and its believers. It is unfair scapegoating, as if all the bad in the world comes from the Church, the only pedophiles in the world are priests, and whenever someone who claims to be a Christian ends up on the news for doing something wrong it proves that the whole system is fucked up and full of heartless morons.

The Church is what interprets the Bible, the sole authority, and if you looked into what it had to say instead of stealing quotes from quotes from quotes, you might be able to expand your world view and not be so single minded.

I never said all the bad in the world comes from the church, I'm just not willing to give those that do within the church a pass based on a No True Scotsman fallacy. You said it yourself; the church interprets the bible. Aren't the archbishops kind of a big part of the church? Isn't the pope, who sat atop that gold throne, and knew of the abuse cases in at least a few iterations? Where are you drawing the line, if those guys aren't a part of the church's authority?

You are going to laugh at this but -

Guilt

and the need to say that you are sorry.
Society requires nothing in this regard, only that you pay for what you did wrong through some sort of punishment. Religion requires it, even when you don't get caught. Religion gave us "I'm sorry" and the secular world is trying to dispose of it.

You're right, I am going to laugh. Do you know why?

It's because your church requires that you say sorry not to the person you wrong, but to god. No recompense is required, no crime too great to avoid salvation; just apologize to Jesus, and you're fine. Religion gives you guilt as a mechanism for making you feel like you owe the church when they also give you a (conveniently immaterial) get out of jail free card, and you're playing into it hook, line and sinker.

[Polaris]

Oh. How original. A white atheist complaining.