This person is openly telling you that the only thing stopping them from being a shitty person is some myth about otherworldly punishment after they die.
Which, of course, means they’ll be juuuust as shitty as they believe they can get away with.
Yeah, the “why be good if there’s no God/Hell” is a disturbing as fuck argument, because it essentially says that if they decide that their god wants them to start killing, they’ll do it.
I’m good because if I do something bad, I feel bad about it. It’s pretty simple.
exactly. i understand that doing bad things is bad because i feel guilt and shame when i do bad things. conversely, i feel good when i do good things. I also understand the broader implications of both-- not to mention that i have empathy and can see the impact of my actions upon others while caring as well.
i don’t need a fairy tale to threaten me with eternal torture in order to not be a sociopath.
That’s the problem. These people lack empathy. They don’t feel happy when they make someone else happy unless they get something more than that out of it.
because they’ve been taught that life is a zero-sum game: if anyone else’s life improves - even just a little - it must necessarily come at the cost of someone else’s life getting worse. this isn’t true, of course, but they can’t see life as any other way, so the ideas of equality and working together to improve society are antithetical to their worldview. they’re to be fought. They have an “every man for himself” philosophy, and it’s nothing but selfish, self-centered solipsism.
it also teaches their kid that selfish motivations and material rewards are the only things of value, and that they’re worth liying, cheating, and even stealing for-- as long as you don’t get caught, because right and wrong are only a matter of the consequences one may personally face. and, even then, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. again, the zero-sum game.
I had a coworker catholic who both said that statement, and also argued animals had no souls, so no one should ever get in trouble for animal abuse. Along with his ridiculously heated response to any government involvement in Healthcare, and the way he got close to yelling when discussing these topics while also claiming he was just being logical, not emotional. Why yes he did call women emotional, how did you know?
People like him scare me, because it sounds like if he could use some religious context to say I didn’t have a soul, he’d probably come to the same conclusion he did about dogs.
Yeah that’s my takeaway from that argument as well. If you have to be threatened by some vague notion of a future punishment in order to not be a complete dickwad, you’re clearly not a good person.
Why be good if there’s no hell? Because to live is to suffer. Society sucks. Accepting that, working past it, and being kind to those around you makes everything slightly more bearable. You are to be kind to others because it’s the right thing to be.
Happened to a relative of mine, kind of. Went on a drug and debauchery spree. Not the fun way. Hard drugs, seriously addictive. Stole from the family, we all disowned them. Ended up hitting someone while driving under the influence and killing them. Went to jail, supposedly got sober, but I’m still no-contact.
The reality is that they aren’t held in check. Rural crime is widely underreported because cops in the boonies won’t take a report about domestic violence unless it involves a trip to the hospital
unfortunately, this is often true in big cities as well.
things are a lot better in that regard than they used to be. dv is no longer by default regarded as a “private matter,” laws and resources have improved.
on the flip side, dv can be hard to prove, especially to a busy cop or judge. and policing is also not a profession averse to abusers.
As an atheist I can’t tell you how many Christians have asked me why I don’t just rape and murder people if I don’t believe in hell. Tells me everything I need to know about that POS.
For me I’d say its a mix of legal repercussions AND knowing that murder is wrong and that a society that allows it isnt really a safe society to be a part of, so while someone might be being awful enough to me that the thought crossed my mind, maybe I should go find somewhere to cool down. But, like you said, god had nothing to do with any of that
True, and since probably neither of us are in the heat of murderous anger right now, let’s think back to that time we HAVE been in the heat of murderous anger, And I’m telling you, that sonofabitch DESERVES it, right?! He COMPLETELY DESTROYED my life and he KNOWS it, and he will never even acknowledge it or apologize. Even now the only reason I’d regret following through with this ideation is the dread of prison and losing all my freedoms forever. But yeah, these guys are safe, at least from MY wrath. I moved 2000 miles away. But surely they fuck up a lot of things and a LOT of people are equally angry at them, so hopefully karma does its thing with them.
LOL thank you, I was just venting. I don’t get any opportunities whatsoever to vent about that particular issue that’s always quite a bit of PTSD. Thank you for the hugs. I’m a good person that did not deserve to be wronged by those two people.
The legal repercussions would be a secondary thing to me. I have no problem breaking an unjust law if I think I can do so. I do not feel the slightest bit of guilt violating drug laws.
If I murdered someone? I wouldn’t be able to live with the guilt.
Both points, being A: Controlling the population when they are already adult and B: Controlling the population by raising them “correct”, are equally valid, though. Imo
I always hate that argument. Why be a decent human without the threat of eternal damnation? I mean that threat doesn’t seem to stop a vast number of religious people from being unbelievably cruel to their fellow humans, so…
wtf this guy is still around?! I watching some cringy debate video with him vs Christopher Hitchens (RIP) or someone like 15 years ago when I was an edgy teenager and YouTube was new (shit it’s actually like 20 years ago fml)
The main issue is that religion is something that makes you feel better when you have emotional pain, like a loved one dying. Like any painkiller, it has a purpose and if you abuse it you can deaden your response to actual issues that need your attention.
