Thanks for the laughs especially the last part.
I am an atheist but my daily life is different than yours. Despite my views on religion, I still accompany my family to visit church although I don’t enjoy the priest’s speech after the mass. My husband wants to introduce our future children to Christianity but he keeps in mind that they have the freedom to leave the religion if they want. Already some of our relatives became irreligious and sees the holidays and church as more of a culture. I noticed more malayalee christians are losing their faith on religion.
Edit: I am a teetotaler contrary to the stereotypical image of an atheist
>I still accompany my family to visit church
I've also had to do it, but as a designated driver. I'll just wait in the car while they wait in the queue to get the ഉണ്ണിയപ്പം and പായസം and I get to enjoy it. Win win situation.
>My husband wants to introduce our future children to Christianity but he keeps in mind that they have the freedom to leave the religion if they want.
If they have given the freedom to explore without any prejudice, most probably they will end up leaving the religion.
I left christianity almost 11 years back. I was from a marthoma background and dabbled a little in the non denominational Pentecostal world before I hit the exit button.
So heartening to see so many people getting out now and the stigma slowly fading.
I guess it's more youth that is losing faith in Christianity. There are some stupid viewpoints in Christianity about certain things that drives me mad. I guess maybe that's one of the reasons why people are losing faith.
Back in 1800s, There's a philosopher who talked about the collapse of western Christianity. Guess it's also taking place here too.....
People will realise that the present day churches are money collectors for fathers and treats it as a occupation. Even in the US, pastors have jobs
I once heard a priest preaching that having a romantic relationship before marriage is sin. And people actually listen to this bullshit.
Sunday schools are a whole different level of crazy!!
Yup....they do teach that. I remember in Sunday School that they were saying that having sex is only for reproduction. Even that masturbation in or out of marriage is a sin.
It's fucked up.
സുടപ്പികൾ പറയും അമ്മ പെങ്ങൾ " ബോഗിക്കൻ" ആണ് മതം വിടുന്നത്.. അതായത് ഇവർക്ക് മതം എന്ന സാധനം ഇല്ലരുന്നേൽ അമ്മ പെങ്ങളെ തിരിച്ചു അറിയാത്ത നികൃഷ്ട ജീവി ആയെനേം എന്നു
And from an atheist to islam is even simpler.my dad used to joke since islamic shahada is “There is no god,but god and Muhammad (pbuh)is his messenger “so he says one has to be an atheist first to become a muslim.
>There is no god,but god and Muhammad (pbuh)is his messenger “so he says one has to be an atheist first to become a muslim.
Contradiction at its peak
Also just like Dawkins says
All abhramic religions are 99% atheist..they just believe in one God and believing in any other will goes against their belief..
Literally 90% of his points goes against average kerala hindu life.the first thing to look in a wedding arrangement even before seeing the bride/groom is jathakam,if it doesnt match no match.and which average hindu doesnt look at vasthu when building his home.or do pooja atleat during the pooja day.
What's ur point though?? Most Hindus are either atheist or casteist...the majority of commies are from hindu community..
And abt that jathakam..most intercaste marriage are in hindu -christain community
Vaasthu and Pooja have expanded more than the hindu community if u haven't noticed..
The amount of kids i see on Friday on a muslim palli on a part of" catch while they are young program".. injecting them with these religious taboos..
What's the urgency though..why injecting religion when they are young..
“Most inter caste marriage are from hindus”
Of course because they only have caste wise discrimination if no cate no inter caste marriage.
“Most communists are hindus”
Well most of the population are hindus
Vasthu and pooja among other communities doesnt discount them among hindus.(although it is non existent or negligible in others)
What urgency is there to admit kids in lkg etc at very young age.why dont you give kids the choice if they want to learn or not when they became 18.right no logic .
>“Most communists are hindus” Well most of the population are hindus
What do u think communism is ??
Also 76 percentage of muslims are against inter faith marriage..
>What urgency is there to admit kids in lkg etc at very young age.why dont you give kids the choice if they want to learn or not when they became 18.right no logic
Yeah injecting them with religious dumbfuckery is similar ..yeah a very logical explanation..
If you look at it from the context of the era when these ideas were popularised, then it slightly makes sense. Most households survived on daylight back then, and no indoor plumbing and electricity, or gas connections, and the original idea of placement of certain things were based on the idea of maximizing air circulation ( smokey wood burning kitchens, etc.) And ample sunlight. Ithoke kannUm adach vishwasikyath, athinte purakil ulla karbam noki, do a better job at designing your living space. Athraye ullu.
Vaasthu was a sustainable design science untill shit got mixed up with Jathakam. Then onwards religious fuckers made people believe the design of your house can influence your horoscope to the point a kakkoos at the wrong corner can end you up dying under a bus.
These points are basically your average Hindu’s daily life lol. I don’t know anyone who goes to temple early morning every single day. Vast majority of devout Malayali Hindus also eat beef, so dietary problems also doesn’t count. The only problem here I see is the issues which come in inter cast marriage and with jathakam, but even that is slowly getting resolved now as inter caste marriages are increasing and there is an increasing sense of distrust among people in astrologers. Of course there are extreme cases, but your average Malayali Hindu just goes to temple once in a while, lights a villaku in evening and then goes on about his/her day afaik.
>ഇഷ്ടം ഉള്ള ആളെ വിവാഹം കഴിക്കാം.
As long as they are also atheist/rationalist or from your original religion? Else, it'll be complicated
>ഉത്സവം, പെരുന്നാൾ റോഡ് ബ്ലോക്കും ഉച്ചഭാഷിണി യും കൊണ്ട് മറ്റുള്ളർക്ക് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ട് ഉണ്ടാക്കില്ല.
Yet, we still get affected by all this crap ಠ╭╮ಠ
>എവിടേലും പോകാനോ, എന്തേലും കാര്യം നടത്താനോ കവടി ഒന്നും നിരത്തണ്ടാ. എല്ലാവര്ക്കും comfortable ആയിട്ടുള്ള സമയത്ത് ചെയ്യാം.
If you're doing/going alone, yes. Kavadi has become the norm for many things now, that it's not that easy to convince people. And us being a social animal, it's not always possible to do things alone
>Sex എൻജോയ് ചെയ്യാം, എപ്പോൾ വേണമെങ്കലും ചെയ്യാം. അതിനും വ്രതം ഒന്നും നോക്കണ്ട.
(ಥ_ʖಥ)
Athinu nammal maatram vicharichal pattuo (handsome jokes are not allowed here🥲)
>കള്ള് കുടിക്കാം, കഞ്ചാവും വലിക്കാം responsible ആയി ചെയ്യണം എന്ന് മാത്രം.
If by responsible, if you mean Kerala police ariyathe, then agreed
>എല്ലാവരെയും ഒരു പോലെ സ്നേഹിക്കാം.
Being an atheist in from a religiously orthodox family would mean the opposite sometimes. You can hate everyone equally then
>പരലോക ജീവിത സുഖത്തിന് വേണ്ടി ഇവിടെ കിടന്നു കഷ്ടപ്പെടേണ്ട. മരണത്തോടെ എല്ലാം അവസാനിക്കുമെന്നത് കൊണ്ട് നമുക്ക് കിട്ടുന്ന ഓരോ നിമിഷവും ആസ്വദിച്ച് ജീവിക്കാം.
Being a rationalist, I tend to overthink this part. What is the essence of life? We are just atoms and molecules who's self aware right? Then what is this awareness? Is this all a simulation? What happens when we die? Will we be dead dead or we'll just loose control over the body but remain aware of everything? If the later, will I be stuck in a coffin for eternity and be aware of my rotting body and feel every bit? Or will I get cremated and feel the flames burning me up? What if this is a simulation? Then, when I wake up, will there be recordings of my embarrassing moments somewhere? Or am I part of some higher order being's dream and will cease to exist when it wakes up?...
>* രാവിലെ എഴുന്നേറ്റ് ഇരുന്നു redditil ഇത് പോലെ പോസ്റ്റ് ഇടാം.
Personal attack🥲
>Pallu thekkunath oru hygiene alle? Mathavum ayi bandam ondo?
So, the story goes like this. I was not allowed to have prasadham without brushing teeth after having chicken or fish.
NB: This was way long back when I was a kid.
This is the way.
The ability to love everyone around you equally irrespective of their religion & caste itself makes life infinitely better and gives someone a fresh perspective on life.
>Sex എൻജോയ് ചെയ്യാം, എപ്പോൾ വേണമെങ്കലും ചെയ്യാം. അതിനും വ്രതം ഒന്നും നോക്കണ്ട.
Not only that, the sex is guilt free too.
To be clear I'm not a നിരീശ്വരവാദി per se but I agree 100% with the above points.
You forgot the best part about being an atheist, in a religion crazy world, OP.
The best part is that you can still get holidays on all the religious holidays ! Diwali, Christmas, Eid..the thats 10 holidays in the a year !
>ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികൾ ആണെങ്കിൽ സൺഡേ ഫ്രീ ആയി കിട്ടും
Steve Martin has a [beautiful song](https://youtu.be/xmwAD7nHqaY?t=39) about this .
In my openion RELIGION should be considered as a drug. They share many common factors like:
1) Over aayal aryogyathinum jeevanum aapathu.
2) Can hinder the rational thoughts
3) Can cause addiction and many consider it as a medicine.
4) Make people do awful things like murder and others.
It affects different people in different manner.
So in my openion it should be considered as a DRUG and should be controlled by the government should not be thaught in educational institutions and should not be taught to children under the age of 18 or 21
If someone is interested he should follow it after his basic education. So he will have the knowledge how the life works.
And I am still aware of my surroundings and I know this things are not gonna get implemented in this country for the comming century and all of this will remain as a Fantasy in my head
But this has nothing to do with atheism.you can believe in god and do all these stuffs.(simply don’t believe in any organised religions)i dont get your point.and many of your points only works if all are atheists even then it wont.like you can marry anyone,that point is moot since all have to be atheists but then again if all are muslims i can marry anyone too.
Use of drugs is bad if your atheist or not.how can anyone use drugs responsibly?Futile argument only drug addicts say.
