Anonymous #1 5w

No laws should be based on the morality of religious beliefs. As in equality should be allowed for all, not just some while others are shunned out because they’re inferior or ‘it’s a sin’ because then that forces people to follow a certain religion those laws were based off of. Separation of church and state. Point blank period.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

where'd we derive the value of human beings from? that all humans are deserving of equality, the right to life, pursuit of happiness?

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

even so politicians for many years have twisted religion to oppress the minority and uplift the majority. That is the reason why it should not be allowed. it is too easy for someone to say they’re above someone and use religion as a scape goat.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

can you give me some examples? you need to keep in mind that each politician brings their own bias' to law making and it influences their stance in party alignment, generally. atheism is just as much of a religion as any other. i understand where you're coming from, but i think it's short sighted.

-1

Anonymous OP 5w

stalin was an atheist, so keep that in mind.

-1

Anonymous #1 5w

During slavery, the Bible was often used to justify their horrible actions against their slaves. The government funded schools to change strip Native Americans of their culture to switch them to Christianity, hence the phrase ‘Kill the Indian, save the man’. If we get our morality from religion, then where did individuals gain their racism and hatred? By your logic, it would stem from religion, correct? And even though Stalin was an atheist, that doesn’t change anything because there are—

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Leaders who are good and are also atheists.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

you know Christians led the abolition of slavery, right? due to their religious beliefs. mind you, slavery had been a cultural norm prior to its abolition. don't speak about the Bible if you don't know what it teaches. just because someone parades around as a Christian, it doesn't mean they're actually following Christ. hatred and racism stem from sin, and living in a fallen world. this topic is too much for YY, but i encourage you to actually learn about what's in the Bible.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

i also never disagreed that they are not good atheists; i'm not saying we need religion to be a productive society (it does help, though). although, all of those countries you've cited are currently in a state of disarray in some fashion and i would argue it's because they left God behind. different topic, though. also, India is a highly religious country.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

you know they had a "slave Bible", right? because those people were evil and understood what the Bible actually taught. just because someone weaponizes a religion, it does not make that religion bad, which is why i encourage you to actually learn about theology.

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Imagine needing a mythological figure watching over you in order to not act like a piece of shit. “Derive morality” my ass. What a shit excuse. The church has done nothing but manipulate people and abuse its power over them for fucking MILLENNIA

0

Anonymous #2 5w

ignorant take. i encourage you to do some actual studying. also— Jesus Christ's existence is not debated, it's affirmed by almost every historical scholar. His divinity is the contention of debate.

0

Anonymous #1 5w

If morality came from religion, slavery, genocide, and child marriage would be moral whenever a holy book endorsed them. They aren’t—because we judge religions by moral standards, not the other way around. Morality comes from human well-being and reason; religion just claims credit after the fact.

4

Anonymous #1 5w

If morality came from religion, different religions wouldn’t disagree, and atheists couldn’t be moral. Empathy, reason, and social cooperation explain morality without gods.

2

Anonymous #1 5w

Morality clearly predates religion—humans needed rules to survive together long before gods were written down. Pretending religion invented ethics is historically ignorant, logically bankrupt, and honestly a dumb-as-shit take that only sounds smart if you’ve never thought for five fucking seconds.

4

Anonymous #1 5w

They led the abolition of slavery…..only after they created so they were ‘fixing’ their own problem. That problem didn’t even go away basically until the 1900’s because they were paid very very little and still had to do the work of slaves because they did not have their own land, much less enough resources to maintain it when they did. Evergreen plantation (in Louisiana) wasn’t shut down until 1930, the Whitney plantation (Louisiana) wasn’t shut down until 1975. You can look it up.

-1

Anonymous #1 5w

And the fact that they had a ‘slave bible’ further proves my point that religion does not belong in politics. Too many people weaponize religion. I agree with you, it doesn’t make it bad, but it doesn’t belong in politics. It can corrupt a country. Like Afghanistan for example. Women have absolutely no right because of their religious beliefs.

-1

Anonymous #1 5w

I agree with no. 2 completely and it isn’t an ignorant take. His existence is debated. And that ‘confirmed existence’ was based on evidence from people of the 1st century. It’s scarce because the Palestinian people couldn’t read or write and left few records. Therefore, it is not fully believed that he was an actual ‘historical figure’ and most of those ‘historical scholars’ are of either the Jewish or Christian religion. Meaning, and it can’t be proven, that there may be bias. Just a thought.

-1