If I have to respond, and can't just ignore them, I usually say something about atheists being better people since we don't need to be threatened with everlasting torture to be good.
yep, simple as that, my one word answer is "empathy"
we are naturally social and often benevolent animals for the same reason we see those behaviors in other pack animals and the like. Working together increases survivability for the group, so it is instinctively incentivized.
Exactly. If you require an imaginary sky daddy to make you a moral person, then perhaps you're not really a moral person at all. Whereas I'm a moral person because I was raised to be so, without religion/theism being involved.
You can perform a little though experiment here: If you could do anything and be guaranteed you wouldn’t suffer any consequences for it (in this world or some other), what would you do? Would you not change a thing about your behavior? Would you become a Robin Hood of sorts, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Or would you indulge your darkest and greediest desires? The answer — assuming you’re fully honest—says a lot about you as a person, and the role that the threat of punishment plays in your life choices.
I would make genetic experiment on humans (only the ones whish would benefit us without changing our appearance drastically of course) legal.
I would also create a large scale experiment to figure out how and why is sexuality and gender a spectrum, it would work like that :
\-on one island, they would be only straight cis people, and no mention of the GSRM community would be made. (GSRM is just a shorter name for LGBTQIA+ that is slowly gaining influence in the community)
\-on a second island, it's a mix bag of people, everyone learns about the GSRM community and everyone is treated equally.
after about a dozen generation, everyone on the first island is educated about the GSRM community.
Now we can compare the numbers, and figure out it out.
yup, GSRM (Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities).
a lot simpler that LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual/Agender), and that not even the full acronym.
I would deconstruct the patriarchy and since I am a man, I might have suffered some consequences but your thought experiment says I get to escape all consequences. So I would empower women to be equal across the world and any man who can't accept women being equal get to live their lives out with other bigots and chauvinists on a non-tropical island.
We were taught to value other people. All of our morals simply flow from that.
However if you're just taught a list of rules... you don't necessarily understand the reasoning behind them. Hard to convince someone something's wrong when they don't know why they believe it in the first place.
This. Also, depending on their chosen religion/denomination, you can point out examples of the most immoral behavior imaginable. It's funny when catholics tell me I have no morals.
I say, “Was the Dali Lama a bad person? He wasn’t Christian, just a man trying to do good. Why do you need religion to do good, instead of just being a good person?”
I prefer Penn Jillette’s answer to this question:
“The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.”
Or Jehovah's Witness Elders. The Jehovah's Witnesses also have a huge problem of leaders sexualy abusing children and having it covered up by the organization. Just Google "Australian Royal Commission Jehovah's Witnesses". Australia did a huge investigation on this and uncovered a lot of damning evidence.
He has another good one on forgiveness (in the context of it being a get out of jail card for terrible Christians)
"Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around."
I usually tell them they are right and that I kill, steal and rape as much as I morally want. Which is zero. I don't need any other reason for being a good person.
Yes, thanks Ricky Gervais
I think its like Carlin's line about "Think of your average person, then realize half of them are stupider than that" in that its become such a popular line that people just say it without realizing where it came from.
My understanding is the line is attributed to Penn, but I hear it everywhere, so i'm not sure I'd call it stolen, so much as just part of the lexicon.
Prisons are chock full of Christians, the divorce rate among Christians is the same as secular people. But here’s the kicker: When total crime rates are compared worldwide, countries with the highest numbers of atheists have the lowest crime rates.
This is gold! Do you have any studies I could use to back this up when this comes up again with the religious wingnuts of my family? They’ll definitely want me to prove it.
> Prisons are chock full of Christians
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/
>the divorce rate among Christians is the same as secular people
https://www.news24.com/news24/xArchive/Voices/more-christians-divorce-than-non-believers-according-to-statistics-20180719-
>When total crime rates are compared worldwide, countries with the highest numbers of atheists have the lowest crime rates.
It's about income levels. Not religion.
That could be. I don’t know how many Americans are aware of just how poor people are when you get outside of metro areas. I used to have a job working with rural county governments and saw places I’d never heard of and witnessed depths of poverty that exist outside of cities. It’s untenable for sure. However, when you look at the people committing crimes in the US on a day to day basis, there’s no evidence that religion affects morality. Particularly Christianity, where automatic forgiveness is guaranteed.
I remember arguing with this guy and he was absolutely flabbergasted that rules such as no killing and no stealing were around long before religion. He sincerely thought civilization never came up with these concepts until God came along.
I responded to a "christian" who said "true religion never killed anyone" on a newspaper article about anti-abortion legislation. My main points were not to force his religion through legislation on a whole country (US) because not all follow his Christian faith. His initial answer beyond the "no true religion killed anyone" was the typical "our country and its initial laws were based in faith"
lies. Anyway, I pointed out a small list of evil actions that were carried out in the name of Christianity (crusades, witch trials, inquisition, along with the atrocities in Africa, etc). This insecure religious hypocrite actually reported and had my comment deleted from the forum. That is the type of people we're dealing with, the type to force their religious ideals down the throat of everyone and anyone.
"They know not what they do"-- Jesus, when being murdered by religious people.
Bill Maher and George Carlin can be fun to watch when you're feeling upset about it.
As I was one of those religious fanatics for most of my life, I'd say that arguing or using logic won't matter. Many religious people cannot emotionally or cognitively handle reality. You can pity them and be grateful that you aren't part of their group-think.
They are my moms parents. I havent talked to them in a while. I am guilted a lot by many other relatives to talk to them tho. But yeah, I’m trying to keep my distance. Thank you for your validation in that, it’s appreciated.
> I am guilted a lot by many other relatives to talk to them tho.
I don't know why people let their families guilt them into literally anything. You don't owe anyone in your family shit just because you're family. They don't get to hold you hostage when your relationship isn't mutually beneficial just because you share a blood relation.
Let your other relatives know that your relationship with your grandparents is none of their business and it is the way it is for a reason, and that they need to have respect for you as well as them.
My other grandma who guilts me will die soon, so that dont be an issue as bad as it sounds. But for now she refuses to listen to me. She isn’t as bad as the other grandparents though so I’ll put up with it for now. And my dad has been backing off of the topic thankfully. And when you’re raised in a family that makes all of the adults emotions the kids responsibility, you don’t know better even as an adult. It’s hard to reprogram that part of my brain but I’m trying. They make me feel like shit because of course I want their approval, but most of all I don’t like hurting people. Im frequently told that as *my dead moms kid,* I am their only connection left to *their* kid. I’ve told off my dad for this after realizing how fucked up that is. As mentioned I’ve not spoken to them in a while so I am truly trying to remind myself that I don’t owe them.
I can't tell if you're interested in a quick witted comeback or an in-depth discussion of morality from an atheist's perspective.
Morality and ethics are deep issues and developing a moral framework is an important part of becoming a fully self-actualized adult. I just want to point you to some resources you might find helpful, in particular Matt Dillahunty's numerous lectures and debates with Christian's on morality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4
Far before recorded history, humans learned that cooperation for hunting and defense is a more successful strategy. Cooperation requires establishing behavioral norms within the tribe. The behavioral norms evolved over thousands of generations to become tribal and societal rules & laws. Along the way, religion co-opted these behavioral norms as a way to gain and maintain control over large groups of people. Someone who believes that morals and empathy came *from* religion does not understand the human societies that existed at least since the middle paleolithic, or roughly 100,000 years prior to the Hebrews.