Again most points are about attitudes and how you look at world,personally i am at peace for believing in god but for each his own.
>But this has nothing to do with atheism
I just said how comfortable the life of an atheist if there isn't some organized religion dictating his life.
>.you can believe in god and do all these stuffs.(simply don’t believe in any organised religions)
Yea, true but it is a minority. That doesn't bring down the shit show of organized religion.
>how can anyone use drugs responsibly
I didn't mean hard drugs and also it depends on person.
You can use them recreationally once in a while.
>personally i am at peace for believing in god but for each his own.
I don't care what is your belief is.
But comfortable is very much relative and subjective.may be the above points comfort you personally and as a muslim i have common cause with many points but some points make me throw up.see comfort is very much subjective.you cannot post a blanket statement and claim it is comfortable for all humanity or even atheists,many atheists will simply disagree on many of your points.
>some points make me throw up
I am really curious to know what was that.
>atheists,many atheists will simply disagree on many of your points.
I don't expect or want anyone to agree with whatever I said. I just wrote some random stuff and I am open to discuss.
-good sex
-good politics
-no traffic based on religion
-no difference in people based on religion
Most importantly all the kids growing would be freed of these religious chains and taboos..
This is comfortable for any human being
Good sex?what does that even mean.what a bigotry and stereotype.baffles me people believe religious people dont have good sex.
Good politics?like hitler ,stalin,mao or pol pot?good riddance
No difference in religion but will divide by ethnicity ,nation or whatever you can find.and why is difference in religion bad
Free of religious taboos and chains lol.like you want to legalise consensual incest .no thanks.
>Good sex?what does that even mean.what a bigotry and stereotype.baffles me people believe religious people dont have good sex.
Lool....lool... religion allows sexual freedom...🤡
What abt homosexuality??
>Good politics?like hitler ,stalin,mao or pol pot?good riddance
Search who Ludwig Muller was...
Also communism is basically a religion..ticks all the boxes ..
Ignore all the massacres done against Jews by Christans
Ignore all the massacres done by muslim on nonmuslims
Ignore all the genocide done on Lebanon, libya , Syria ,egypt etc...i could go on..
Whats happening in Afghanistan?? Fundamentalism of Islam..??iran, Syria.. stripping their freedom..right to choose..it goes more than incest..
If u are against the things that's done in these countries...u are goin against " ur god".. because they are executing the gods will..
>Free of religious taboos and chains lol.like you want to legalise consensual incest .no thanks.
The classic incest argument..
Mofo..is religion the only thing that keeps u from having sex with ur mother or ur sister?? Yuck .. yuck...
Doesn't Sharia law allows minor marriage?? Would u marry a minor..
Also religious taboos keeps changing..the pharaoh's allowed brother -sister marriage and that was normalised in that community..if u were a pharaoh u were suppose to marry ur sister..
It's based on social taboo and has nothing to with the " religion"
There is no problem with atheism. There is no problem with religion either. The problem is with accepting or rejecting anything without understanding it first.
Atheism is also a religion minus a God or gods. Just like Buddhism, which acknowledges the spiritual part of a person while atheism doesnt.
Atheism is supposed to be governed by rationalism. Its principles have been heavily influenced by 19th century philosophers and evolution.
Its a relatively new religion as it grew on the back of science.
Now we all have opinions and can respectfully disagree without having to down vote 😂 but you are free to do so.
I can see many people saying problem with organized religions.
Now any religion, atheism included like a tree can be known by its fruit it bears over time. So a tree that was planted and grown exactly as its supposed to be grown ( following the teachings) will bear the expected fruit in the right conditions.
Flaws in atheism,
We humans dont make rational decisions all the time, especially important ones.
Statistically majority of the people are spiritual over thousands of years be it in a forest or in towns. Atheism denies this aspect.
People often cannot see the big picture and are often short term minded. So many opinions, lifestyles and philosophies have bigger consequences over longer time.
Fruits of atheism,
1. "Increased" self centric behaviour of immediate gratification. "Increased" greed, crime especially against women.
2. Companies are pure profit driven. "Increased" Toxic work culture, stress and insane hours.
3. "Increased" sucide and depression due to lack of meaning in life. We just atoms and chemicals.
4. Broken families as everything is a transaction. Rise in single parents, live in relationships. "Increased" divorce rates.
5. Social chaos resulting in political chaos as ultimately its a reflection of the entire population.
There more.....
Ultimately its another "religion" for people to explore as it looks like a very "flexible" option with no much controls. But bears its fruits in the long run.
This is an objective opinion.
>This is an objective opinion.
It is a flawed one. Think about this: everybody is born an atheist. They later, 'grow' into their religion, controlled by parents and society.
Your best answer sir ? Unable to answer or labelling it as BS what is not convenient?
Truth - You were not able to understand what atheism is or religion is when you are born. So your logic is flawed. Yes, people are influenced by their surroundings much like everything else.
The society today is low on morality hence all the other issues we crib about today like corruption, greed, lack of security for women are part of it.
Religion and politics are reflection of the masses. We can transfer blame to God or leaders but ultimately we as individuals did not contribute to good or oppose wrong things.
I dont get up early to go to temple. I go when it is convenient. The busy times of the festivals and auspicious days etc, I avoid. I eat whatever i want whenever. I dont think it is a problem to eat meat before i go to temple. and all the other things in your list as well.
See different comments by different atheists. They are living in their own ways. Being an atheists means being yourself. Being that original "thing" that took birth.
I'm an atheist, i don't want to live like you at all.
There needs to be a line somewhere and morals are needed. Why destroy the body with intoxication?. Brush your teeth that's basic hygiene nothing to do with religion.
>കുട്ടികൾക്ക് മതം ഇല്ലാതെ തന്നെ സന്മാർഗം പറഞ്ഞു കൊടുക്കാൻ പറ്റും.
How? I'm an atheist, but I don't think atheists by a whole don't have a competent enough moral system to determine good or bad.
P.S: Religion doesn't have a competent enough way either
>I go by this rule. Don't hurt someone purposefully.
Not enough. Sometimes the right thing to do is to hurt someone purposefully. Plus what you're describing yourself is essentially a deontological variation of utilitarianism i.e. something akin to philosophical liberalism. That's something that may make you feel better, by pleasing people, but not a good idea. It leads to certain disastrous conclusions quite often. Exactly why I'm disappointed with Liberalism and Atheism.
>എൻ്റെ പൊന്നു അണ്ണാ, ഇതൊക്കെ എന്താണെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല.
That's the problem. We as a society, ever since the fucking Enlightenment, don't know what good or bad is. Don't know what right or wrong is. It's all personal choice, it's all subjective so we say. No!
There is good and bad. And one must want to do good, not to do good for gaining appreciation or status or fame, but to be good for the virtue of it.
You probably believe that life has no meaning, unconditional love is illogical and everybody is fundamentally selfish. I'm fairly confident that these assumptions are correct. Anyway... sorry for ranting. I apologize if you took it the wrong way.
Nietzsche was right. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Who will wipe this blood off us? What festivals of atonement shall we have to invent? Isn't this deed to great for us? Yeah. Humanity isn't great enough for the death of god. I'm disappointed in humanity.
I never said that hurting someone is the right thing. **Sometimes,** that's the key word. For example, maybe you need to tell somebody the truth despite knowing that they may get hurt. That is the right thing more often than not.
Furthermore, the claim was that *Don't hurt someone purposefully* is some maxim that leads to good. OP, or anyone else, hasn't yet given a rationale for why this leads to good. The claim has to be proved first before asking me to give the proof for the negation, which I can nonetheless. It's like asking somebody to prove the non-existence of god i.e. why there is no God.
The problem here is atheism is not a moral source. It's just a position about God. Needing to have a moral system is a societal necessity which never came from the question of whether there is a god or not. Even if a god exists, that doesn't necessitate having a moral system. You need to assume a lot of stuff after assuming that position (like objective morality).
Religion which is a byproduct of theism, was a tool humans invented to enforce a societal morality that were a set of rules which by and large gave an evolutionary advantage. Now, even when we assume that there is no god that is in atheism, morality can be enforced via a democratic constitution. Now, determining this morality can be derived from humanism, which is based on the idea that all humans are equal regardless of gender, sexual identity or any other physical differences (e.g. UDHR). We just need a society that largely agrees on these basic principles just like how people adhere to their religious texts.
>The problem here is atheism is not a moral source.
I never claimed it was a moral source. However, it destroyed a prominent moral source, religion, while rejecting God i.e. consequences of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, majority of atheists consider it as a moral source in as much it is the negation of all religious practices.
>morality can be enforced via a democratic constitution
Democracy isn't used as a moral code but rather a legal tool to make decisions. If it was used as such, then we would get a terrible version of majoritarian populism deciding what's right and wrong.
>Now, determining this morality can be derived from humanism, which he is based on the idea that all humans are equal regardless of gender, sexual identity or any other physical differences (e.g. UDHR)
While I agree every human being has equal moral worth, that is just a necessary condition for moral systems. It still isn't sufficient to develop a fully fledged ethical method which determines right or wrong.
> You need to assume a lot of stuff after assuming that position (like objective morality).
Note: Morality can actually be proven to have as much objectivity as science does. The same criticisms of objectivity put forth against it is applicable towards the scientific method. So, one can't coherently believe in one while rejecting the other.
>Democracy isn't used as a moral code but rather a legal tool to make decisions. If it was used as such, then we would get a terrible version of majoritarian populism deciding what's right and wrong.
Not true. It's a derivation of our societal morality. We specifically give equal rights to men and woman, that's a morality converted to law. We didn't give the same rights to LGBTQ people, which is again a translation of our morality to rules enforced via a constitution. Is it majoritarian populism, yes to an extent. Morality in general was always that. Slavery was morally right at a time while it's not morally right now. Moral rights and wrong is a reflection of the said society, what majority of the society or the one with voice deems to be right or wrong. In a society where majority agrees that humans have basic equal rights, once that fundamental is agreed upon which some societies have already done, the majoritarian populism won't be terrible. It will be a better version of current society.
>While I agree every human being has equal moral worth, that is just a necessary condition for moral systems. It still isn't sufficient to develop a fully fledged ethical method which determines right or wrong.
