/atheism/ - Atheism ⚛

This is why you need to teach your kids about religion and bring them, to church a few times to kill the magic of mysticism so they won't be so vulnerable.

I agree, OP. We teach children how dangerous certain ideals are, so why do we teach them to be tolerant of the most dangerous ideals of all: Religion.

>>6402
>be me
>go to church reluctantly until I was 14, after which I stop
>family becomes irreligious after that
>stop caring about religion for some years
>dad, uncle, friends, and godfather come out as atheists
>hear "muh religion is the root of all ebil" more frequently
>uncle tries to deconvert me even though I could have hardly be called religious at that point
>start reading about Christianity and Hinduism (curryfag here) to understand more
>I like it
>delve into Traditionalism and begin to appreciate the Seeds of the Word
>soon Christianity becomes the center of my life
>planning on joining a Trappist monastery when I can

Thanks uncle Greg

> and we raised him to be tolerant of all faiths
spotted the problem

>>6406
It can backfire both ways though. Best to seek the middle ground so they wont feel the desire to rebel or turn into an overly bitter atheist.

>>6404
You were irreligious after 14 at best not Atheist, like a Christian who merely stops going to church for a while. You did not reject anything. If they'd done more to teach you skepticism you might not have been vulnerable to becoming born again / brainwashed.

But you are right, bringing kids to church can backfire if you're too lazy to justify why you are Atheist, and don't also teach them to be skeptical. Religion does satisfy certain emotional needs that can seduce a child such as the desire to belong with their peers, or the love of fantastic magical powers. The best way to instil skepticism for a kid may be to expose them to multiple cultures and religions so they realize Christianity is nore special than Buddhism or that weird local New Age cult. They might go through a spiritual phase, bit at least they know there are other dogmas.

>>6407
I don't know, when you teach your kids about the evils and irrationality of religions, he will most likely start to hate religions himself very much, if he is a smart person.

>>6409
Thats the thing though, there are few teenagers who aren't dumbshits.

Let me tell you my story.
>raised atheist
>explicitly taught that religion is evil, stupid, etc.
>relished it
>subscribed to Youtube atheists
>read the God Delusion and loved it
>made jokes about it with my family
>'researched' religion but mainly to mock it, a bit of white man's buddhism for a period
>would frequent boards like this and plaster my opinion everywhere
>lascivious
>became disillusioned
>actually found out what Christians believed
>mfw the Church doesn't reject evolution
>mfw the big bang theory was developed by a Jesuit
>mfw the Church has always been a patron of the sciences
>mfw the Christian dark ages is a myth
>mfw the philosophy is deep and mature
>mfw Jesus was historical
>mfw it explains human nature so well (basic goodness tainted with sin)
>mfw the prayer life is fulfilling
>mfw the ethics are sound and applicable
>mfw the tradition is beautiful
>mfw I'm a Christfriend

I can't explain it but there we are. Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.

>>6681
Let me guess, you believe Genesis was symbolic too?

>>6400
>This is what humanism taken far enough leads to.
>humanism
I think you mean atheism+. But, you're right OP, you don't always need to be respectful of people's religions. If your kids becomes an Islamtard, you don't keep your mouth shut to avoid offending them. You tell them their religion is bullshit, and you show them why.

There's being nice, and then there's being a doormat.

>>6681

Obvious catholic shill detected. Anyway:

>>mfw the Church doesn't reject evolution

Yes, in the 1950's they finally figured out it was a waste of time

>>mfw the big bang theory was developed by a Jesuit

Which has zero bearing on the truth value of Christianity

>>mfw the Church has always been a patron of the sciences

Yes, especially when placed Galileo under house arrest and burned Bruno to death

>>mfw the Christian dark ages is a myth

Not really, apart from a few protestant exaggerations it's pretty much an established historical fact. Pretty much every European city has a torture museum, showing exactly how humane the Church used to be

>>mfw the philosophy is deep and mature

Nope. Aquinas is the 'best', and his 'arguments' are shitty word games

>>mfw Jesus was historical

Which must be why there are zero contemporary sources of him

>>mfw it explains human nature so well (basic goodness tainted with sin)

So according to you, 'well' is taking mostly normal, biological urges and then declaring them wrong because goat herders said so?

So, there you go, I'm going to give you a 2/10 for the effort, maybe a 3/10 if you reply with a cliched hat maymay, proving without a single doubt that you're a mindless catholic shill

>>6687
Not to mention most Christians don't even have a good grasp on evolution, and many of them flat out reject evolution. I kind of question why OP did this to themselves, and where OP got all this from.

>>6689
Rejection of evolution and belief in young earth creationism is more of an American fundamentalist thing. That's why people like Ken Ham have to move here in order to be taken even the least bit seriously.

One of the biggest misconceptions christians have is that because they are christians they can't believe in evolution, which is of course ridiculous. Even the Vatican's official position is 'guided evolution'.

>>6699
I would disagree. By 'guided evolution' I think what many of them mean is that god set the mechanisms which govern evolution in place. When it comes to evolution of man is when things can get murkier, but I'm just glad it's not outright rejection anymore.

>>6715
Okay I quickly looked up your two sources. I will summarize what I read to save the curious some time.

Josephus wrote a footnote that basically said James was the brother of Christ and was killed around 30 AD. Josephus wrote his account 50 years after Jesus died, and scholars believe his account has a kernal of truth, but was probably partly tampered with by Christian monks. They believe this because we have no original manuscripts, and only copies of copies of copies that appeared in the Middle Ages.