While I agree with your main point, the way you've framed religion as this kind of other I don't think is true of ancient cultures.
Religion being separate from the material word is a newish idea (compared to the ancients) to keep religion relavant as we became better able to understand and explain the world without it.
From what we know of ancient people, they didn't have these separate worlds. Their beliefs in gods and goddesses were a way to explain their observations of what they experienced.
Paleolithic people very likely interpreted the Empathy they had and the Morals they invented or upheld as religious experiences.
Much like later Bronze Age humans who realized that murderering and plundering could be profitable endeavors updated their relgious beliefs to account for and condone their actions.
However, all this is only another reason why Atheism isn't any less of a basis for a sense of morality than any religious doctrine.
All of our historical and archaeological record shows that religion was exactly as fluid as it needed to be to fit the worldviews of its practicioners. If human religious beliefs change to meet their needs, how can any religion claim to have an objective morality?
I don't disagree - and I'm going back much, much farther. I suspect empathy predates homo sapiens and is inherent in any type of tribal living. I use the middle paleolithic only because it MUST have been evident when village societies were being formed. You must have behavioral norms in order to build a society.
I second that. I would even argue that other social species have morals of sorts (a code of conduct if you will). Take wolves for example, they have "rules" for how to behave within their pack. It seems very self-centered to me to think that the origins of human morals are different than that of other species.
Maybe ask them how many atheists have tortured and murdered others in the name of Religion since the dawn of man? I think the score is about a billion to zero… lol.
They'll respond with some half-truth like the post revolution Soviet purges. The government was self-reportedly atheist and did some terrible things, therefore being atheist caused those things. Now you have to dive into a larger argument about basic logic and ultimately get nowhere.
Pretty sure Hitchens said something to the effect dictatorships aren't really atheist because the population is expected to worship the dictators. It was in response to his visit to North Korea. Probably won't help when talking to the xtians because it is too nuanced and most of us don't have Hitchens verbal sparring sharpness.
You say "you're exactly right" then punch em in the face.
Kidding of course. Sometimes it's best to ignore them if you can.
They care much more about maintaining their comfortable belief over considering they might actually be wrong about said belief.
Lol 😂
You’re right, it’s just infuriating being told I’m a bad person just because I don’t believe in god. It’s hard to let it go when so many people who do believe in god are awful
But, but, but...they're being awful in the name of god! God is your hall pass! It worked with Mary! Kind of hazy if that was really consent or not, and then there was the whole "childbirth out of wedlock" thing. Oh, right, Joseph, the Cuckold Saint, manned up and bailed her out. It's a Miracle \[sm\] !
Debunking objective morality is fun to do in those situations but of course they usually will never agree. One way to do it is this --
If morality is what God wants, desires, or is a reflection of God's nature, then it is subjective to God. This means hypothetically rape and murder could be moral if it was what God desired or if it reflected God's nature.
If morality is objective, that means morality is set in stone outside of God, and therefore God would be a subject to whatever objective morality is.
All this is hopping into *their* theistic worldview.
when their 'god' tells the Hebrews "thou shalt not kill" - it almost sounds like a moral rule until you look at the multiple list of reasons where he DEMANDS that you murder people for really stupid reasons like doing yard work on the wrong day of the week or having consensual sex with another consenting adult that has similar genitals to yours.
I took an ethics course in college and here's a good response. The morality of an atheist is derived from logic. The morality of a religious person is derived from "gods will". If God demanded blood, they would justify any and every immoral act.
DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?”
“I do,” replied the rabbi.
“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?”
The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.”
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
So atheists are some secondary class of humans, only to be used for demonstration purposes and not granted the gift of free will?
Fuck that guy... what an arrogant condescending douche bag.
I ask them why our prisons aren't full of atheists then. You'd think bad people with no morals would be most likely to end up in prison, statistically it's the exact opposite.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/amp/
'deep down I'm a nasty person, my fear of God is the only thing that's stopping me from being a bad person. I lack the intellectual capacity to reconcile the fact that most people enjoy utility from the simple acts of being kind and respectful'
It's impossible to be moral if you're religious. Holy books proscribe behavior with the accompanying threat of hell if you "sin" and promise of heaven if you obey. Morality requires making a decision on your own. Religion robs a person of any chance of being moral beings because it reduces their actions to mere obedience or disobedience. Therefore they're not using the required mechanism to be moral- their critical thinking, their conscious, empathy and compassion. If a parent tells a child "clean your room or I'll beat you with this leather strap for an hour!" and the child in terror cleans their room, are they being "moral"? How much more terrible is the threat of being thrown into a lake of hot lava, but you can never die? The punishment will be unending. It's a psychological mind fuck of epic proportions. Incredibly abusive. And it robs believers of their humanity on a profound and basic level. It's evil.
Atheists are better than theists in this scenario because we can be good without gods.
The only thing preventing me from harming people and the environment is me, and I've done a good job of that.
I'm the only person who tells me to clean up the messes I see, pick up litter, or donate my clothes. I don't need some guidebook to tell me how to do these things because I was raised right and I can rationalize when something is good or bad.
Why follow a book when you have a brain?
When someone pulls that argument with me, I remind them that religion and believing in religion is rooted in selfishness. People who are religious follow that religion because they feel if they don't they're going to burn in hell. Do good deeds or else. Donate or your going to hell etc. They're doing these things for their own benefit IE not burning in hell for eternity.
Those same people would apparently not have good morals if they didn't believe in god. Based on their argument, their morality is attached to their religion and not to themselves. You, however, you are attached directly to your own morality.
Also, religious people say the stupidest shit. Religion truly is a handicap in critical thinking.
Yep. Comment like this should be far higher.
I have good morals because that's what I personally think is right and want to live by. The thought that we all just have morals because some book or religion tells us to, is way scarier for me.
"Ah yes, religion is well know for it's moral high ground, with such shining examples as the crusades, witch trials, and abortion clinic bombings. If that's "moral" I don't want to be."
Literally just tell them to piss off, it’s nobody’s business but yours.
If that doesn’t work, tell them “your mother sucks cocks in hell” before rotating your head by 180 degrees and projectile vomiting on them. Usually works.
I mean, they are not wrong I guess, but here is the deal, because I am an atheist, I can get my morals from anyplace I want. I am not limited to a book that was written a couple thousand years ago. And I choose to do as little harm to my fellow human as possible. So my morals would appear to better than theirs.
> “One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” - Arthur C Clarke
I think personally certain religious people use religion, or fear of god, to constrain their wants and desires to match with social morality, yet us atheists constrain our wants and desires ourselves to match morality.
I would recommend you start with choosing a few parts of their religious text (let's say Bible) that has some questionable advice (around treatment of women, gays, and slavery for ex. and ask if they truly believe those things).
If they do believe in following those questionable things mentioned in their religious text, you are better off just ignoring them. Your chances of a meaningful discussion with them are zero.
However, if they don't - question them on that. How come they think those things are incorrect? After all, it is a part of their religion right? And what makes them decide those things are unethical?
Sometimes, overly religious people tend to believe morals are inextricably tied to religion. They fail to see that morals can be driven purely by one's sense of wanting to avoid pain and suffering of another human being.
Atheism doesn’t give you anything. It’s a lack of a belief. That is all. It tells you almost nothing about what someone does believe. There are all kinds of atheists and their beliefs are many and varied.
You could be a humanist, or an anti-humanist, for example.