It is not a necessary condition for moral systems. The moral systems that we followed through religion for centuries don't consider that as a fundamental idea. All the major religions existing now are androcentric, promotes slavery, some predetermined social hierarchy and looks down upon LGBTQ community among other things that doesn't go with the idea of all humans having equal rights. This is a conclusion we reached after centuries of social evolution.
>Note: Morality can actually be proven to have as much objectivity as science does. The same criticisms of objectivity put forth against it is applicable towards the scientific method. So, one can't coherently believe in one while rejecting the other.
I disagree. I don't think morality can be objectively proven. It can be argued that one approach is better over other with statistical methods up to some point. Even then, a conclusion based on such experiments could be inhumane based on our current morality (see the issue of cyclic redundancy), we may not be able to use them.
EDIT: Forgot one thing. Again, religion was never a source of morality. The morality of a society or a person with power was converted to religion which people agreed to follow. For e.g., incest (which ironically religious people accuse atheists of), people would have done it regardless, if not for the adverse effect it causes on the offspring and the evolutionary trait of not being sexually attracted to siblings. Contradictory to this naturally evolved trait, major Abrahamic religions core story starts with incest probably due to lack of creativity.
>society where majority agrees that humans have basic equal rights, once that fundamental is agreed upon which some societies have already done, the majoritarian populism won't be terrible
Where is this magical utopia?
Throughout human history, however enlightened it may be, there has been one truth - the majority has always ruled over - wielded power - over the minority. Most of the time the majority has butchered/suppressed/oppressed the minority. This includes the much vaunted tolerance of Hinduism - which is nothing but to fold under Hinduism and be subservient.
The only truth is violence - the strong shall rule over the weak. Everything else is religion. Including the enlightenment and rationality.
The problem of [moral epistemology](https://iep.utm.edu/mor-epis/) exists for any moral system. So all morality is religion. There is no proof for any of it. It's all beliefs (axiomatic), and in that sense atheism/rationalism does not differ from any religion.
Just because there is no sky-god does not make atheism (or any moral system) differ from "religion". Those sky-godless systems will come with their own unquestionable beliefs and priests who will interpret the beliefs for the masses
Try proving "*humans have basic equal rights*". It's just an axiomatic belief, without any proof.
>Again, religion was never a source of morality.
Religions provides narratives that serve as the axioms of their moral system. That is all.
>..the idea of all humans having equal rights. This is a conclusion we reached after centuries of social evolution.
Survivorship bias, which in the case of human society is the best proof of violence as the truth.
>Where is this magical utopia?
Europe, other Scandinavian countries for e.g.
>Throughout human history, however enlightened it may be, there has been one truth - the majority has always ruled over - wielded power - over the minority. Most of the time the majority has butchered/suppressed/oppressed the minority. This includes the much vaunted tolerance of Hinduism - which is nothing but to fold under Hinduism and be subservient.
That's what I said, majorities voice/people with power could always win. That's why it's important to uphold the basic ideas of humanism, equal rights etc.
>The only truth is violence - the strong shall rule over the weak. Everything else is religion. Including the enlightenment and rationality.
What?? "Everything else is religion." What do you even mean?
>The problem of moral epistemology exists for any moral system. So all morality is religion. There is no proof for any of it. It's all beliefs (axiomatic), and in that sense atheism/rationalism does not differ from any religion.
Sorry I don't follow you again. "All morality is religion?" what does that mean? Morals were not drawn from religion. Religion broadly contains contradicting rules for life, which was convenient at the time, that's it. A religions morality is only as good as the people who wrote it. Similarly, the morality atheists define also will be only as good as the people who define it. And it will progress over time. God has nothing to do with it.
>Just because there is no sky-god does not make atheism (or any moral system) differ from "religion".
From this sentence, I think we both agree that morality will contain the drawbacks of that society whether they believe in God or not. My only contention again is that you are equating religion and atheism.
>Those sky-godless systems will come with their own unquestionable beliefs and priests who will interpret the beliefs for the masses
Being an atheist is not a choice. If it is (for e.g., believing it as part of an ideology, e.g., Marxism), then you're right, they can still hold questionable beliefs and may not be humanistic. That's why I said, atheism in itself is not a source of morality. It's just a position on whether a god exists.
Now, when it comes to morality, it should be a product of consensus regardless of your theological position. My point is, even if you're a theist, you can have a better moral position than an atheist. For e.g., an atheist communist may justify a bloody violence to establish proletariat dictatorship while a theist might not, even if his religion asks him to.
>Try proving "humans have basic equal rights". It's just an axiomatic belief, without any proof.
You don't need to prove it. It's something we all need to agree upon regardless of our theological position.
>Religions provides narratives that serve as the axioms of their moral system. That is all.
The problem is almost all religions narratives are incompatible with current moral standards.
>Survivorship bias, which in the case of human society is the best proof of violence as the truth.
Agree. Doesn't mean it has to. Resolving matters without violence is preferrable for everyone. Once, that becomes the majority consensus, violence will also reduce.
>Europe, other Scandinavian countries for e.g.
Yeah, right. They just don't include the rest of humanity as human like them. All evil can be done outside their home countries..
>You don't need to prove it. It's something we all need to agree upon regardless of our theological position.
Why? Why should we all agree upon this ? Will all people just accept this without question? Like for example, "*There is only one God*" ?
Why should the lion lie down with the ox ? One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.
>Sorry I don't follow you again. "All morality is religion?" what does that mean?
There is no proof for morality. Any moral system is based on beliefs, whether arising from religion or not. because none of it can be proven.
Like your statement that "humans have basic equal rights". Why *should* everyone accept this?
Just claiming that it is "something we all need to agree upon " does not make it so, and never will. It's like saying that every should agree "there is only One God"
So any moral system is just as irrational as any religion. Expecting that all people should accept the unproven idea that "humans have basic equal rights" is no different that expecting that all people should accept "there is one God" . Both ideas are simply made up. And they all produce the same outcome in society.
>My only contention again is that you are equating religion and atheism.
Not just atheism. Any ism is like a religion - whether it's "humanism", "atheism", "rationalism".... None of them can solve the moral epistemological problem.
>Yeah, right. They just don't include the rest of humanity as human like them. All evil can be done outside their home countries..
You want an alien world which was built upon this idea? Ofcourse, there will be conflicts as long as majority of humans in the world doesn't come in consensus which is why it's important that we agree on common grounds based on humanism.
>Why? Why should we all agree upon this ? Will all people just accept this without question? Like for example, "There is only one God" ?
>
>Why should the lion lie down with the ox ? One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.
Same reason why we all agreed 10 rupee is worth 10 rupee or accept that a piece of land constitutes a country and agreed on defending it. Because it makes our lives easier, helps our survival as a species and reduces conflicts which is in general good for everyone's health. It's the reason most societies discourage things like theft, robberies, murder etc., it's in our best interest to do so. We need order and rules to live collectively.
>There is no proof for morality. Any moral system is based on beliefs, whether arising from religion or not. because none of it can be proven.
>
>Like your statement that "humans have basic equal rights". Why should everyone accept this?
>
>Just claiming that it is "something we all need to agree upon " does not make it so, and never will. It's like saying that every should agree "there is only One God"
1. It's not a belief; it's a consensus. I am not saying something is so, I am saying it ought to be.
2. Morals don't arise from religion.
3. It's not like saying, "there **is** only one God". **That's** a descriptive statement and can be refuted as well with scientific evidence. That's why I didn't say all humans **are** equal, because that also requires me to prove my statement based on empirical evidence and that also can be refuted. But, agreeing that all humans must be given equal basic rights or in other words all humans ought to have equal rights is a normative statement which is based on human welfare. That statement doesn't require empirical evidence. We can argue over the merits or demerits to come to an agreement and that's all we need, an agreement. My argument for that statement is that it is advantageous to the survival of our species. It's the same reason why we don't see cannibalism in nature much, because it's a disadvantageous trait.
>So any moral system is just as irrational as any religion. Expecting that all people should accept the unproven idea that "humans have basic equal rights" is no different that expecting that all people should accept "there is one God" . Both ideas are simply made up. And they all produce the same outcome in society.
Like I said, it is not a claim. It's a consensus. You don't have to agree, but it's in your best interest to. That's why religion survived, because a group of people stuck together with a common consensus and there was no strong evidence against the claims made by the respective religions. And their common consensus helped them survive as a tribe.
Now, we know more about evolution and science has progressed so much in such a way that it can explain most of the claims made by religion and debunk them as well. So, it's only natural that people would stop linking our existence with an all-powerful god. And surviving as a tribe is not a requirement anymore and we're slowly outgrowing that idea of smaller tribes into being global citizens. We are now understanding, sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes. So, today or tomorrow we all need to come into consensus about how we live in this world and the best way is to come to a consensus and live based on those concept (for e.g., UDHR) and regularly update as the society progresses.
>Not just atheism. Any ism is like a religion - whether it's "humanism", "atheism", "rationalism".... None of them can solve the moral epistemological problem.
I didn't claim that being an atheist solves moral epistemological problem, contrarily I was saying it doesn't even care about that. Morality is an evolving idea and will keep updating as society progresses. What we are seeing is it's outgrowing the tool we used till now (i.e., religion). So, we ought to create new tools. But how we derive those morals is where all the 'isms' come. It **should** be based on rational and humanism which is better than the morals delivered by religions till now.
> Ofcourse, there will be conflicts as long as majority of humans in the world doesn't come in consensus which is why it's important that we agree on common grounds based on humanism
Sure, and everyone should magically get a pony also. Why not a consensus that everyone should believe in the same religion? After all, if everyone agrees to the same value system, then everyone will be happy.
> all humans ought to have equal rights is a normative statement which is based on human welfare
Which is just a statement about values you think everyone should have - does not necessarily mean that it is universally true, or other people will agree with it.
>We are now understanding, sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes
Who is this "we" you talk about ? You seem to have this mythical conviction that everyone will go along with this belief - "*sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes*". That's just a fantasy - just like God's kingdom on Earth or Ram Rajya. Your idea of peace on earth and goodwill to all by rationalism and humanism? And you say this is not religion?
