How do Christians negatively affect your life?

[Chadrone]

On the contrary, one can name many benefits from government!

One can name many benefits from religion. Like having a society/civilization of some kind.

Something godless heathens have NEVER achieved much less sustained in all of human history.

Just look at your own Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. It was put in to try to prevent the strife that results from religion. Because, you know, religion is detrimental to social cohesion!

No it wasn't. It was to keep the government from trying to control the church.

I'm going to guess that you adhere to a religion but are ashamed of all the evil it (and other religions) have brought into the world and are desperate to find some justification for the invention of religious belief by humanity.

But it's just a guess. Try and prove it wrong.

No.

I don't have some pathological disorder that makes me hate religion so much that I ignore all recorded history and observable reality to persist in my hatred of it.

The reality is that when you get most of your population on some sort of "Love your neighbor, don't steal his shit or fuck his bitches" program, the society/civilization objectively not only does better, IT EXISTS!!!! Something people have never done without religion, and goes away every time a civilization starts thinking they're too advanced for and thus above religion and tries to get rid of it.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
You still haven't given any benefits society derives from having religion.

Having society AT ALL is the benefit of religion.

Much like government, despite it's flaws and corruption, it's a nessecary ingredient.

The monarchs ruling Europe in Medieval times considered themselves responsible for the souls of their subjects. To them, for their society, it was "necessary" to promulgate belief and suppress heresy. I assume you would consider this authoritarianism to be a bad thing?

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Just look at your own Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. It was put in to try to prevent the strife that results from religion. Because, you know, religion is detrimental to social cohesion!

No it wasn't. It was to keep the government from trying to control the church.

It was to keep the government from being controlled by people of one faith to oppress other faiths.

 

[Chadrone]

The monarchs ruling Europe in Medieval times considered themselves responsible for the souls of their subjects. To them, for their society, it was "necessary" to promulgate belief and suppress heresy. I assume you would consider this authoritarianism to be a bad thing?

"REEEEEEEE BAD THING !!!! RELIGION REEE!!!!" dude.... how does any of that make religion not a key component of a civilized society??

Stay on topic.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
On the contrary, one can name many benefits from government!

One can name many benefits from religion. Like having a society/civilization of some kind.

You keep harping on this, but you know it's not true, in fact, the opposite holds, as the old saying goes, "Good people will do good, evil people will do evil, but to convince good people to do evil, religion is required."

 

[Chadrone]

It was to keep the government from being controlled by people of one faith to oppress other faiths.

No.....because democracy, you can't stop that. Look at how things are now. Depite the lefts best efforts the USA is without a doubt STILL largely controlled by Christians. But the Muzzies are taking ground!!! And becaue demookracy that's not going to change. The Jihadi is here.

Just go back and read the FF's...they didn't want the government in the church, or telling them how they could or couldn't worship. That was an explicit gievance in the DOI and extensively explained in the FF's writings.

 

[OralAllOver]

Tacitly they only allow married folks and ministers to have sex with peeps they r not married to

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
The monarchs ruling Europe in Medieval times considered themselves responsible for the souls of their subjects. To them, for their society, it was "necessary" to promulgate belief and suppress heresy. I assume you would consider this authoritarianism to be a bad thing?

"REEEEEEEE BAD THING !!!! RELIGION REEE!!!!" dude.... how does any of that make religion not a key component of a civilized society??

Stay on topic.

You said religion is somehow "necessary for social cohesion." I'm just pointing out that you sound like a medieval lord claiming that "social cohesion" required suppression of dissent.

 

[NudieUser]

For me it’s just a reminder my dad isn’t here each year. He was such a big character at Christmas and we miss him

 

[Chadrone]

You keep harping on this, but you know it's not true,

Then NAME THE CIVILIZATION that did it without religion.

It's demonstrably true.....we have THOUSANDS of years of history supporting it.

 

[Chadrone]

You said religion is somehow "necessary for social cohesion." I'm just pointing out that you sound like a medieval lord claiming that "social cohesion" required suppression of dissent.

I understand.

It's still a deflection/distraction away from the topic.

The lord in many of those cases was right. That's why they were sucessful.

 

[Hel_Books]

No.....because democracy, you can't stop that. Look at how things are now. Depite the lefts best efforts the USA is without a doubt STILL largely controlled by Christians. But the Muzzies are taking ground!!! And becaue demookracy that's not going to change. The Jihadi is here.

Wait, didn't you say religion is necessary for "social cohesion"? Now you're implying that Moslems gaining ground is somehow a problem. Or are you? Don't you welcome the Moslem religious "social cohesion"?

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
You keep harping on this, but you know it's not true,

Then NAME THE CIVILIZATION that did it without religion.

It's demonstrably true.....we have THOUSANDS of years of history supporting it.

We have thousands of years of people, in all civilisations, professing religion, often using it for unspeakable purposes. To imply that this somehow is an aid to civilisation is simply obscene.