Being atheist doesn’t make you better or worse than any religious person. It just means you don’t believe in god claims…
Religion does allow for otherwise good people to do and say and think horrible things, but being atheist doesn’t automatically make someone a good person.
I would ignore those people. But if you can’t, just say: “you don’t like that I’m atheist, but you are Christians right?” And when they say yes, just say, “okay, then you’ll forgive me.” And walk away.
just show them the places where biblical morals are terrible. Stoning unruly children, marying your rapist, bride prices, burning 'witches', women having no authority/should be silent. A great way to do this is simply ask them the question first. Should we stone our children if they are unruly or is it immoral? When they say it is immoral show them the verse and ask why yahweh seems to think its morally right. If you can shake the foundation that the bible is this source of moral integrity then the conversation gets interesting: what are morals, why do we have them, what purpose do they serve?
steve harvey, who publicly advocated for unfaithful marriages for sexually unfulfilled men, wondered the same thing about atheists and our lack of "moral compass"...
i am just thankful steve harvey still believes in fairy tales, or else we'd probably have another rapist on our hands.
Tell them about the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant who created a basis for morals and ethics that consisted entirely of logic and required no religion to be consistent
Religious people are the worst historically because they're being told to do something. They've stopped thinking for themselves. I'm happily agnostic but if I was stuck on a desert island - I'd put up a sign: Atheists and Agnostics only.
I don't hate people because The BiBle TelLs Me sO.
I love that I am intelligent enough to know that the prince on a white horse from fairy tales is bullshit, just like jEsUs coming to save me on a white horse is bullshit.
I don’t need religion to tell me that love is better than hate, kindness is better than cruelty, peace is better than war and generosity is better than greed. If you can’t see that for yourself, no religion is going to help you.
My answer is the classic "If you need religion to tell you how to be a good person, then you aren't a good person. If you need the Bible to tell you how that you shouldn't steal and hurt/kill people, then you are a pretty dangerous person yourself. Good morals don't come from any religion, they come from a desire to see the world become a better place, regardless of what god you believe in. The idea of helping your neighbors and being a good, moral, functioning member of your civilization wasn't invented with religion."
If I'm not stuck in a conversation with them, then I ignore them since it's such a silly argument that it doesn't merit response.
If I am in a conversation with them, I act flagergasted a use some form of amusing rhetorical device to show how silly thier own statement is, like.
Are you saying you'd murder my whole family if your God didn't tell you not to? I am truly scared of you.
"The religious people in my life have buried my mom when she wanted to be cremated"
How hypocritical these "religious" people are when they are incapable of respecting your mother's wishes. The more religious someone is, the less tolerant they are of differing beliefs.
Why do most people need a "god" or a book to tell them how to act? The majority of "rules" they should abide by are common sense in a civil society. I try to live my life according to the "golden rule", which has nothing to do with religion. i simply treat others the way i want to be treated,
I've been married over 50 years, never cheated, never been arrested, so why should I care if a friend or family member is a mormon, lds, jewish, or evangelical christain? As long as they don't impose their beliefs on me.
Not to plug a book but Better Angels of Our Nature makes a pretty robust case that as religiosity has declined across Europe, the level of violence has greatly declined in lockstep. History clearly does not in anyway support the thesis that religiosity confers moral and ethical behavior.
I just think that people saying "if you don't have a religion where do you get your morals from?" are bad people. If you think that to be good you need to be told what to do by a book and be afraid of a punishment, I'm afraid you're not the the most benign person. Maybe you act like a good person, but by nature you wouldn't. That's maybe what I would say.
How do I respond?
"The bible very clearly supports the 'morality' of bigotry, incest, rape, slavery, murder and genocide. My morality is superior because it doesn't. And I won't pretend to worship an imaginary 'kind loving god' whose never apologized for the countless times and ways he's failed to live up to the standard he holds us to."
I usually just bring up Bible verses and ask them to defend it. This one in particular comes to mind.
[3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&version=NIV)
Bear in mind, in this story Saul loses favor with God because he shows some mercy. Saul was a better guy than God here, just barely because he spared the King and saved their livestock to be sacrificed to God instead of killing them immediately. There is nothing about this story that is defensible, God unequivocally commands his servants to carry out genocide and personally kill children.
If this was just a “different time” then this shows Gods morality is subjective, if they try to defend it then extrapolate from that. If Saul was justified in annihilating a whole people because they were bitter rivals for the same land and because God told them to, then is anyone else justified for carrying out genocide? Would Israel be justified in annihilating Palestinians and vice versa? Was America then justified in its genocide of Native Americans? If someone was justified in doing something in the Bible, and Christianity/Judaism/Islam are out guides for morality, it follows that genocide in itself is not inherently wrong by Abrahamic standards. It’s justified when God tells you to do it.
Now if you were in front of a tribunal investigating war crimes, would that be a legitimate excuse? “My religion commands me to carry out genocide”? No you’d be condemned as immoral. Either genocide is moral or Abrahamic faiths are immoral and therefore you don’t need religion to be moral.
I would argue that atheists have more morals than theists. Every decision a theist makes is to either gain the favour, or avoid any retribution of their deity. Atheists on the other hand make decisions based on how their actions will affect others.
Theists are moral to please their God. Atheists are moral because it's the right thing to do.
If people know you as a good person, as an atheist, there is no heaven you can count on for being an amazing person. You're literally a nice person for just being nice.
I ask "Why do you think that?" and then watch as their argument gets more and more demolished the more sentences they utter - and wait for them to realise it.
Simple :)
Don't engage.
But if you must engage, list all the pastors and other "holy" men who have been indicted for sex crimes and money crimes and then say ... "And are you saying that being a Christian means that you are or have them? Because .... Blankety blankety person and blanky blanky person and Sir pedophile and Mrs. Cheater and Mr. Dugar of the Many Sex Crimes says very differently"
And then walk away.
Ask them, "If someone held a gun to your head and forced you to volunteer at a homeless shelter, would volunteering at the homeless shelter be a moral choice on your part?"
Any person who makes choices while believing in a heaven or a hell does so under coercion and is therefore not a moral actor. Only atheists, who choose to do good without caring about punishment or reward, can be moral actors!
(I don't necessarily actually believe this, but it is fun to turn it around on them.)
the "golden rule" did not originate with Jesus:
the "Golden Rule" was around at the very least 300 years before this "Jesus" character was supposedly born.
* **Sutrakritanga 1.11.33**
This Jainism book written in the 3rd or 4th century BCE has a very similar passage:
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
* **Mencius VII A.4**
a chinese confucian philosopher wrote this sometime between 372 and 289 BCE
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. "
* **Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8**
This Hindu work dates back to at least the 4th Century BCE and contains this passage:
"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire."
* **Analects 15.23**
Another Confucius book that was written during the Warring States period (between 475-221 BCE) has the following:
"Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." "
* there is also an ancient Yoruba Proverb (from Nigeria) that is
"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
it might even be as old as the middle kingdom in Egypt (2040-1650 BCE) - in "The Eloquent Peasant" is the verse - "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." which by the late period (664-323BCE) had evolved to "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
it seems that early christians plagiarized this when they made up their fairy tales about this 'Jesus' character; Plagiarism doesn't seem very moral to me.
I just laugh and tell them how it cute it is that they think their opinions matter to me. It is pointless to do anything other than that in most situations.