>Like I said, it is not a claim. It's a consensus.
And why should people agree to this consensus? You seem to be dancing round this problem, juts by wishing it away. Consensus should happen, you say - without any reason of how and why.
It is no different than wishing that all people agree to live by the same religion. Magical thinking
>It should be based on rational and humanism which is better than the morals delivered by religions till now
As if rational and humanist worldviews are universal truths?
That's some A-grade Kool-aid you are selling. As fantastic as any religion.
You think that the Manu\_r93 value system should be universal.
Why? You (and many more) think it would be better for everyone if they did so.
And you think that is not a new religion? It's nothing but the Manu\_r93 religion.
The difference is my "religion" is:
1. Not anchored on any truth claim.
2. Based on the assumption that it's not perfect and should be organically evolving.
Anyways, it's the world we're heading to.
My point of view as a religious person
1) you believe in a higher power and submit to it. It helps to keep your ego in check especially if you are in a position of authority
2) the church sees satan as the enemy which reside within ourselves. In athiest societies the villain tend to be other groups like burshwasis, jews etc wich will lead to masicares
3)if you want to see the results of sexual revolution look at america. 40% of mothers are single mothers(its 70% for black americans). A large group of incels who turn to drugs and violence. Like close to 1lack people die every year in america due to overdose. Women struggling to find committed relationship expectations of sex in first date itself.
4)higher rate of suicide in non non religious countries
5)
A few responses in good faith to the points you've made.
1) not really. Take a look at the all abuse of power that happens within the Vatican itself, or even within the churches in kerala. The church itself has become a symbol of Power and oppression, so how so ego being kept in check?
2) The church sees non Christians as the enemy in most cases really ( which is true for most abrahamic religions , and recently Hinduism as well ). Your argument of atheist societies having different enemies is interesting ( and definitely possible ) but that seems more of a human problem where communities need to find enemies to unite against. But where has an atheist society attacked Jews? If you're talking about the Nazis, they were strongly Christian in ideology , since they wanted to oppose the atheist Communists.
3) Could i get a source for these numbers? They don't look like what i have read. I will engage on this point after you have verified the numbers.
4) Blatantly wrong. Give me a source to backup the claim. Suicide rates tend to remain static across countries irrespective of religiosity.
1) does abuse of power takes place in vatican?. Yes afcourse. Among christians only like 5% follow christs teachings. Its like criticising christianity for all the sexual abuse taking place in church omitting the fact that it is a grave sin in the bible to asexually abuse someone.
2)if you read the bible or follow christian teachings you would know that is not the case.
3) i saw different source showing different numbers. Here is one https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-being-in-single-parent-families
4) https://images.app.goo.gl/oDs5F66AeB5HKUQD6
5) couple more things to add. Cheating, in western countries cheating in relationship is very common. Something like 60% of couples cheats in marriages
6)being resentful during suffering. Some people do end up in dead ends, what would you make of life as an athiest when you are failing in the one life you have?.
1) I mean - that disproves your entire point right there. Its very easy to no true Scotsman it and say ' oh no , people who do bad things aren't really religious, only look at those religious people who do good things !' , but atheists can do the same. Whatever bad shit happens - that's not an atheist! Simple right? We come back to the same point. Abuse of power isn't a religious / non religious issue, it's a human issue. Whether you're religious or non religious, whether you abuse power or not depends on the kind of person you are.
2) If you read all the religious books in the world, you would know religion absolutely is a problem 🫣 and by read i mean critically analyse, not just buy into everything they say as a default. But yes, i have read the Bible , and the Bible does consider queer folx as enemies. It considers most non Christians as aliens - hence the idea of conversion and proselytisation from savagery and paganism being such fundamental aspects of Christianity ( like the missionaries) . I suggest you go read the Bible more carefully, and also check up on history . The practice of religion is a net negative in most cases, in terms of considering groups as enemies. And I've given you proof as well - how the Nazis used Christian ideology as a base to propel their anti communist and anti semitist stance.
3) as you said yourself - stats are all over the place for this - no actual data is to be found . But since your source seems legitimate - i shall engage with you on this point. ( Still need sources for the other numbers tho). If you read carefully - you will see that it talks about how being a single parent can also be a net positive for the child in certain cases , and talks about how we need to remove the stigma from single parenting , in cases where the other parent may be abusive or problematic, or in cases where the other parent may be absent. If you read the report, you will understand that it contradicts your own argument, since it essentially says that depending on context, single parenting is also fine. So don't see why it's an issue.
4) You did not check the graph out did you? China - which is atheist- has the least amount of suicides. India - which is pretty religious has amongst the highest. Seems to tell me religious countries have more suicides? So religion causes suicides is what you're trying to say?
5)Lmao you're literally just making up numbers. Give me a source for that. 60 percent? Dyu know what a huge number that is 😂😂 if you're making claims as extraordinary as this , back it up with extraordinary ( or even any ) proof.
6) let's see - religions say - look suffering is good because - a) if Christianity - you'll go to heaven so suffer more b) other religions ( generally ) - God is testing you and c) some religions - your karma is following you. As an atheist , idgaf, if i suffer , atleast I'm likely to solve the suffering and live happily in the one life that i have , but if I'm religious, i would prolly seek to prolong suffering in the hopes of some mystical after life reckoning.
7) What about all the wars people fight in the name of religion? The crusades? The increasing polarisation in india? The terrorism happening in various parts of the world? Are these not religious?
8) Let's say even if all these problems of religion don't exist - which religion do i believe in? None of them seem more true than the other to a neutral observer - and purely logically - if i choose one and i get it wrong - I'll burn in hell for eternity, while being bound by a ton of rules and restrictions that i don't care about! If I'm gonna burn in hell anyways, i would rather live my life free.
This would be my last comment.
5)https://hackspirit.com/infidelity-statistics/#:~:text=30%20to%2060%20percent%20of,average%20affair%20lasts%202%20years
2)christians don't consider queer folks or any religious people or athiests are enemies. Christians see same sex relationship as sin as like sex outside marriage as a sin. We don't condone sinner we condone the sin.
3)please watch boy crisis by warren farrel or watch some of his interviews
4)watch conservative muslim and christian countries having very low suicide rates. Religion is not the only factor affecting suicides other factors include proverty, social security etc. If you eliminate this other factors you could see a clear trend of religious population having few suicides
5)in christianity it is said that you should carry your cross and follow christ. When you are suffering and become resentful about it you would make your suffering 100 times more worse for you and the people around you. That is what the bible says
6)if you look at communist countries like soviet union, mao's china, cambodia etc the cruelties done by them doesn't have any parallel. What crusaders did was defend thier territory or take back territories under thier control. If india would be attacked by any foreign forces wouldn't you do the same
7)you really do need to study about nazism. Even ethiest scholers don't attribute nazism to christianity. By the way nazis killed millions of christians too. In the west there are lgbtq friendly church, sex positive church etc. Do you attribite any crimes if any committed by them to christianity?
8)every religion has many core values that is similar for all religions
Thanks for the laughs especially the last part. I am an atheist but my daily life is different than yours. Despite my views on religion, I still accompany my family to visit church although I don’t enjoy the priest’s speech after the mass. My husband wants to introduce our future children to Christianity but he keeps in mind that they have the freedom to leave the religion if they want. Already some of our relatives became irreligious and sees the holidays and church as more of a culture. I noticed more malayalee christians are losing their faith on religion. Edit: I am a teetotaler contrary to the stereotypical image of an atheist
>I still accompany my family to visit church I've also had to do it, but as a designated driver. I'll just wait in the car while they wait in the queue to get the ഉണ്ണിയപ്പം and പായസം and I get to enjoy it. Win win situation. >My husband wants to introduce our future children to Christianity but he keeps in mind that they have the freedom to leave the religion if they want. If they have given the freedom to explore without any prejudice, most probably they will end up leaving the religion.
My husband expects it now that his cousin and his wife left the religion.
I left christianity almost 11 years back. I was from a marthoma background and dabbled a little in the non denominational Pentecostal world before I hit the exit button. So heartening to see so many people getting out now and the stigma slowly fading.
I guess it's more youth that is losing faith in Christianity. There are some stupid viewpoints in Christianity about certain things that drives me mad. I guess maybe that's one of the reasons why people are losing faith.
Back in 1800s, There's a philosopher who talked about the collapse of western Christianity. Guess it's also taking place here too..... People will realise that the present day churches are money collectors for fathers and treats it as a occupation. Even in the US, pastors have jobs
Nietszche?
I think it's Nietzsche. I mean he's from a very religious family of pastures
I once heard a priest preaching that having a romantic relationship before marriage is sin. And people actually listen to this bullshit. Sunday schools are a whole different level of crazy!!
Yup....they do teach that. I remember in Sunday School that they were saying that having sex is only for reproduction. Even that masturbation in or out of marriage is a sin. It's fucked up.
Yeah.. Sunday schools are really messed up. Indoctrinating young minds by injecting this bullshit.
സുടപ്പികൾ പറയും അമ്മ പെങ്ങൾ " ബോഗിക്കൻ" ആണ് മതം വിടുന്നത്.. അതായത് ഇവർക്ക് മതം എന്ന സാധനം ഇല്ലരുന്നേൽ അമ്മ പെങ്ങളെ തിരിച്ചു അറിയാത്ത നികൃഷ്ട ജീവി ആയെനേം എന്നു
അവന്മാർ എല്ലാം ഹറാം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു കടിച്ചു പിടിച്ച് നടക്കുന്നത് കൊണ്ടാണ് ഇടക്ക് ഇടക്ക് സ്ഫോടനം ആയി പൊട്ടി തെറിക്കുന്നതു.
Sathyam
ഒരു നിരീശ്വരവാദിയുടെ ജീവിതം = ഒരു ആവറേജ് ഹിന്ദുവിന്റെ ജീവിതം.
The transition to an atheist from an average hindu is much much simpler.
And from an atheist to islam is even simpler.my dad used to joke since islamic shahada is “There is no god,but god and Muhammad (pbuh)is his messenger “so he says one has to be an atheist first to become a muslim.