I could just as easily ask you, "NAME THE CIVILISATION that did it without slavery or serfdom."

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
You said religion is somehow "necessary for social cohesion." I'm just pointing out that you sound like a medieval lord claiming that "social cohesion" required suppression of dissent.

I understand.

It's still a deflection/distraction away from the topic.

The lord in many of those cases was right. That's why they were sucessful.

So I have you on record as saying burning heretics at the stake is necessary to society.

 

[RoryN]

Good morning!

It's the right time to remind everyone that the thread starter said he's fine with Scientology infiltrating government, as long as Scientologists "vote Republican":

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/next-up-for-maga-govt-the-infiltration-of-scientology.1647388/

Scientologists mock and hate on Christians constantly.

So, this entire thread was created with the pretext of false rage. He doesn't care about whether or not people "attack Christians". As long as they vote for the same bigotry and hatred he believes in, they can piss all over the Bible.

Carry on.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Hmm...really?

It isn't 1994 anymore. Better go read up on this.



If a Muslim person treats gays and women poorly, then I don't want their vote.

Whereas, if a person spit in your face for being a Christian, you would still want their vote as long as they voted your way.

That is the difference between you and me, and one of the things which makes you garbage by comparison.

You don't consider 53% vs. 42% a majority? That's roughly a 4.9 million voter advantage. Lol.

 

[Chadrone]

Wait, didn't you say religion is necessary for "social cohesion"?

Yup.

Now you're implying that Moslems gaining ground is somehow a problem.

Yup.

Don't you welcome the Moslem religious "social cohesion"?

Nope....but I acknowledge it's existence and respect their grind.

Look how they all gathered in certain cities, took them over and are actively weaponizing American democracy against Americans. Right after they get democrats to put them in power, they immidiately go jihadi on them....no more LGBTQ , sharia patrols, all the worst things Democrats say they hate about religion the Muslims clober them with the instant they can.

LOL it's absolutely brilliant and it's all because of their religion which tells them to do this. Arguably the most prosperous muslim population on the planet, and they got that way by doing what their god told them. Amazing.

Don't see AnarchoAtheist doing that shit.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Don't you welcome the Moslem religious "social cohesion"?

Nope....but I acknowledge it's existence.

So you're saying religion provides "social cohesion." But you don't want "social cohesion" if it's the wrong religion? You've really tied yourself in a knot here!

 

[Chadrone]

So you're saying religion provides "social cohesion."

Yes. As obviously as governments with their borders, jurisdictions and law do.

But you don't want "social cohesion" if it's the wrong religion? You've really tied yourself in a knot here!

If you just acknowledge that religious social cohesion is based entirely on ingroup preference not some (D)ipshit lefty worldview of universal equity/equality in all things then POOF!! It makes perfect sense and there is no knot.

You're just out of gas with the whole 'religion is poison for civilization' argument....and that's ok.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
So you're saying religion provides "social cohesion."

Yes. As obviously as governments with their borders, jurisdictions and law do.

You keep claiming this without evidence, while I've shown numerous examples of how religion is detrimental to "social cohesion."

As for governments and laws, remember the laws, like your First Amendment or Emancipation of Catholics in the UK in the 19th century or the French Laïcité, that combat the deleterious effects religion has on "social cohesion"!

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
But you don't want "social cohesion" if it's the wrong religion? You've really tied yourself in a knot here!

If you just acknowledge that religious social cohesion is based entirely on ingroup preference . . .

Not sure where you're going with this pseudo-scholastic babble, but it sounds like you mean "social cohesion" within religious groups means strife between religious groups.

Please feel free to clarify, though.

 

[Chadrone]

You keep claiming this without evidence,

Is the history of human civilization not evidence enough?

Holy shit the willful blindeness you inflict upon yourself is really somoething else.

As for governments and laws, remember the laws, like your First Amendment or Emancipation of Catholics in the UK in the 19th century or the French Laïcité, that combat the deleterious effects religion has on "social cohesion"!

You don't understand the first amendment.

And I don't think you understand what I mean by social cohesion.

 

[Chadrone]

Not sure where you're going with this pseudo-scholastic babble, but it sounds like you mean "social cohesion" within religious groups means strife between religious groups.

YES as is observable in the world around us....TODAY and throughout human history.

HURRRRRRRR.........

Please feel free to clarify, though.

No you FINALLY figured it out.

This is why mixing cultures with different religious roots, DOESN'T WORK WELL.

Lefties have a really hard time understanding that, mostly because it shits all over their multicultural globo-commie stupid.

 

[Hel_Books]

You're just out of gas with the whole 'religion is poison for civilization' argument....and that's ok.

Here's some "gas" for you, selected quotes from Christopher Hitchens:

Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith.

We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.

Here is my challenge. Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first - I have been asking it for some time - awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.

If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.

Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.

In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
You keep claiming this without evidence,

Is the history of human civilization not evidence enough?

The history of human civilisation . . . well, I'll just quote Christopher Hitchens again

Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.