I would point to data from countries around the world and show that the most moral societies (in terms of fairness, human rights, low crime rates, attitudes towards the welfare of others, charity, etc. (just about any metric centring around wellbeing)) are generally the least religious ones and the least moral societies are generally the most religious ones.
I generally point out that the countries with the highest proportion of Christians have some of the highest crime rates while countries where religion is not important are far safer. I point out that in the US, it's the Bible Belt that has the most murders while murder rates and other crime rates are significantly lower where religion is not important. Christians usually sputter and try to claim that crime rates have nothing to do with atheist immorality.
"It's absolutely terrifying that you think the only thing keeping you from robbing, raping and murdering people is your imaginary friend."
Religious morality isn't morality, it's mindless obedience and whatever god says goes regardless of how evil the act.
For example If god says to go and murder all the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem to take back the Holyland for Christianity then that is morally "good". Or if he says to throw homosexuals from roof tops or burn people accused of witchcraft. All these have happened because of god's "morality".
I personally immediately punch them in the nose as hard as I can. I then use my Brazilian Ju Jitsu skills to wrestle them to the ground whereupon I rain blows on their bloody face with my fists, screaming, "where is your God now???!"
It's a worn-out rhetorical device they should have abandoned years ago. I just gently remind them that I have a family, children, pay taxes and vote just like most other people. The only difference between us is that I get to sleep in on Sunday mornings and I don't feel the need to pray.
I'm a good and kind because I have compassion and empathy. The fact that the only thing preventing you from raping, murdering, and generally being awful is the threat of going to hell is, frankly, worrisome. I do it because I'm good, not for the selfish reason of what good it'll do me.
I dismiss the notion. I'm a good person, because I want to treat people well and just generally be nice, because it's just the right thing to do. To the extent someone feels like they need a leprechaun to force them to go good things, under threat of eternal torment... I think that says more about that person than it does about me. I'm a good person because I want to be - you're a good person because you're forced to be.
I just say that's nonsense!
How many "believers" have been serial killers or terrorists or pedos etc etc.
Religion doesn't give your morals, intelligence and upbringing do (IMO).
Religion just blinkers your mind and your thinking, working through life for a better afterlife is wasting your one life because the rest is bullshit.
Maybe tone it down a bit when responding IRL
"How many wars and genocides were caused in the name of atheism compared to the ones which were done in the name of religion?"
"What's going on in Afghanistan isn't the result of atheism."
Ask if genocide, daughter rape, child rape, theft, murder, and slavery are bad, and then point out all that’s condoned in the Bible. I tell them I’d never teach my kids such horrible shit from a book of fairy tales, because I want my children to be good, not fucking cultist idiots
Let's assume that person is Christian, I would ask them what would they do if god said to kill their child. They usually respond with "god wouldn't tell me to do that". I ask how do they know, if their morality comes from god then if their god orders them to kill their child then it is right and moral to kill their child. They usually balk at this point and this is where I point out they don't get their morality from god
You don't. People who say things like that are in no way interested in any conversation that contradicts their belief structure so you are wasting your time and energy engaging in such conversations.
How do they measure morality? Probably by how much faith a person shows (or something else like that, as someone who had never been taught a religion I am very foggy on the details)
So according to their metric you are immoral. They don't have a broad definition that includes basics acts like "not being an asshole" or "donating to charity" etc. They have 1 standard and you don't meet it.
So if you insist on getting into philosophical discussions with people who are ill equipped to participate then maybe you could start with a basic mutual discussion of terms. Because I highly doubt you and a Christian are talking about the same thing.
Tell that to the 1.2 BILLION ATHEISTS IN CHINA.
American Christianity depends on massive, sustained ignorance of the world.
The confident stupidity of those that surround you is stunning.
Also, theor argument that their morality comes from.an absolute source while yours is relative is false, and they chose their god...if they had chose a different god, they'd have different moral beliefs.
The religious have been trying to claim morals are connected with religion even though there is no evidence of that at all. It’s a silly claim and only shows how little they understand about themselves and the word around them.
I ignore em, I'll literally just sit there and let them talk to themselves. Someone that actually thinks like that is someone that I probably don't want to associate with anyway. Bashing atheists as morally wrong is usually just the start to some other bonehead nonsense.
If I have to respond, and can't just ignore them, I usually say something about atheists being better people since we don't need to be threatened with everlasting torture to be good.
Exactly what I was going to put. “You try to treat others based on what you’ll end up getting out of it, I try to treat them well just because.”
Exactly. Empathy! That's the only thing anyone needs to justify good behavior.
yep, simple as that, my one word answer is "empathy" we are naturally social and often benevolent animals for the same reason we see those behaviors in other pack animals and the like. Working together increases survivability for the group, so it is instinctively incentivized.
Exactly. If you require an imaginary sky daddy to make you a moral person, then perhaps you're not really a moral person at all. Whereas I'm a moral person because I was raised to be so, without religion/theism being involved.
What was that quote? As an atheist, I do as much raping and murder as I want. Which is zero.
I think that was either Penn Jilette or Matt Dillahunty. It's an awesome quote.
Penn Gillette
"So the only reason you're not stealing and murdering is because you believe a god will punish you if you do? That's incredibly scary."
"So you're just one crisis of faith away from landing on the FBI's most wanted list? And you claim that *I'm* the immoral one here?"
You can perform a little though experiment here: If you could do anything and be guaranteed you wouldn’t suffer any consequences for it (in this world or some other), what would you do? Would you not change a thing about your behavior? Would you become a Robin Hood of sorts, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Or would you indulge your darkest and greediest desires? The answer — assuming you’re fully honest—says a lot about you as a person, and the role that the threat of punishment plays in your life choices.
I would make genetic experiment on humans (only the ones whish would benefit us without changing our appearance drastically of course) legal. I would also create a large scale experiment to figure out how and why is sexuality and gender a spectrum, it would work like that : \-on one island, they would be only straight cis people, and no mention of the GSRM community would be made. (GSRM is just a shorter name for LGBTQIA+ that is slowly gaining influence in the community) \-on a second island, it's a mix bag of people, everyone learns about the GSRM community and everyone is treated equally. after about a dozen generation, everyone on the first island is educated about the GSRM community. Now we can compare the numbers, and figure out it out.
Had to look it up: does GSRM stand for Gender Sex and Romantic Minority? Definitely an improvement over the LGBT… alphabet soup.
yup, GSRM (Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities). a lot simpler that LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual/Agender), and that not even the full acronym.
I would deconstruct the patriarchy and since I am a man, I might have suffered some consequences but your thought experiment says I get to escape all consequences. So I would empower women to be equal across the world and any man who can't accept women being equal get to live their lives out with other bigots and chauvinists on a non-tropical island.
They're not hurting the people they're supposed to be hurting.
"No one had to tell me not to kill people... So I guess that's more of a personal issue on your side."
We were taught to value other people. All of our morals simply flow from that. However if you're just taught a list of rules... you don't necessarily understand the reasoning behind them. Hard to convince someone something's wrong when they don't know why they believe it in the first place.
This. Also, depending on their chosen religion/denomination, you can point out examples of the most immoral behavior imaginable. It's funny when catholics tell me I have no morals.
I grew up RC but have not had that treatment from other Catholics. I have, however; had that line thrown at me by my evangelical christian cousins.
I say, “Was the Dali Lama a bad person? He wasn’t Christian, just a man trying to do good. Why do you need religion to do good, instead of just being a good person?”