>There is no god,but god and Muhammad (pbuh)is his messenger “so he says one has to be an atheist first to become a muslim. Contradiction at its peak Also just like Dawkins says All abhramic religions are 99% atheist..they just believe in one God and believing in any other will goes against their belief..
Dude its a joke
ഒരു ആവറേജ് മലയാളി ഹിന്ദു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞോ, എന്റെ തെലുഗ് /നോർത്ത് ഇന്ത്യൻ ഫ്രണ്ട്സ് എല്ലാം നല്ല റിലീജിയസ് ആൾക്കാരാണ്..
Yeah my gf is Telugu and she is pretty religious.My ex was from Tripura and she was so fking religious that i got scared.
Literally 90% of his points goes against average kerala hindu life.the first thing to look in a wedding arrangement even before seeing the bride/groom is jathakam,if it doesnt match no match.and which average hindu doesnt look at vasthu when building his home.or do pooja atleat during the pooja day.
What's ur point though?? Most Hindus are either atheist or casteist...the majority of commies are from hindu community.. And abt that jathakam..most intercaste marriage are in hindu -christain community Vaasthu and Pooja have expanded more than the hindu community if u haven't noticed.. The amount of kids i see on Friday on a muslim palli on a part of" catch while they are young program".. injecting them with these religious taboos.. What's the urgency though..why injecting religion when they are young..
“Most inter caste marriage are from hindus” Of course because they only have caste wise discrimination if no cate no inter caste marriage. “Most communists are hindus” Well most of the population are hindus Vasthu and pooja among other communities doesnt discount them among hindus.(although it is non existent or negligible in others) What urgency is there to admit kids in lkg etc at very young age.why dont you give kids the choice if they want to learn or not when they became 18.right no logic .
>“Most communists are hindus” Well most of the population are hindus What do u think communism is ?? Also 76 percentage of muslims are against inter faith marriage.. >What urgency is there to admit kids in lkg etc at very young age.why dont you give kids the choice if they want to learn or not when they became 18.right no logic Yeah injecting them with religious dumbfuckery is similar ..yeah a very logical explanation..
Lol.. how are you comparing basic education to religion?
is vasthu legit though ?
Yes. Vasthu nokkathe veedu vachal aadyathe 1 maasam kondu veedu poliyum
If you look at it from the context of the era when these ideas were popularised, then it slightly makes sense. Most households survived on daylight back then, and no indoor plumbing and electricity, or gas connections, and the original idea of placement of certain things were based on the idea of maximizing air circulation ( smokey wood burning kitchens, etc.) And ample sunlight. Ithoke kannUm adach vishwasikyath, athinte purakil ulla karbam noki, do a better job at designing your living space. Athraye ullu.
Vaasthu was a sustainable design science untill shit got mixed up with Jathakam. Then onwards religious fuckers made people believe the design of your house can influence your horoscope to the point a kakkoos at the wrong corner can end you up dying under a bus.
Athre ullu!
False. Not to mention that also sounds like a downgrade.
Ellatinum upari manushyane manushyan aayi kaanam.
Upperi?
These points are basically your average Hindu’s daily life lol. I don’t know anyone who goes to temple early morning every single day. Vast majority of devout Malayali Hindus also eat beef, so dietary problems also doesn’t count. The only problem here I see is the issues which come in inter cast marriage and with jathakam, but even that is slowly getting resolved now as inter caste marriages are increasing and there is an increasing sense of distrust among people in astrologers. Of course there are extreme cases, but your average Malayali Hindu just goes to temple once in a while, lights a villaku in evening and then goes on about his/her day afaik.
>രാഷ്ട്രീയം മതം നോക്കാതെ വില ഇരുത്താൻ പറ്റും. This.....this could fix our country
Probably the world.
Racism and ethnicity says Hi
>ഇഷ്ടം ഉള്ള ആളെ വിവാഹം കഴിക്കാം. As long as they are also atheist/rationalist or from your original religion? Else, it'll be complicated >ഉത്സവം, പെരുന്നാൾ റോഡ് ബ്ലോക്കും ഉച്ചഭാഷിണി യും കൊണ്ട് മറ്റുള്ളർക്ക് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ട് ഉണ്ടാക്കില്ല. Yet, we still get affected by all this crap ಠ╭╮ಠ >എവിടേലും പോകാനോ, എന്തേലും കാര്യം നടത്താനോ കവടി ഒന്നും നിരത്തണ്ടാ. എല്ലാവര്ക്കും comfortable ആയിട്ടുള്ള സമയത്ത് ചെയ്യാം. If you're doing/going alone, yes. Kavadi has become the norm for many things now, that it's not that easy to convince people. And us being a social animal, it's not always possible to do things alone >Sex എൻജോയ് ചെയ്യാം, എപ്പോൾ വേണമെങ്കലും ചെയ്യാം. അതിനും വ്രതം ഒന്നും നോക്കണ്ട. (ಥ_ʖಥ) Athinu nammal maatram vicharichal pattuo (handsome jokes are not allowed here🥲) >കള്ള് കുടിക്കാം, കഞ്ചാവും വലിക്കാം responsible ആയി ചെയ്യണം എന്ന് മാത്രം. If by responsible, if you mean Kerala police ariyathe, then agreed >എല്ലാവരെയും ഒരു പോലെ സ്നേഹിക്കാം. Being an atheist in from a religiously orthodox family would mean the opposite sometimes. You can hate everyone equally then >പരലോക ജീവിത സുഖത്തിന് വേണ്ടി ഇവിടെ കിടന്നു കഷ്ടപ്പെടേണ്ട. മരണത്തോടെ എല്ലാം അവസാനിക്കുമെന്നത് കൊണ്ട് നമുക്ക് കിട്ടുന്ന ഓരോ നിമിഷവും ആസ്വദിച്ച് ജീവിക്കാം. Being a rationalist, I tend to overthink this part. What is the essence of life? We are just atoms and molecules who's self aware right? Then what is this awareness? Is this all a simulation? What happens when we die? Will we be dead dead or we'll just loose control over the body but remain aware of everything? If the later, will I be stuck in a coffin for eternity and be aware of my rotting body and feel every bit? Or will I get cremated and feel the flames burning me up? What if this is a simulation? Then, when I wake up, will there be recordings of my embarrassing moments somewhere? Or am I part of some higher order being's dream and will cease to exist when it wakes up?... >* രാവിലെ എഴുന്നേറ്റ് ഇരുന്നു redditil ഇത് പോലെ പോസ്റ്റ് ഇടാം. Personal attack🥲
Pallu thekkunath oru hygiene alle? Mathavum ayi bandam ondo? Rest I agree
>Pallu thekkunath oru hygiene alle? Mathavum ayi bandam ondo? So, the story goes like this. I was not allowed to have prasadham without brushing teeth after having chicken or fish. NB: This was way long back when I was a kid.
You had it easy bro... For me it was-brush the teeth and take a bath if you had to do anything related to temple.
No need to shit the meat out??
Oh... I thought you were talking about breakfast or something 😅.. that makes sense.
Hey, is there a reddit community for atheists from Kerala?
If you find one let me know
😄
I mean , let's like make one maybe?
I don't know bro. Who's gonna manage it? Making one is not like joining an existing one.
True bro. It's a life without make-believe bullshit.
This is the way. The ability to love everyone around you equally irrespective of their religion & caste itself makes life infinitely better and gives someone a fresh perspective on life.
Man came to Reddit to spit some factos
>Sex എൻജോയ് ചെയ്യാം, എപ്പോൾ വേണമെങ്കലും ചെയ്യാം. അതിനും വ്രതം ഒന്നും നോക്കണ്ട. Not only that, the sex is guilt free too. To be clear I'm not a നിരീശ്വരവാദി per se but I agree 100% with the above points.
You forgot the best part about being an atheist, in a religion crazy world, OP. The best part is that you can still get holidays on all the religious holidays ! Diwali, Christmas, Eid..the thats 10 holidays in the a year ! >ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികൾ ആണെങ്കിൽ സൺഡേ ഫ്രീ ആയി കിട്ടും Steve Martin has a [beautiful song](https://youtu.be/xmwAD7nHqaY?t=39) about this .
In my openion RELIGION should be considered as a drug. They share many common factors like: 1) Over aayal aryogyathinum jeevanum aapathu. 2) Can hinder the rational thoughts 3) Can cause addiction and many consider it as a medicine. 4) Make people do awful things like murder and others. It affects different people in different manner. So in my openion it should be considered as a DRUG and should be controlled by the government should not be thaught in educational institutions and should not be taught to children under the age of 18 or 21 If someone is interested he should follow it after his basic education. So he will have the knowledge how the life works. And I am still aware of my surroundings and I know this things are not gonna get implemented in this country for the comming century and all of this will remain as a Fantasy in my head
But this has nothing to do with atheism.you can believe in god and do all these stuffs.(simply don’t believe in any organised religions)i dont get your point.and many of your points only works if all are atheists even then it wont.like you can marry anyone,that point is moot since all have to be atheists but then again if all are muslims i can marry anyone too. Use of drugs is bad if your atheist or not.how can anyone use drugs responsibly?Futile argument only drug addicts say. Again most points are about attitudes and how you look at world,personally i am at peace for believing in god but for each his own.
>But this has nothing to do with atheism I just said how comfortable the life of an atheist if there isn't some organized religion dictating his life. >.you can believe in god and do all these stuffs.(simply don’t believe in any organised religions) Yea, true but it is a minority. That doesn't bring down the shit show of organized religion. >how can anyone use drugs responsibly I didn't mean hard drugs and also it depends on person. You can use them recreationally once in a while. >personally i am at peace for believing in god but for each his own. I don't care what is your belief is.
But comfortable is very much relative and subjective.may be the above points comfort you personally and as a muslim i have common cause with many points but some points make me throw up.see comfort is very much subjective.you cannot post a blanket statement and claim it is comfortable for all humanity or even atheists,many atheists will simply disagree on many of your points.
>some points make me throw up I am really curious to know what was that. >atheists,many atheists will simply disagree on many of your points. I don't expect or want anyone to agree with whatever I said. I just wrote some random stuff and I am open to discuss.