Tacitus also merely mentions Christ's death, in a passage that talks about how Nero made a scapegoat out of the Christians. He mentions Christ to explain that Christians name themselves after him. He wrote it around 116 AD. Neither man met Jesus!

A lot of Christians have this misconception that Skeptics doubt whether Christ lived. No, it's very likely a preacher named Jesus lived and there is a kernel of truth in the bible. However, it doesn't follow that we know much about the real man. Two non-Christian references that simply say a man named Jesus lived & died, are hardly a smoking gun that confirms all the miracles and other stories in the bible.

>>6720
>No, it's very likely a preacher named Jesus lived and there is a kernel of truth in the bible

Well, if Richard Carrier is to be believed, there might not have even been that much.

>>6715

Neither of those are contemporary. Also, the Josephus quote was probably forged centuries afterwards

>>6729
> Why doesn't it sound plausible to you?

Why don't you make the effort to tell us how any of Genesis sounds plausible. Start with Eden, then work through Noah's boat.

>Allegorical
That's not what the Catholic Church taught about Genesis or the OT originally.
>More like, they withheld judgement on a doctrinal level until all the facts were in and then declared it officially allowable.
Unfortunately they discouraged reading books on evolution until then.

>http://takimag.com/article/the_galileo_myth/print
Citing Christian propaganda rather with a clear bias

＞Come on, everyone and his grandmother used to do torture. Many still do. The French Reign of Terror was hardly humane either, was it?

We expect religious people to hold to a higher moral standard or they cannot take the moral high ground. The church also did more torture than any other organization.

>I recognise you. https://8ch.net/christian/res/65062.html#65373
We've already dealt with the Aquina argument on this board >>4329

> I hope you don't believe in Socrates either just for consistency.
Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato are all confirmed by contemporary sources.

>I don't think you've ever tried Christian meditation or even heard of it.
You don't need Christianity to enjoy meditating. The entire argument flew over your head.

If you're gonna troll step it up a notch.

>>6729
>It refutes the eternal universe and so is consistent with Genesis.
Saying that science supports Christianity because of the Big Bang theory is just cherry picking. The Genesis account of creation has been proved right about literally two things: the universe not being eternal and all humans having common ancestors. Almost everything else been shown to be wrong.

>http://takimag.com/article/the_galileo_myth/print
>If there were a real proof…that the sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them
lmao at this pope's logic
>the Bible can't be wrong
>here's something the Bible is wrong about
>W-we must have just misunderstood it, Bible is never wrong

>And that was the ultimate source of Galileo’s conflict with the church: he was teaching as fact what still at that time had only the status of theory.
Heliocentrism still has "only" the status of theory. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand basic scientific terminology, so it's hard for me to even piece together what they mean. Dropped.

>>Which must be why there are zero contemporary sources of him
>Webm is my reaction when you're this wrong.
>doesn't name sources
I have 100% faith in you, anon. You seem to really know what you're talking about and not be damage controlling at all. Your webm has convinced me, as I'm sure it will convince everyone else here.

>>6715
Wow, such a mountain of evidence.

>>6729
>More like, they withheld judgement on a doctrinal level until all the facts were in and then declared it officially allowable.

The facts on evolution were already in way before the 1950's. It's just that in the 50's, genetics was discovered, putting the final nail to the coffin of any creationist nonsense. This is also the reason why they stopped withholding their judgement, it simply became too embarrassing to deny it

>It's evidence that Christianity goes together with science.

Not really, I could make the same argument that astrology goes together with science because Newton believed in it, that doesn't make it so. Scientists are not infallible gods whose word is the only word, scientists are usually just people who work hard and think very critically about a certain field they excel at. That doesn't make them flawless

>It refutes the eternal universe and so is consistent with Genesis.

Not really, since the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This refutes the first line of Genesis

>http://takimag.com/article/the_galileo_myth/print
>When church officials asked Galileo in 1616 to teach heliocentrism as theory rather than as fact, he agreed; however, in 1632 he published a new work, Dialogue on the Great World Systems, in which he presented heliocentrism as fact again.
>That was why Galileo was put on trial for suspected heresy and placed under house arrest.

So, he wrote a book that the Church didn't agree with. What a horrible man

>The French Reign of Terror was hardly humane either, was it?

I consider neither Robespierre nor the Catholic Church to be infallible compasses of morality. You however do in the case of the Catholic Church, so torture would be a pretty big problem for you to solve if you're going to claim the Church as the arbiter of morality

>I recognise you.

Not me. Oh well, Aquinas' argument is still an argument from ignorance that uses special pleading and question begging. Also, in all of the five ways, God is defined after the argument has taken place. This is generally the opposite of how you use terms in an argument. You generally defined your terms in advance, so that you can't shift your goalposts. Based on this alone, his five ways are rubbish

>Webm is my reaction when you're this wrong.

You know, you could just shut me up by presenting a contemporary source

> I hope you don't believe in Socrates either just for consistency.

Socrates' way of thinking doesn't rely on him being an actual person. If Plato had made up Socrates as a literary tool, it would still make the Socratic method valuable, because questioning things has its own intrinsic value. Christianity on the other hand relies on Jesus not only actually having been a real person (which is likely, be it with some reservations), but also having been able to perform things we know are physically completely impossible (which is very unlikely and is weakened even further by the fact that these events were apparently witnessed by thousands of people , yet take 50 years to be written down by anyone, Paul in this case, in his first letter to the Corinthians).

>I'm sorry your life philosophy revolves around how much dopamine you can extract from your little lever.

I have some bad news for you, unless you're some advance lifeform from the future, so does yours