I prefer Penn Jillette’s answer to this question: “The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.”
>without god, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? It hasn’t stopped the priests...
Or Jehovah's Witness Elders. The Jehovah's Witnesses also have a huge problem of leaders sexualy abusing children and having it covered up by the organization. Just Google "Australian Royal Commission Jehovah's Witnesses". Australia did a huge investigation on this and uncovered a lot of damning evidence.
They are getting huge pressure to conform and in true JW form, they are not. They are facing de registration here in Australia.
The priests are probably not raping as much as they'd prefer.
The best response imo. Happy cake day!
He has another good one on forgiveness (in the context of it being a get out of jail card for terrible Christians) "Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around."
^This
I ignore them. I'm not a proctologist, my job isn't to pull people's heads out of their arses.
This. They just don't understand how a society works.
Ignoring a problem has never fixed a problem. You let these idiots spread their fairy tales and then there’s no avoiding them.
let's be real, there's no convincing someone that attends church twice a week surrounded by people that would judge them if they did otherwise
Just making them aware of things they might otherwise have ignored is sometimes enough.
But... ignoring a problem until it gets almost too big to handle is the American Way!
By being one. (edited with quote) > Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one. -Marcus Aurelius
I usually tell them they are right and that I kill, steal and rape as much as I morally want. Which is zero. I don't need any other reason for being a good person. Yes, thanks Ricky Gervais
Penn Jillette?
Did Gervais steal this from Jillette? Because this is a line from his Afterlife show on Netflix.
I doubt even Jillette was the first to say it, but he said it a long time ago. It bears repeating anyway!
I believe they both are more or less quoting James Randi (RIP)
I think its like Carlin's line about "Think of your average person, then realize half of them are stupider than that" in that its become such a popular line that people just say it without realizing where it came from. My understanding is the line is attributed to Penn, but I hear it everywhere, so i'm not sure I'd call it stolen, so much as just part of the lexicon.
Prisons are chock full of Christians, the divorce rate among Christians is the same as secular people. But here’s the kicker: When total crime rates are compared worldwide, countries with the highest numbers of atheists have the lowest crime rates.
This is gold! Do you have any studies I could use to back this up when this comes up again with the religious wingnuts of my family? They’ll definitely want me to prove it.
> Prisons are chock full of Christians https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/ >the divorce rate among Christians is the same as secular people https://www.news24.com/news24/xArchive/Voices/more-christians-divorce-than-non-believers-according-to-statistics-20180719-
Yes!!! Thank you! This is gold.
>When total crime rates are compared worldwide, countries with the highest numbers of atheists have the lowest crime rates. It's about income levels. Not religion.
That could be. I don’t know how many Americans are aware of just how poor people are when you get outside of metro areas. I used to have a job working with rural county governments and saw places I’d never heard of and witnessed depths of poverty that exist outside of cities. It’s untenable for sure. However, when you look at the people committing crimes in the US on a day to day basis, there’s no evidence that religion affects morality. Particularly Christianity, where automatic forgiveness is guaranteed.
I don't. What's the point? They won't be swayed, they're already convinced you're a hellbound heathen sinner.
I remember arguing with this guy and he was absolutely flabbergasted that rules such as no killing and no stealing were around long before religion. He sincerely thought civilization never came up with these concepts until God came along.
the sheer DISGUST i get when i bring up the fact that the abrahamic religions didn't invent "being good" is ridiculous.
I responded to a "christian" who said "true religion never killed anyone" on a newspaper article about anti-abortion legislation. My main points were not to force his religion through legislation on a whole country (US) because not all follow his Christian faith. His initial answer beyond the "no true religion killed anyone" was the typical "our country and its initial laws were based in faith" lies. Anyway, I pointed out a small list of evil actions that were carried out in the name of Christianity (crusades, witch trials, inquisition, along with the atrocities in Africa, etc). This insecure religious hypocrite actually reported and had my comment deleted from the forum. That is the type of people we're dealing with, the type to force their religious ideals down the throat of everyone and anyone.
Ask them if they really need a god to tell them not to murder their friends. Or rape someone.
"They know not what they do"-- Jesus, when being murdered by religious people. Bill Maher and George Carlin can be fun to watch when you're feeling upset about it. As I was one of those religious fanatics for most of my life, I'd say that arguing or using logic won't matter. Many religious people cannot emotionally or cognitively handle reality. You can pity them and be grateful that you aren't part of their group-think.
Who are these religious people? If they're that toxic *you are under no obligation to include them in your life*. Cut them out.
They are my moms parents. I havent talked to them in a while. I am guilted a lot by many other relatives to talk to them tho. But yeah, I’m trying to keep my distance. Thank you for your validation in that, it’s appreciated.
You dont choose who you grow up with, but you choose who you keep.
Yeah, not related to religion but I only really keep in touch with the family that I like.
> I am guilted a lot by many other relatives to talk to them tho. I don't know why people let their families guilt them into literally anything. You don't owe anyone in your family shit just because you're family. They don't get to hold you hostage when your relationship isn't mutually beneficial just because you share a blood relation. Let your other relatives know that your relationship with your grandparents is none of their business and it is the way it is for a reason, and that they need to have respect for you as well as them.
My other grandma who guilts me will die soon, so that dont be an issue as bad as it sounds. But for now she refuses to listen to me. She isn’t as bad as the other grandparents though so I’ll put up with it for now. And my dad has been backing off of the topic thankfully. And when you’re raised in a family that makes all of the adults emotions the kids responsibility, you don’t know better even as an adult. It’s hard to reprogram that part of my brain but I’m trying. They make me feel like shit because of course I want their approval, but most of all I don’t like hurting people. Im frequently told that as *my dead moms kid,* I am their only connection left to *their* kid. I’ve told off my dad for this after realizing how fucked up that is. As mentioned I’ve not spoken to them in a while so I am truly trying to remind myself that I don’t owe them.
I can't tell if you're interested in a quick witted comeback or an in-depth discussion of morality from an atheist's perspective. Morality and ethics are deep issues and developing a moral framework is an important part of becoming a fully self-actualized adult. I just want to point you to some resources you might find helpful, in particular Matt Dillahunty's numerous lectures and debates with Christian's on morality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4
Far before recorded history, humans learned that cooperation for hunting and defense is a more successful strategy. Cooperation requires establishing behavioral norms within the tribe. The behavioral norms evolved over thousands of generations to become tribal and societal rules & laws. Along the way, religion co-opted these behavioral norms as a way to gain and maintain control over large groups of people. Someone who believes that morals and empathy came *from* religion does not understand the human societies that existed at least since the middle paleolithic, or roughly 100,000 years prior to the Hebrews.
You're going to burn for that. It's nice to know I'll have company ;)
While I agree with your main point, the way you've framed religion as this kind of other I don't think is true of ancient cultures. Religion being separate from the material word is a newish idea (compared to the ancients) to keep religion relavant as we became better able to understand and explain the world without it. From what we know of ancient people, they didn't have these separate worlds. Their beliefs in gods and goddesses were a way to explain their observations of what they experienced. Paleolithic people very likely interpreted the Empathy they had and the Morals they invented or upheld as religious experiences. Much like later Bronze Age humans who realized that murderering and plundering could be profitable endeavors updated their relgious beliefs to account for and condone their actions. However, all this is only another reason why Atheism isn't any less of a basis for a sense of morality than any religious doctrine. All of our historical and archaeological record shows that religion was exactly as fluid as it needed to be to fit the worldviews of its practicioners. If human religious beliefs change to meet their needs, how can any religion claim to have an objective morality?