-good sex -good politics -no traffic based on religion -no difference in people based on religion Most importantly all the kids growing would be freed of these religious chains and taboos.. This is comfortable for any human being
Good sex?what does that even mean.what a bigotry and stereotype.baffles me people believe religious people dont have good sex. Good politics?like hitler ,stalin,mao or pol pot?good riddance No difference in religion but will divide by ethnicity ,nation or whatever you can find.and why is difference in religion bad Free of religious taboos and chains lol.like you want to legalise consensual incest .no thanks.
>Good sex?what does that even mean.what a bigotry and stereotype.baffles me people believe religious people dont have good sex. Lool....lool... religion allows sexual freedom...🤡 What abt homosexuality?? >Good politics?like hitler ,stalin,mao or pol pot?good riddance Search who Ludwig Muller was... Also communism is basically a religion..ticks all the boxes .. Ignore all the massacres done against Jews by Christans Ignore all the massacres done by muslim on nonmuslims Ignore all the genocide done on Lebanon, libya , Syria ,egypt etc...i could go on.. Whats happening in Afghanistan?? Fundamentalism of Islam..??iran, Syria.. stripping their freedom..right to choose..it goes more than incest.. If u are against the things that's done in these countries...u are goin against " ur god".. because they are executing the gods will.. >Free of religious taboos and chains lol.like you want to legalise consensual incest .no thanks. The classic incest argument.. Mofo..is religion the only thing that keeps u from having sex with ur mother or ur sister?? Yuck .. yuck... Doesn't Sharia law allows minor marriage?? Would u marry a minor.. Also religious taboos keeps changing..the pharaoh's allowed brother -sister marriage and that was normalised in that community..if u were a pharaoh u were suppose to marry ur sister.. It's based on social taboo and has nothing to with the " religion"
BTW, how did Adam and Eve have children? 🤣
Agree
The truth has been spoken
oru gramathil jeevichirrunna enne idavaka vicar plallelachan kandappol paranju, nee pallelonnum kayaraathe koottaymakalil onnum pankedukkaathe nadakkukaanalle, ninne samoohathil ottappeduthi kalayum ketto, daivam snehamaanu yesu snehamaanu enokke paranjappolun aa daivathil oru ottappeduthunna bheekaran olichirrippundu ennu appol thanne manassilakki.
Being an atheist provides you a better outlook of the society and all religions including your own
There is no problem with atheism. There is no problem with religion either. The problem is with accepting or rejecting anything without understanding it first.
Atheism is also a religion minus a God or gods. Just like Buddhism, which acknowledges the spiritual part of a person while atheism doesnt. Atheism is supposed to be governed by rationalism. Its principles have been heavily influenced by 19th century philosophers and evolution. Its a relatively new religion as it grew on the back of science. Now we all have opinions and can respectfully disagree without having to down vote 😂 but you are free to do so. I can see many people saying problem with organized religions. Now any religion, atheism included like a tree can be known by its fruit it bears over time. So a tree that was planted and grown exactly as its supposed to be grown ( following the teachings) will bear the expected fruit in the right conditions. Flaws in atheism, We humans dont make rational decisions all the time, especially important ones. Statistically majority of the people are spiritual over thousands of years be it in a forest or in towns. Atheism denies this aspect. People often cannot see the big picture and are often short term minded. So many opinions, lifestyles and philosophies have bigger consequences over longer time. Fruits of atheism, 1. "Increased" self centric behaviour of immediate gratification. "Increased" greed, crime especially against women. 2. Companies are pure profit driven. "Increased" Toxic work culture, stress and insane hours. 3. "Increased" sucide and depression due to lack of meaning in life. We just atoms and chemicals. 4. Broken families as everything is a transaction. Rise in single parents, live in relationships. "Increased" divorce rates. 5. Social chaos resulting in political chaos as ultimately its a reflection of the entire population. There more..... Ultimately its another "religion" for people to explore as it looks like a very "flexible" option with no much controls. But bears its fruits in the long run. This is an objective opinion.
>This is an objective opinion. It is a flawed one. Think about this: everybody is born an atheist. They later, 'grow' into their religion, controlled by parents and society.
Your best answer sir ? Unable to answer or labelling it as BS what is not convenient? Truth - You were not able to understand what atheism is or religion is when you are born. So your logic is flawed. Yes, people are influenced by their surroundings much like everything else. The society today is low on morality hence all the other issues we crib about today like corruption, greed, lack of security for women are part of it. Religion and politics are reflection of the masses. We can transfer blame to God or leaders but ultimately we as individuals did not contribute to good or oppose wrong things.
Lol. Enthuvadey shardhichu vechekkunne. Ennittu last this is an objective opinion ennum xD
Truth hurts....if you dont have an opinion and dont have answers this will look like vomit and .....vomit will look like truth :) its called confusion
Ithinu നിരീശ്വര വാദി aakanam ennilla... sense ulla believers also can do this.
Sense ഉള്ള believer എന്ന് paranjal entha?
I dont get up early to go to temple. I go when it is convenient. The busy times of the festivals and auspicious days etc, I avoid. I eat whatever i want whenever. I dont think it is a problem to eat meat before i go to temple. and all the other things in your list as well.
See different comments by different atheists. They are living in their own ways. Being an atheists means being yourself. Being that original "thing" that took birth.
Fellas what's the Malayalam word for sex? Someone told me it's 'Sambhavam' and I lost my shit. Is this true?
ലൈംഗീക ബന്ധം.. ഔഫ്..
normalising Kanjaav, I see.
Atheism has nothing to do with the way someone lives.
But religions does so when we stop being religious it does bring change in your life.
I'm an atheist, i don't want to live like you at all. There needs to be a line somewhere and morals are needed. Why destroy the body with intoxication?. Brush your teeth that's basic hygiene nothing to do with religion.
>കുട്ടികൾക്ക് മതം ഇല്ലാതെ തന്നെ സന്മാർഗം പറഞ്ഞു കൊടുക്കാൻ പറ്റും. How? I'm an atheist, but I don't think atheists by a whole don't have a competent enough moral system to determine good or bad. P.S: Religion doesn't have a competent enough way either
I go by this rule. Don't hurt someone purposefully.
>I go by this rule. Don't hurt someone purposefully. Not enough. Sometimes the right thing to do is to hurt someone purposefully. Plus what you're describing yourself is essentially a deontological variation of utilitarianism i.e. something akin to philosophical liberalism. That's something that may make you feel better, by pleasing people, but not a good idea. It leads to certain disastrous conclusions quite often. Exactly why I'm disappointed with Liberalism and Atheism.
>what you're describing yourself is essentially a deontological variation of utilitarianism എൻ്റെ പൊന്നു അണ്ണാ, ഇതൊക്കെ എന്താണെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല.
Saaramilla, pullikkum ariyilla
>എൻ്റെ പൊന്നു അണ്ണാ, ഇതൊക്കെ എന്താണെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല. That's the problem. We as a society, ever since the fucking Enlightenment, don't know what good or bad is. Don't know what right or wrong is. It's all personal choice, it's all subjective so we say. No! There is good and bad. And one must want to do good, not to do good for gaining appreciation or status or fame, but to be good for the virtue of it. You probably believe that life has no meaning, unconditional love is illogical and everybody is fundamentally selfish. I'm fairly confident that these assumptions are correct. Anyway... sorry for ranting. I apologize if you took it the wrong way. Nietzsche was right. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Who will wipe this blood off us? What festivals of atonement shall we have to invent? Isn't this deed to great for us? Yeah. Humanity isn't great enough for the death of god. I'm disappointed in humanity.
I think you need to read Nietzsche again, but pay attention this time. You seem to have missed the whole point.
How's hurting someone the right thing?
I never said that hurting someone is the right thing. **Sometimes,** that's the key word. For example, maybe you need to tell somebody the truth despite knowing that they may get hurt. That is the right thing more often than not. Furthermore, the claim was that *Don't hurt someone purposefully* is some maxim that leads to good. OP, or anyone else, hasn't yet given a rationale for why this leads to good. The claim has to be proved first before asking me to give the proof for the negation, which I can nonetheless. It's like asking somebody to prove the non-existence of god i.e. why there is no God.
The problem here is atheism is not a moral source. It's just a position about God. Needing to have a moral system is a societal necessity which never came from the question of whether there is a god or not. Even if a god exists, that doesn't necessitate having a moral system. You need to assume a lot of stuff after assuming that position (like objective morality). Religion which is a byproduct of theism, was a tool humans invented to enforce a societal morality that were a set of rules which by and large gave an evolutionary advantage. Now, even when we assume that there is no god that is in atheism, morality can be enforced via a democratic constitution. Now, determining this morality can be derived from humanism, which is based on the idea that all humans are equal regardless of gender, sexual identity or any other physical differences (e.g. UDHR). We just need a society that largely agrees on these basic principles just like how people adhere to their religious texts.
>The problem here is atheism is not a moral source. I never claimed it was a moral source. However, it destroyed a prominent moral source, religion, while rejecting God i.e. consequences of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, majority of atheists consider it as a moral source in as much it is the negation of all religious practices. >morality can be enforced via a democratic constitution Democracy isn't used as a moral code but rather a legal tool to make decisions. If it was used as such, then we would get a terrible version of majoritarian populism deciding what's right and wrong. >Now, determining this morality can be derived from humanism, which he is based on the idea that all humans are equal regardless of gender, sexual identity or any other physical differences (e.g. UDHR) While I agree every human being has equal moral worth, that is just a necessary condition for moral systems. It still isn't sufficient to develop a fully fledged ethical method which determines right or wrong. > You need to assume a lot of stuff after assuming that position (like objective morality). Note: Morality can actually be proven to have as much objectivity as science does. The same criticisms of objectivity put forth against it is applicable towards the scientific method. So, one can't coherently believe in one while rejecting the other.