Originally Christianity was mostly about helping the poor, sick, dying, etc. That genuinely makes you feel better about yourself. Judaism has a lot of references to remaining strong in the face of adversity. Religions are just mental tools. What you do with that tool is up to you. If you hurt other people, it’s your fault.
Please don’t misunderstand. I was not saying that that was the be-all-end-all of religion. I wasn’t speaking against religion in general, just in regards to the irony of suggesting that religion makes people more good. At all.
I don’t. It tells you, in clear language, the type of person that this “loving Christian” is. They literally can’t imagine altruism, and that says more about them than what they think they’re saying about me.
That kind of person is revealing an innate sense of right and wrong that’s independent of their teachings. You should fear the Christian who’s envious of your disbelief in hell.
Yep. Even though I’m not an atheist, I still don’t understand this argument. I’m a good person (or at least try to be) for the sake of being a good person, because I don’t need to be threathened with eternal damnation in order to not murder people.
My rebuttal to this is (they usually include murder as the bad thing being done), “Are you telling me fear of hell is the only thing keeping you from murdering me right now? Says a lot more about your morals than mine.”
Maybe, just maybe, also because that may have been the way to get some impulsive but simple-minded people to not make a mess for those around them. Didn’t work with everyone, though. If it ever did, with anyone.
Also, it seems shockingly easy to get some people to commit evil acts as they think they are doing good… and that usually comes carrying a lot of religious ideology and/or methodology, curiously enough.
Yeah, it can be easily influenced. See Stanford prisoner experiment. Religion can be an influence too, but religios people can’t imagine a life without it.
Virgin “I live in an existentialist mental hell I’ve been indoctrinated into” vs Chad “A meaningless life in a purposeless universe means I’m the master of my own destiny, and therefore I choose to eat tacos”
Exactly this thought made made me understand “god is irrelevant” a long time ago and I became an agnosticist.
I really can not understand people who are only “good” because they fear an ultimate judgment, and not be good just because they want to out of their own volition.
In case there are gods, I’ll be judged for who I am, anyways. It doesn’t matter if I play “good child”. If there are no gods, I’m still happier if I’m not an asshole.
What I find even more reprehensible than the sentiment “Without the threat of consequences, why should I be decent?” is that their own fucking book holds the answer to their goddamn question (not an expletive here, their god should and probably would damn them for it):
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
The first half of this is a principle independent of religion, a fundamental social contract, the most critical idea underpinning any functioning society: Expect your behaviour to be reciprocated, and act accordingly. If you want others to help you if you need it, help people (if you can). If you want others to be kind to you, be kind to others. If you’re gonna be a prick, expect others to be just as prickly to you.
If all that keeps you from murdering people is the threat of eternal damnation, you forget that your own scripture says “If you kill people, expect that others may kill you in turn.”
Bonus: the biblical Jesus was known to hate hypocrites that pick out one piece of scripture to follow and ignore another and pharisees that carefully interpret and follow the letter of the law to find loopholes and ignore the heart of it. Those people lawyering their way around the otherwise unmistakable passages about generosity and giving away your wealth? Believe it or not, straight to hell.
More disgusting than the sentiment mentioned at the start is the hypocrisy of selectively applying it, the inconsistency in their own beliefs, the hollow facade of devotion while spitting on the principles they perjure to obey.
Signed, an apostate whose faith was shattered by fallacy of preaching love while children suffer and threatening hell while blasphemers thrive.
It absolutely confounds me how Christianity has become a stereotypically right-wing thing when in the context of the time Jesus’s actions are mostly that of a radical progressive who amassed such a following that the power structures of the time had him killed.
Like how in the hell can you run around hating homosexuals and immigrants when you account for the company Jesus kept in the context of the time? Only if you completely fucking ignore it.
My wife’s grandfather was a pastor, and a saying that has passed through her family is “On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise”.
Signed, former apostate who has found his way back to being an incredibly frustrated Christian.
On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise
I mean, even that is biblical. The passage in the Apocalypse about “What you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” features a group of people claiming to be faithful being turned away just as they turned away the needy: “I don’t know you, go away”.
Which means we’re back on the topic of reading one part but ignoring another. How can you vote to slash social security nets, then go to church and look at that cross, the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice and of a man that said “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two, and if they demand your shirt, give them the coat too”, with anything but shame and disgust at yourself?
In the Acts 5:1-10, there’s a story of a couple that sold an acre and gave part of the money to their parish. They lied and said it had been the full amount to exaggerate the weight of their contribution. As per the response, they wouldn’t have to give anything, but pretending it was the full amount was a deceit deserving of keeling over dead.
Yet televangelists pretend to do God’s work, enriching themselves beyond measure. Guess that threat of punishment only works if you actually believe it.
Fun facts: The “later consequences” of super spicy food comes from the anus having similar sensory cells to the mouth. The only way to avoid the burn is desensitization from repeated exposure and this desensitization is not permanent. It has to be maintained by regular consumption of spicy food.
Add comment