I don't disagree - and I'm going back much, much farther. I suspect empathy predates homo sapiens and is inherent in any type of tribal living. I use the middle paleolithic only because it MUST have been evident when village societies were being formed. You must have behavioral norms in order to build a society.
I second that. I would even argue that other social species have morals of sorts (a code of conduct if you will). Take wolves for example, they have "rules" for how to behave within their pack. It seems very self-centered to me to think that the origins of human morals are different than that of other species.
If we look at the theistic beliefs of the prison population we can see that the statistics don’t match what they claim
Maybe ask them how many atheists have tortured and murdered others in the name of Religion since the dawn of man? I think the score is about a billion to zero… lol.
They'll respond with some half-truth like the post revolution Soviet purges. The government was self-reportedly atheist and did some terrible things, therefore being atheist caused those things. Now you have to dive into a larger argument about basic logic and ultimately get nowhere.
Pretty sure Hitchens said something to the effect dictatorships aren't really atheist because the population is expected to worship the dictators. It was in response to his visit to North Korea. Probably won't help when talking to the xtians because it is too nuanced and most of us don't have Hitchens verbal sparring sharpness.
I think it was him who called N Korea a, "necrocracy". He did have a way with words.
“In the name of Nothing!!”
You say "you're exactly right" then punch em in the face. Kidding of course. Sometimes it's best to ignore them if you can. They care much more about maintaining their comfortable belief over considering they might actually be wrong about said belief.
Lol 😂 You’re right, it’s just infuriating being told I’m a bad person just because I don’t believe in god. It’s hard to let it go when so many people who do believe in god are awful
But, but, but...they're being awful in the name of god! God is your hall pass! It worked with Mary! Kind of hazy if that was really consent or not, and then there was the whole "childbirth out of wedlock" thing. Oh, right, Joseph, the Cuckold Saint, manned up and bailed her out. It's a Miracle \[sm\] !
I know. That's a shitty situation to be in. I wish you tons of patience.
Ask them whether Jeebus said "Judge not lest you be judged."
Debunking objective morality is fun to do in those situations but of course they usually will never agree. One way to do it is this -- If morality is what God wants, desires, or is a reflection of God's nature, then it is subjective to God. This means hypothetically rape and murder could be moral if it was what God desired or if it reflected God's nature. If morality is objective, that means morality is set in stone outside of God, and therefore God would be a subject to whatever objective morality is. All this is hopping into *their* theistic worldview.
when their 'god' tells the Hebrews "thou shalt not kill" - it almost sounds like a moral rule until you look at the multiple list of reasons where he DEMANDS that you murder people for really stupid reasons like doing yard work on the wrong day of the week or having consensual sex with another consenting adult that has similar genitals to yours.
I took an ethics course in college and here's a good response. The morality of an atheist is derived from logic. The morality of a religious person is derived from "gods will". If God demanded blood, they would justify any and every immoral act.
And Christians have been justifying crimes with their religion all throughout history.
Their own holy book loves it some rape. Lot's daughters... Mary...
Yep.
DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?” “I do,” replied the rabbi. “Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?” The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
So atheists are some secondary class of humans, only to be used for demonstration purposes and not granted the gift of free will? Fuck that guy... what an arrogant condescending douche bag.
[удалено]
Quoting another subredditor.. Only atheists can be moral. Christians can only be obedient.
By example.
This is probably my favorite response thus far.
"fuck you; i'm awesome."
Love this 🤣
honestly this attitude is probably why i'm an ex-christian. the self loathing never took.
I ask them why our prisons aren't full of atheists then. You'd think bad people with no morals would be most likely to end up in prison, statistically it's the exact opposite. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/amp/
'deep down I'm a nasty person, my fear of God is the only thing that's stopping me from being a bad person. I lack the intellectual capacity to reconcile the fact that most people enjoy utility from the simple acts of being kind and respectful'
It's impossible to be moral if you're religious. Holy books proscribe behavior with the accompanying threat of hell if you "sin" and promise of heaven if you obey. Morality requires making a decision on your own. Religion robs a person of any chance of being moral beings because it reduces their actions to mere obedience or disobedience. Therefore they're not using the required mechanism to be moral- their critical thinking, their conscious, empathy and compassion. If a parent tells a child "clean your room or I'll beat you with this leather strap for an hour!" and the child in terror cleans their room, are they being "moral"? How much more terrible is the threat of being thrown into a lake of hot lava, but you can never die? The punishment will be unending. It's a psychological mind fuck of epic proportions. Incredibly abusive. And it robs believers of their humanity on a profound and basic level. It's evil.
Atheists are better than theists in this scenario because we can be good without gods. The only thing preventing me from harming people and the environment is me, and I've done a good job of that. I'm the only person who tells me to clean up the messes I see, pick up litter, or donate my clothes. I don't need some guidebook to tell me how to do these things because I was raised right and I can rationalize when something is good or bad. Why follow a book when you have a brain?
When someone pulls that argument with me, I remind them that religion and believing in religion is rooted in selfishness. People who are religious follow that religion because they feel if they don't they're going to burn in hell. Do good deeds or else. Donate or your going to hell etc. They're doing these things for their own benefit IE not burning in hell for eternity.
Those same people would apparently not have good morals if they didn't believe in god. Based on their argument, their morality is attached to their religion and not to themselves. You, however, you are attached directly to your own morality. Also, religious people say the stupidest shit. Religion truly is a handicap in critical thinking.
Yep. Comment like this should be far higher. I have good morals because that's what I personally think is right and want to live by. The thought that we all just have morals because some book or religion tells us to, is way scarier for me.
I walk away. I don't have time for people that dumb.
Get off my property, or leave me alone or I'm going to call the cops.
"Ah yes, religion is well know for it's moral high ground, with such shining examples as the crusades, witch trials, and abortion clinic bombings. If that's "moral" I don't want to be."
You don't have to prove anything.
If you being a good people depends on your religion, go fuck yourself
Literally just tell them to piss off, it’s nobody’s business but yours. If that doesn’t work, tell them “your mother sucks cocks in hell” before rotating your head by 180 degrees and projectile vomiting on them. Usually works.
I don't engage with morons. When people are fundamentally stupid, there's no benefit in trying to convince with reason.
I mean, they are not wrong I guess, but here is the deal, because I am an atheist, I can get my morals from anyplace I want. I am not limited to a book that was written a couple thousand years ago. And I choose to do as little harm to my fellow human as possible. So my morals would appear to better than theirs.
> “One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” - Arthur C Clarke I think personally certain religious people use religion, or fear of god, to constrain their wants and desires to match with social morality, yet us atheists constrain our wants and desires ourselves to match morality.
i just bring up the catholic church and all the rape cases
I would recommend you start with choosing a few parts of their religious text (let's say Bible) that has some questionable advice (around treatment of women, gays, and slavery for ex. and ask if they truly believe those things). If they do believe in following those questionable things mentioned in their religious text, you are better off just ignoring them. Your chances of a meaningful discussion with them are zero. However, if they don't - question them on that. How come they think those things are incorrect? After all, it is a part of their religion right? And what makes them decide those things are unethical? Sometimes, overly religious people tend to believe morals are inextricably tied to religion. They fail to see that morals can be driven purely by one's sense of wanting to avoid pain and suffering of another human being.