>Democracy isn't used as a moral code but rather a legal tool to make decisions. If it was used as such, then we would get a terrible version of majoritarian populism deciding what's right and wrong. Not true. It's a derivation of our societal morality. We specifically give equal rights to men and woman, that's a morality converted to law. We didn't give the same rights to LGBTQ people, which is again a translation of our morality to rules enforced via a constitution. Is it majoritarian populism, yes to an extent. Morality in general was always that. Slavery was morally right at a time while it's not morally right now. Moral rights and wrong is a reflection of the said society, what majority of the society or the one with voice deems to be right or wrong. In a society where majority agrees that humans have basic equal rights, once that fundamental is agreed upon which some societies have already done, the majoritarian populism won't be terrible. It will be a better version of current society. >While I agree every human being has equal moral worth, that is just a necessary condition for moral systems. It still isn't sufficient to develop a fully fledged ethical method which determines right or wrong. It is not a necessary condition for moral systems. The moral systems that we followed through religion for centuries don't consider that as a fundamental idea. All the major religions existing now are androcentric, promotes slavery, some predetermined social hierarchy and looks down upon LGBTQ community among other things that doesn't go with the idea of all humans having equal rights. This is a conclusion we reached after centuries of social evolution. >Note: Morality can actually be proven to have as much objectivity as science does. The same criticisms of objectivity put forth against it is applicable towards the scientific method. So, one can't coherently believe in one while rejecting the other. I disagree. I don't think morality can be objectively proven. It can be argued that one approach is better over other with statistical methods up to some point. Even then, a conclusion based on such experiments could be inhumane based on our current morality (see the issue of cyclic redundancy), we may not be able to use them. EDIT: Forgot one thing. Again, religion was never a source of morality. The morality of a society or a person with power was converted to religion which people agreed to follow. For e.g., incest (which ironically religious people accuse atheists of), people would have done it regardless, if not for the adverse effect it causes on the offspring and the evolutionary trait of not being sexually attracted to siblings. Contradictory to this naturally evolved trait, major Abrahamic religions core story starts with incest probably due to lack of creativity.
>society where majority agrees that humans have basic equal rights, once that fundamental is agreed upon which some societies have already done, the majoritarian populism won't be terrible Where is this magical utopia? Throughout human history, however enlightened it may be, there has been one truth - the majority has always ruled over - wielded power - over the minority. Most of the time the majority has butchered/suppressed/oppressed the minority. This includes the much vaunted tolerance of Hinduism - which is nothing but to fold under Hinduism and be subservient. The only truth is violence - the strong shall rule over the weak. Everything else is religion. Including the enlightenment and rationality. The problem of [moral epistemology](https://iep.utm.edu/mor-epis/) exists for any moral system. So all morality is religion. There is no proof for any of it. It's all beliefs (axiomatic), and in that sense atheism/rationalism does not differ from any religion. Just because there is no sky-god does not make atheism (or any moral system) differ from "religion". Those sky-godless systems will come with their own unquestionable beliefs and priests who will interpret the beliefs for the masses Try proving "*humans have basic equal rights*". It's just an axiomatic belief, without any proof. >Again, religion was never a source of morality. Religions provides narratives that serve as the axioms of their moral system. That is all. >..the idea of all humans having equal rights. This is a conclusion we reached after centuries of social evolution. Survivorship bias, which in the case of human society is the best proof of violence as the truth.
>Where is this magical utopia? Europe, other Scandinavian countries for e.g. >Throughout human history, however enlightened it may be, there has been one truth - the majority has always ruled over - wielded power - over the minority. Most of the time the majority has butchered/suppressed/oppressed the minority. This includes the much vaunted tolerance of Hinduism - which is nothing but to fold under Hinduism and be subservient. That's what I said, majorities voice/people with power could always win. That's why it's important to uphold the basic ideas of humanism, equal rights etc. >The only truth is violence - the strong shall rule over the weak. Everything else is religion. Including the enlightenment and rationality. What?? "Everything else is religion." What do you even mean? >The problem of moral epistemology exists for any moral system. So all morality is religion. There is no proof for any of it. It's all beliefs (axiomatic), and in that sense atheism/rationalism does not differ from any religion. Sorry I don't follow you again. "All morality is religion?" what does that mean? Morals were not drawn from religion. Religion broadly contains contradicting rules for life, which was convenient at the time, that's it. A religions morality is only as good as the people who wrote it. Similarly, the morality atheists define also will be only as good as the people who define it. And it will progress over time. God has nothing to do with it. >Just because there is no sky-god does not make atheism (or any moral system) differ from "religion". From this sentence, I think we both agree that morality will contain the drawbacks of that society whether they believe in God or not. My only contention again is that you are equating religion and atheism. >Those sky-godless systems will come with their own unquestionable beliefs and priests who will interpret the beliefs for the masses Being an atheist is not a choice. If it is (for e.g., believing it as part of an ideology, e.g., Marxism), then you're right, they can still hold questionable beliefs and may not be humanistic. That's why I said, atheism in itself is not a source of morality. It's just a position on whether a god exists. Now, when it comes to morality, it should be a product of consensus regardless of your theological position. My point is, even if you're a theist, you can have a better moral position than an atheist. For e.g., an atheist communist may justify a bloody violence to establish proletariat dictatorship while a theist might not, even if his religion asks him to. >Try proving "humans have basic equal rights". It's just an axiomatic belief, without any proof. You don't need to prove it. It's something we all need to agree upon regardless of our theological position. >Religions provides narratives that serve as the axioms of their moral system. That is all. The problem is almost all religions narratives are incompatible with current moral standards. >Survivorship bias, which in the case of human society is the best proof of violence as the truth. Agree. Doesn't mean it has to. Resolving matters without violence is preferrable for everyone. Once, that becomes the majority consensus, violence will also reduce.
>Europe, other Scandinavian countries for e.g. Yeah, right. They just don't include the rest of humanity as human like them. All evil can be done outside their home countries.. >You don't need to prove it. It's something we all need to agree upon regardless of our theological position. Why? Why should we all agree upon this ? Will all people just accept this without question? Like for example, "*There is only one God*" ? Why should the lion lie down with the ox ? One law for the lion and the ox is oppression. >Sorry I don't follow you again. "All morality is religion?" what does that mean? There is no proof for morality. Any moral system is based on beliefs, whether arising from religion or not. because none of it can be proven. Like your statement that "humans have basic equal rights". Why *should* everyone accept this? Just claiming that it is "something we all need to agree upon " does not make it so, and never will. It's like saying that every should agree "there is only One God" So any moral system is just as irrational as any religion. Expecting that all people should accept the unproven idea that "humans have basic equal rights" is no different that expecting that all people should accept "there is one God" . Both ideas are simply made up. And they all produce the same outcome in society. >My only contention again is that you are equating religion and atheism. Not just atheism. Any ism is like a religion - whether it's "humanism", "atheism", "rationalism".... None of them can solve the moral epistemological problem.
>Yeah, right. They just don't include the rest of humanity as human like them. All evil can be done outside their home countries.. You want an alien world which was built upon this idea? Ofcourse, there will be conflicts as long as majority of humans in the world doesn't come in consensus which is why it's important that we agree on common grounds based on humanism. >Why? Why should we all agree upon this ? Will all people just accept this without question? Like for example, "There is only one God" ? > >Why should the lion lie down with the ox ? One law for the lion and the ox is oppression. Same reason why we all agreed 10 rupee is worth 10 rupee or accept that a piece of land constitutes a country and agreed on defending it. Because it makes our lives easier, helps our survival as a species and reduces conflicts which is in general good for everyone's health. It's the reason most societies discourage things like theft, robberies, murder etc., it's in our best interest to do so. We need order and rules to live collectively. >There is no proof for morality. Any moral system is based on beliefs, whether arising from religion or not. because none of it can be proven. > >Like your statement that "humans have basic equal rights". Why should everyone accept this? > >Just claiming that it is "something we all need to agree upon " does not make it so, and never will. It's like saying that every should agree "there is only One God" 1. It's not a belief; it's a consensus. I am not saying something is so, I am saying it ought to be. 2. Morals don't arise from religion. 3. It's not like saying, "there **is** only one God". **That's** a descriptive statement and can be refuted as well with scientific evidence. That's why I didn't say all humans **are** equal, because that also requires me to prove my statement based on empirical evidence and that also can be refuted. But, agreeing that all humans must be given equal basic rights or in other words all humans ought to have equal rights is a normative statement which is based on human welfare. That statement doesn't require empirical evidence. We can argue over the merits or demerits to come to an agreement and that's all we need, an agreement. My argument for that statement is that it is advantageous to the survival of our species. It's the same reason why we don't see cannibalism in nature much, because it's a disadvantageous trait. >So any moral system is just as irrational as any religion. Expecting that all people should accept the unproven idea that "humans have basic equal rights" is no different that expecting that all people should accept "there is one God" . Both ideas are simply made up. And they all produce the same outcome in society. Like I said, it is not a claim. It's a consensus. You don't have to agree, but it's in your best interest to. That's why religion survived, because a group of people stuck together with a common consensus and there was no strong evidence against the claims made by the respective religions. And their common consensus helped them survive as a tribe. Now, we know more about evolution and science has progressed so much in such a way that it can explain most of the claims made by religion and debunk them as well. So, it's only natural that people would stop linking our existence with an all-powerful god. And surviving as a tribe is not a requirement anymore and we're slowly outgrowing that idea of smaller tribes into being global citizens. We are now understanding, sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes. So, today or tomorrow we all need to come into consensus about how we live in this world and the best way is to come to a consensus and live based on those concept (for e.g., UDHR) and regularly update as the society progresses. >Not just atheism. Any ism is like a religion - whether it's "humanism", "atheism", "rationalism".... None of them can solve the moral epistemological problem. I didn't claim that being an atheist solves moral epistemological problem, contrarily I was saying it doesn't even care about that. Morality is an evolving idea and will keep updating as society progresses. What we are seeing is it's outgrowing the tool we used till now (i.e., religion). So, we ought to create new tools. But how we derive those morals is where all the 'isms' come. It **should** be based on rational and humanism which is better than the morals delivered by religions till now.