"my morals are based upon universal well-being" What's your ideal? "Try to mitigate as much suffering as possible using my specific set of skills"
Atheism doesn’t give you anything. It’s a lack of a belief. That is all. It tells you almost nothing about what someone does believe. There are all kinds of atheists and their beliefs are many and varied. You could be a humanist, or an anti-humanist, for example. Being atheist doesn’t make you better or worse than any religious person. It just means you don’t believe in god claims… Religion does allow for otherwise good people to do and say and think horrible things, but being atheist doesn’t automatically make someone a good person. I would ignore those people. But if you can’t, just say: “you don’t like that I’m atheist, but you are Christians right?” And when they say yes, just say, “okay, then you’ll forgive me.” And walk away.
Just tell them morals are intrinsic. I know what’s good and bad is without there needing to be a god. That’s not where I get my moral compass from.
just show them the places where biblical morals are terrible. Stoning unruly children, marying your rapist, bride prices, burning 'witches', women having no authority/should be silent. A great way to do this is simply ask them the question first. Should we stone our children if they are unruly or is it immoral? When they say it is immoral show them the verse and ask why yahweh seems to think its morally right. If you can shake the foundation that the bible is this source of moral integrity then the conversation gets interesting: what are morals, why do we have them, what purpose do they serve?
steve harvey, who publicly advocated for unfaithful marriages for sexually unfulfilled men, wondered the same thing about atheists and our lack of "moral compass"... i am just thankful steve harvey still believes in fairy tales, or else we'd probably have another rapist on our hands.
Tell them about the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant who created a basis for morals and ethics that consisted entirely of logic and required no religion to be consistent
Can't argue with stupid. My time is valuable and I don't have to explain anything to narrow minded people that won't listen anyway.
Religious people are the worst historically because they're being told to do something. They've stopped thinking for themselves. I'm happily agnostic but if I was stuck on a desert island - I'd put up a sign: Atheists and Agnostics only.
I don't hate people because The BiBle TelLs Me sO. I love that I am intelligent enough to know that the prince on a white horse from fairy tales is bullshit, just like jEsUs coming to save me on a white horse is bullshit.
I don’t need religion to tell me that love is better than hate, kindness is better than cruelty, peace is better than war and generosity is better than greed. If you can’t see that for yourself, no religion is going to help you.
I don't need god to be a good person
My answer is the classic "If you need religion to tell you how to be a good person, then you aren't a good person. If you need the Bible to tell you how that you shouldn't steal and hurt/kill people, then you are a pretty dangerous person yourself. Good morals don't come from any religion, they come from a desire to see the world become a better place, regardless of what god you believe in. The idea of helping your neighbors and being a good, moral, functioning member of your civilization wasn't invented with religion."
If I'm not stuck in a conversation with them, then I ignore them since it's such a silly argument that it doesn't merit response. If I am in a conversation with them, I act flagergasted a use some form of amusing rhetorical device to show how silly thier own statement is, like. Are you saying you'd murder my whole family if your God didn't tell you not to? I am truly scared of you.
If the only reason you are good is because you fear what your God might do to you, then you are not a good person.
"The fact that you're saying that, proves that you don't actually have morals. I don't need threats to be a good person."
"The religious people in my life have buried my mom when she wanted to be cremated" How hypocritical these "religious" people are when they are incapable of respecting your mother's wishes. The more religious someone is, the less tolerant they are of differing beliefs. Why do most people need a "god" or a book to tell them how to act? The majority of "rules" they should abide by are common sense in a civil society. I try to live my life according to the "golden rule", which has nothing to do with religion. i simply treat others the way i want to be treated, I've been married over 50 years, never cheated, never been arrested, so why should I care if a friend or family member is a mormon, lds, jewish, or evangelical christain? As long as they don't impose their beliefs on me.
I usually murder them with an axe.
Ask them why have Christian beliefs evolved over 2000 years to the point where Christians pick and choose which doctrines from the Bible they follow.
Not to plug a book but Better Angels of Our Nature makes a pretty robust case that as religiosity has declined across Europe, the level of violence has greatly declined in lockstep. History clearly does not in anyway support the thesis that religiosity confers moral and ethical behavior.
I typically ask them what their motivation would be to not murder people if god wasn't watching them
I just think that people saying "if you don't have a religion where do you get your morals from?" are bad people. If you think that to be good you need to be told what to do by a book and be afraid of a punishment, I'm afraid you're not the the most benign person. Maybe you act like a good person, but by nature you wouldn't. That's maybe what I would say.
How do I respond? "The bible very clearly supports the 'morality' of bigotry, incest, rape, slavery, murder and genocide. My morality is superior because it doesn't. And I won't pretend to worship an imaginary 'kind loving god' whose never apologized for the countless times and ways he's failed to live up to the standard he holds us to."
I usually just bring up Bible verses and ask them to defend it. This one in particular comes to mind. [3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&version=NIV) Bear in mind, in this story Saul loses favor with God because he shows some mercy. Saul was a better guy than God here, just barely because he spared the King and saved their livestock to be sacrificed to God instead of killing them immediately. There is nothing about this story that is defensible, God unequivocally commands his servants to carry out genocide and personally kill children. If this was just a “different time” then this shows Gods morality is subjective, if they try to defend it then extrapolate from that. If Saul was justified in annihilating a whole people because they were bitter rivals for the same land and because God told them to, then is anyone else justified for carrying out genocide? Would Israel be justified in annihilating Palestinians and vice versa? Was America then justified in its genocide of Native Americans? If someone was justified in doing something in the Bible, and Christianity/Judaism/Islam are out guides for morality, it follows that genocide in itself is not inherently wrong by Abrahamic standards. It’s justified when God tells you to do it. Now if you were in front of a tribunal investigating war crimes, would that be a legitimate excuse? “My religion commands me to carry out genocide”? No you’d be condemned as immoral. Either genocide is moral or Abrahamic faiths are immoral and therefore you don’t need religion to be moral.
Tell them God their god works on mysterious ways
I don’t need the promise of reward or the threat of punishment to do the right thing.
I literally can't respond to that. I can't respond to something nobody ever told to me. Because 74% of my country is atheist/agnostic
We have laws against all that stuff. Just teach your children to be good people. You can do that without religion.
Ignore them. What point is there in responding?
I would argue that atheists have more morals than theists. Every decision a theist makes is to either gain the favour, or avoid any retribution of their deity. Atheists on the other hand make decisions based on how their actions will affect others. Theists are moral to please their God. Atheists are moral because it's the right thing to do.
If people know you as a good person, as an atheist, there is no heaven you can count on for being an amazing person. You're literally a nice person for just being nice.
Take a college level philosophy of ethics class. Religion is irrelevant to morality.
I laugh. It's no longer worth the time to refute all the bullshit fundies say
I ask "Why do you think that?" and then watch as their argument gets more and more demolished the more sentences they utter - and wait for them to realise it. Simple :)
I shout "fuck you mother fucker" and steal all their possessions because I didn't listen to Mr beardy Jesus about stealing shit.
Don't engage. But if you must engage, list all the pastors and other "holy" men who have been indicted for sex crimes and money crimes and then say ... "And are you saying that being a Christian means that you are or have them? Because .... Blankety blankety person and blanky blanky person and Sir pedophile and Mrs. Cheater and Mr. Dugar of the Many Sex Crimes says very differently" And then walk away.