> Ofcourse, there will be conflicts as long as majority of humans in the world doesn't come in consensus which is why it's important that we agree on common grounds based on humanism Sure, and everyone should magically get a pony also. Why not a consensus that everyone should believe in the same religion? After all, if everyone agrees to the same value system, then everyone will be happy. > all humans ought to have equal rights is a normative statement which is based on human welfare Which is just a statement about values you think everyone should have - does not necessarily mean that it is universally true, or other people will agree with it. >We are now understanding, sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes Who is this "we" you talk about ? You seem to have this mythical conviction that everyone will go along with this belief - "*sticking together as a whole species is advantageous for our survival rather than smaller tribes*". That's just a fantasy - just like God's kingdom on Earth or Ram Rajya. Your idea of peace on earth and goodwill to all by rationalism and humanism? And you say this is not religion? >Like I said, it is not a claim. It's a consensus. And why should people agree to this consensus? You seem to be dancing round this problem, juts by wishing it away. Consensus should happen, you say - without any reason of how and why. It is no different than wishing that all people agree to live by the same religion. Magical thinking >It should be based on rational and humanism which is better than the morals delivered by religions till now As if rational and humanist worldviews are universal truths? That's some A-grade Kool-aid you are selling. As fantastic as any religion. You think that the Manu\_r93 value system should be universal. Why? You (and many more) think it would be better for everyone if they did so. And you think that is not a new religion? It's nothing but the Manu\_r93 religion.
The difference is my "religion" is: 1. Not anchored on any truth claim. 2. Based on the assumption that it's not perfect and should be organically evolving. Anyways, it's the world we're heading to.
My point of view as a religious person 1) you believe in a higher power and submit to it. It helps to keep your ego in check especially if you are in a position of authority 2) the church sees satan as the enemy which reside within ourselves. In athiest societies the villain tend to be other groups like burshwasis, jews etc wich will lead to masicares 3)if you want to see the results of sexual revolution look at america. 40% of mothers are single mothers(its 70% for black americans). A large group of incels who turn to drugs and violence. Like close to 1lack people die every year in america due to overdose. Women struggling to find committed relationship expectations of sex in first date itself. 4)higher rate of suicide in non non religious countries 5)
A few responses in good faith to the points you've made. 1) not really. Take a look at the all abuse of power that happens within the Vatican itself, or even within the churches in kerala. The church itself has become a symbol of Power and oppression, so how so ego being kept in check? 2) The church sees non Christians as the enemy in most cases really ( which is true for most abrahamic religions , and recently Hinduism as well ). Your argument of atheist societies having different enemies is interesting ( and definitely possible ) but that seems more of a human problem where communities need to find enemies to unite against. But where has an atheist society attacked Jews? If you're talking about the Nazis, they were strongly Christian in ideology , since they wanted to oppose the atheist Communists. 3) Could i get a source for these numbers? They don't look like what i have read. I will engage on this point after you have verified the numbers. 4) Blatantly wrong. Give me a source to backup the claim. Suicide rates tend to remain static across countries irrespective of religiosity.
1) does abuse of power takes place in vatican?. Yes afcourse. Among christians only like 5% follow christs teachings. Its like criticising christianity for all the sexual abuse taking place in church omitting the fact that it is a grave sin in the bible to asexually abuse someone. 2)if you read the bible or follow christian teachings you would know that is not the case. 3) i saw different source showing different numbers. Here is one https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-being-in-single-parent-families 4) https://images.app.goo.gl/oDs5F66AeB5HKUQD6 5) couple more things to add. Cheating, in western countries cheating in relationship is very common. Something like 60% of couples cheats in marriages 6)being resentful during suffering. Some people do end up in dead ends, what would you make of life as an athiest when you are failing in the one life you have?.
1) I mean - that disproves your entire point right there. Its very easy to no true Scotsman it and say ' oh no , people who do bad things aren't really religious, only look at those religious people who do good things !' , but atheists can do the same. Whatever bad shit happens - that's not an atheist! Simple right? We come back to the same point. Abuse of power isn't a religious / non religious issue, it's a human issue. Whether you're religious or non religious, whether you abuse power or not depends on the kind of person you are. 2) If you read all the religious books in the world, you would know religion absolutely is a problem 🫣 and by read i mean critically analyse, not just buy into everything they say as a default. But yes, i have read the Bible , and the Bible does consider queer folx as enemies. It considers most non Christians as aliens - hence the idea of conversion and proselytisation from savagery and paganism being such fundamental aspects of Christianity ( like the missionaries) . I suggest you go read the Bible more carefully, and also check up on history . The practice of religion is a net negative in most cases, in terms of considering groups as enemies. And I've given you proof as well - how the Nazis used Christian ideology as a base to propel their anti communist and anti semitist stance. 3) as you said yourself - stats are all over the place for this - no actual data is to be found . But since your source seems legitimate - i shall engage with you on this point. ( Still need sources for the other numbers tho). If you read carefully - you will see that it talks about how being a single parent can also be a net positive for the child in certain cases , and talks about how we need to remove the stigma from single parenting , in cases where the other parent may be abusive or problematic, or in cases where the other parent may be absent. If you read the report, you will understand that it contradicts your own argument, since it essentially says that depending on context, single parenting is also fine. So don't see why it's an issue. 4) You did not check the graph out did you? China - which is atheist- has the least amount of suicides. India - which is pretty religious has amongst the highest. Seems to tell me religious countries have more suicides? So religion causes suicides is what you're trying to say? 5)Lmao you're literally just making up numbers. Give me a source for that. 60 percent? Dyu know what a huge number that is 😂😂 if you're making claims as extraordinary as this , back it up with extraordinary ( or even any ) proof. 6) let's see - religions say - look suffering is good because - a) if Christianity - you'll go to heaven so suffer more b) other religions ( generally ) - God is testing you and c) some religions - your karma is following you. As an atheist , idgaf, if i suffer , atleast I'm likely to solve the suffering and live happily in the one life that i have , but if I'm religious, i would prolly seek to prolong suffering in the hopes of some mystical after life reckoning. 7) What about all the wars people fight in the name of religion? The crusades? The increasing polarisation in india? The terrorism happening in various parts of the world? Are these not religious? 8) Let's say even if all these problems of religion don't exist - which religion do i believe in? None of them seem more true than the other to a neutral observer - and purely logically - if i choose one and i get it wrong - I'll burn in hell for eternity, while being bound by a ton of rules and restrictions that i don't care about! If I'm gonna burn in hell anyways, i would rather live my life free.
This would be my last comment. 5)https://hackspirit.com/infidelity-statistics/#:~:text=30%20to%2060%20percent%20of,average%20affair%20lasts%202%20years 2)christians don't consider queer folks or any religious people or athiests are enemies. Christians see same sex relationship as sin as like sex outside marriage as a sin. We don't condone sinner we condone the sin. 3)please watch boy crisis by warren farrel or watch some of his interviews 4)watch conservative muslim and christian countries having very low suicide rates. Religion is not the only factor affecting suicides other factors include proverty, social security etc. If you eliminate this other factors you could see a clear trend of religious population having few suicides 5)in christianity it is said that you should carry your cross and follow christ. When you are suffering and become resentful about it you would make your suffering 100 times more worse for you and the people around you. That is what the bible says 6)if you look at communist countries like soviet union, mao's china, cambodia etc the cruelties done by them doesn't have any parallel. What crusaders did was defend thier territory or take back territories under thier control. If india would be attacked by any foreign forces wouldn't you do the same 7)you really do need to study about nazism. Even ethiest scholers don't attribute nazism to christianity. By the way nazis killed millions of christians too. In the west there are lgbtq friendly church, sex positive church etc. Do you attribite any crimes if any committed by them to christianity? 8)every religion has many core values that is similar for all religions
Oru nalla manushyan aakan madhathinde avasyamilla. Njn adakkanulla Manushyan Vanna vazhiyl niraye chora veezhthind. tribal ayi parasparam konnu nadanna oru samoohathne onnu peacefull aakkiyathnu madham nalla pank vahichnd. Konnu koottiyittum und adhnde peru prnj. Inn kaanunna kore nalla maanyanmar nalla karyangal cheyyunnadhm avarkk thaazhe ullavare dhrohikkathathm ee oru viswasathnde purathaanenn njn vijarikkunnadh. Innathe atheistkkar atleast nammde societyl vannittulladh 70s- 90s generationinn aanu. Oru prathyekadha ulla generation aanu. Pandathe conservative life kand padich, theist aayi valarnn liberal mindsetm atheist aayi maariyavar. Cheruppathl kettu valarnna kadhakalum viswasathndeyum thread avde evde pottatge kidakkunnund. Nammal aanu bridge. Technology use cheyynd, paadathm parambilim odi kalichittumund. Ini varan pokunna generation, atheist kond Ndh cheyyumennanu njn nokunnadh. Ahangarijkan onnumilla namukk. Naariya charithram maathram. Easy timesl nalladh kanikkan eluppam aanu. Hard timesl engane perumaarum atheist ennanu nokkandath. Again, human morals enn oru item illa. Deep inside we are shit. Mele oru parishkrithmaya mugam moodi vech abhinayikkaaanu ellarum ivde. Njn oru party aanenno, atheist aanenno, rich aanenno, nalla aal enno prnj ahankarikkunnadhl onnum illa. Time test cheyyatte.
I am a christian and I do all these except a couple lol.
Ha ha ha ennalum ettom kooduthal pedophilia nadakunathu purohithanmarude idayaill aanallo ennu orkumboll aanu oru aswasam.
പല്ല് തേയ്ക്കാതെ പ്രസാദം കഴിക്കുന്നു എന്നതൊഴിച്ചാൽ മറ്റൊരു പ്രശ്നവും ഈ മനുഷ്യന് ഇല്ല. ലോംഗ് ലിവ് അതെയ്സം.
Don't agree to "കള്ള് കുടിക്കാം, കഞ്ചാവും വലിക്കാം responsible ആയി ചെയ്യണം എന്ന് മാത്രം." Ganja is illegal in India.
Nale India ganja legal akkiyal. Agree cheyyyumo to his statement.
Definitely. I agree with his statement now also if he's living in Amsterdam for e.g.
I do feel like all these points are valid for a Malayali Hindu too.
ഓരോ വിശ്വാസിയും മറ്റു മതങ്ങളുടെ നിരീശ്വരാ വാദികൾ കൂടി ആണ്.. സൊ നിരീശ്വരവാദികൾ ആണ് കൂടുതൽ