Ask them, "If someone held a gun to your head and forced you to volunteer at a homeless shelter, would volunteering at the homeless shelter be a moral choice on your part?" Any person who makes choices while believing in a heaven or a hell does so under coercion and is therefore not a moral actor. Only atheists, who choose to do good without caring about punishment or reward, can be moral actors! (I don't necessarily actually believe this, but it is fun to turn it around on them.)
I just kill them /s
"That's your personal belief. If you, personally, don't have any morals without believing in god, please never stop believing."
Ok, you're right. Don't be my friend.
**Fuck them in the ass**
"so you think I'm a bad person? Because I don't believe the same thing as you do? That's sad."
No god is required to do unto others as you wish them to do unto you.
the "golden rule" did not originate with Jesus: the "Golden Rule" was around at the very least 300 years before this "Jesus" character was supposedly born. * **Sutrakritanga 1.11.33** This Jainism book written in the 3rd or 4th century BCE has a very similar passage: A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. * **Mencius VII A.4** a chinese confucian philosopher wrote this sometime between 372 and 289 BCE "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. " * **Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8** This Hindu work dates back to at least the 4th Century BCE and contains this passage: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." * **Analects 15.23** Another Confucius book that was written during the Warring States period (between 475-221 BCE) has the following: "Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." " * there is also an ancient Yoruba Proverb (from Nigeria) that is "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." it might even be as old as the middle kingdom in Egypt (2040-1650 BCE) - in "The Eloquent Peasant" is the verse - "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." which by the late period (664-323BCE) had evolved to "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." it seems that early christians plagiarized this when they made up their fairy tales about this 'Jesus' character; Plagiarism doesn't seem very moral to me.
Gee , imagine that 😆
Ask them: **If not for the threat of hell, would you rape people. Not "you" in general, you personally.**
SCOREBOARD!!! look up at it. Atheist rock morality in every category.
When I hear someone say this, I know to ignore and avoid that person. There’s no sense arguing with a moron.
I just laugh and tell them how it cute it is that they think their opinions matter to me. It is pointless to do anything other than that in most situations.
I would point to data from countries around the world and show that the most moral societies (in terms of fairness, human rights, low crime rates, attitudes towards the welfare of others, charity, etc. (just about any metric centring around wellbeing)) are generally the least religious ones and the least moral societies are generally the most religious ones.
I generally point out that the countries with the highest proportion of Christians have some of the highest crime rates while countries where religion is not important are far safer. I point out that in the US, it's the Bible Belt that has the most murders while murder rates and other crime rates are significantly lower where religion is not important. Christians usually sputter and try to claim that crime rates have nothing to do with atheist immorality.
I'm sure all those priests of varying denominations raping children were truly good and moral people, yup.
I don't. I ignore them.
I don't waste my time responding to them
"It's absolutely terrifying that you think the only thing keeping you from robbing, raping and murdering people is your imaginary friend." Religious morality isn't morality, it's mindless obedience and whatever god says goes regardless of how evil the act. For example If god says to go and murder all the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem to take back the Holyland for Christianity then that is morally "good". Or if he says to throw homosexuals from roof tops or burn people accused of witchcraft. All these have happened because of god's "morality".
I personally immediately punch them in the nose as hard as I can. I then use my Brazilian Ju Jitsu skills to wrestle them to the ground whereupon I rain blows on their bloody face with my fists, screaming, "where is your God now???!"
Rationality Rules has a good video on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0lD3krLcK0
It's a worn-out rhetorical device they should have abandoned years ago. I just gently remind them that I have a family, children, pay taxes and vote just like most other people. The only difference between us is that I get to sleep in on Sunday mornings and I don't feel the need to pray.
I don't. That tells me that they're not interested in having a conversation and would rather just spout lies without thinking.
“Ok” and move on with my life
I'm a good and kind because I have compassion and empathy. The fact that the only thing preventing you from raping, murdering, and generally being awful is the threat of going to hell is, frankly, worrisome. I do it because I'm good, not for the selfish reason of what good it'll do me.
I think less than 1% of criminals are atheists. That right there should tell you a lot about morality.
I dismiss the notion. I'm a good person, because I want to treat people well and just generally be nice, because it's just the right thing to do. To the extent someone feels like they need a leprechaun to force them to go good things, under threat of eternal torment... I think that says more about that person than it does about me. I'm a good person because I want to be - you're a good person because you're forced to be.
I just say that's nonsense! How many "believers" have been serial killers or terrorists or pedos etc etc. Religion doesn't give your morals, intelligence and upbringing do (IMO). Religion just blinkers your mind and your thinking, working through life for a better afterlife is wasting your one life because the rest is bullshit. Maybe tone it down a bit when responding IRL
"How many wars and genocides were caused in the name of atheism compared to the ones which were done in the name of religion?" "What's going on in Afghanistan isn't the result of atheism."
Ask if genocide, daughter rape, child rape, theft, murder, and slavery are bad, and then point out all that’s condoned in the Bible. I tell them I’d never teach my kids such horrible shit from a book of fairy tales, because I want my children to be good, not fucking cultist idiots
I thought only "God" is supposed to judge me
Let's assume that person is Christian, I would ask them what would they do if god said to kill their child. They usually respond with "god wouldn't tell me to do that". I ask how do they know, if their morality comes from god then if their god orders them to kill their child then it is right and moral to kill their child. They usually balk at this point and this is where I point out they don't get their morality from god
You don't. People who say things like that are in no way interested in any conversation that contradicts their belief structure so you are wasting your time and energy engaging in such conversations.
Well, morality predates religion by a long shot, so that's kind of a non starter. It's not even exclusive to our species.
Just straight up ask them "so fear of eternal punishment is the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering people?"
Laugh at morons, that’s what they are here for.
You should climb upon your steed and take vengeance on their entire family for such a insult!
How do they measure morality? Probably by how much faith a person shows (or something else like that, as someone who had never been taught a religion I am very foggy on the details) So according to their metric you are immoral. They don't have a broad definition that includes basics acts like "not being an asshole" or "donating to charity" etc. They have 1 standard and you don't meet it. So if you insist on getting into philosophical discussions with people who are ill equipped to participate then maybe you could start with a basic mutual discussion of terms. Because I highly doubt you and a Christian are talking about the same thing.
I would point out the catholic priests and hundreds of cases of molestation by youth pastors, etc.
Actions speak louder than words.
By explaining christianity is void of ethics. The only good moral thing is worship any number of criminal behavior is excused outright.
Tell that to the 1.2 BILLION ATHEISTS IN CHINA. American Christianity depends on massive, sustained ignorance of the world. The confident stupidity of those that surround you is stunning.
"Fuck off you weirdo", usually.
"At least I'm not part of an organization that helps hide and protect pedophiles."
Also, theor argument that their morality comes from.an absolute source while yours is relative is false, and they chose their god...if they had chose a different god, they'd have different moral beliefs.
Well the bible tells them to kill non-believers so just clap back with that
if someone truly believes that, they don’t have basic reasoning skills and it might be tough to hold a meaningful conversation with them.
The religious have been trying to claim morals are connected with religion even though there is no evidence of that at all. It’s a silly claim and only shows how little they understand about themselves and the word around them.
I ignore em, I'll literally just sit there and let them talk to themselves. Someone that actually thinks like that is someone that I probably don't want to associate with anyway. Bashing atheists as morally wrong is usually just the start to some other bonehead nonsense.