/r/atheism
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome.
If you wish to learn more about atheism, please begin by reading the FAQ.
If you are a theist, please be aware that proselytizing in any form is strictly prohibited.
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome.
Read before posting:
1 - No Trolling.
2 - No personal attacks or flaming.
3 - Posts must be on topic.
4 - All Images must be in a Self/Text post.
5 - Do not post Spam.
6 - No Low-Effort Posts
7 - No Proselytizing
8 - Follow reddit's rules.
Are you planning to: | (click if any apply) |
---|---|
Come out to Parents? | Start a Debate or AMA? |
Post your own Survey? | Criticize /r/atheism? |
Recommended:
Reading, Kids Reading, Viewing, and Listening.
Must have tools and links for /r/atheism users
Community submitted images used by r/atheism
Filters |
---|
Click the squares below to filter /r/atheism to specific topics or submission types |
Giving | |
---|---|
r/atheism Charity Drives | |
Secular Activist Charities | Humanitarian Charities |
Assistance | |
---|---|
Find Local Secular Therapists (USA) | Need Asylum? |
Start an Atheist Club at Your School | Coming Out |
/r/atheism
Atheist YouTuber sensation Alex O'Connor tells his story of moving beyond his “New Atheist” heroes (alongside his "childish" username @CosmicSkeptic) to embracing a more mature and nuanced approach to religious & worldview discourse as his fame and success grew. He also shares his view on Justin's thesis about The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, and what might bring about his own conversion.
There’s been some posts here recently, where people are trying to get out of religion (most commonly Islam), and facing (or afraid to face) a lot of backlash from family and society.
To me, it makes more sense to just let go of the disillusioned people, who have either don’t believe in the “sky daddy” anymore or simply don’t want to adhere to strict ancient religious rules. In theory, this should allow more people to leave with a decent understanding and respect for the people’s faith in god. At least, they wouldn’t get out screaming “fuck god” or something like that.
I kind of went through same process. I am as indoctrinated as they come. I still can’t eat pork, if felt in danger “Allah” comes out of my mouth unconsciously etc. I didn’t have to confront my parents or family about my own version of atheism, I only share my skepticism with fellow like minded people in life and subsequently, I try not to mock the faith of religious people to their face (>!I try not to!<).
Now, I assume, a lot of people share similar cynicism towards their god, but either stay silent for the fear of social backlash or come out swinging against their own family.
My question is, what is the point of forcing someone to participate in prayer if they’ve already rejected god? How does it make sense?
I haven't been watching atheist videos for quite some time, but when I did (last week), I was shocked to see that they have been/are being harnessed to push the likes of LGBT/Transgender etc.
Since when did atheism become a groupthink monolith for pushing politics/ideologies completely unrelated to atheism?
Do I have to 'support' whatever the big atheist YT channels push, or I'm not 'part of the club'?
This is the story of my final moments of faith. It tells of how simply exemplifying intellectual honesty can save others from a life of conviction.
When Christians do something wrong, they usually say,
Unfortunately, most of the Christians are pure narcissistic abusers.
Deep in this New York Times article about Hamtramck, MI and its Trump-supporting Muslim mayor was this nugget:
Then Ghalib led a meeting with Muslim leaders and Gen. Michael Flynn, a conservative firebrand and conspiracy theorist who briefly served as national security adviser during the Trump presidency. Flynn, who had previously called Islam “a cancer,” now spoke of forming a conservative coalition between Christians and Muslims.
Soon, emissaries for Trump were reaching out to the mayor.
He lies, he kills, he’s greedy for 10% of your earnings, he gets jealous when you don’t follow him and instead worship other Gods, he is immensely prideful. I could go on but I believe you get the point.
I’m no satanist I would like to make that clear, but God’s actions in the Bible compared to Satan’s are infinitely worse
We're 'designed' to masturbate. Our hands just reach there. But go ahead and lick your elbow, or back, or forehead. Ok, if you can do any of those things, call me!
Killing a person is easy. There's a whole throat to squeeze, or cut, or twist, or clog with food. Not to mention all those other dumb ways to die.
But I don't care how much you flap your arms, you ain't getting airborne. Birds can do it, but we can't. Aren't we made in his image?
In fact, when you think about it all, sins are easy. Lots of 'em, everywhere you look, if you believe that kind of thing.
Coveting thy neighbor's wife? I mean, have you seen her? Come to think of it, he ain't bad either. Nobody gets hurt so where's the sin?
But breathing underwater, I mean, you can do that if you want to. Once. Maybe twice... After that people start looking at you and wondering who to call. Or even better... Just stop breathing air. Go ahead, stop. I'll wait.
Hold it.
Keep holding.
Yeah, see? Can't do it, can you.
There's a lot of restrictions in this world. Can't swim in the arctic, can't swim in the desert, can't swim in lava or acid.
Why? Because, again if you believe in an omniscient being, the universe has these limits because, and stick with me here, only because that's how s/he/it wanted things.
An omniscient designer would only impose limits deliberately, by definition. Any possibility is, uh, possible, right? So why can't we do these things?
Sin is something god doesn't want. He has the ability to get what he wants. Therefore, this is what he wants.
God wants you to kill, insists upon it in fact. Sure you can not-kill humans, that's easy. I do it practically ever day! Lots of people don't kill animals for sport. Some people don't kill animals for food. Virtually everyone kills plants for food, or decoration, or manufacturing. If you dont kill some bacteria, molds, and fungi, they'll kill you instead. And eventually, mo matter what you do, one of the above will kill you.
How can something that can't-not-happen be wrong? It's not. It's designed that way, right?
So, if a designer really, really didn't want us to be wrathful, or gluttonous, or to lust, we wouldn't. We couldn't. We couldn't even conceive of such a thing.
Some people say talking with the dead, or evil spirits, or divining (ha) the future, or casting magic spells, all these things are sins. And they're right. That's why nobody can do them.
If you believe in a god who can do and know anything, and loves us, and doesn't want us to sin, then go ahead.
Lick your elbow.
When you're done, text me.
[Edit: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Omni benevolent, omnivorous, omnibus, whatever. You know what i mean.]
This includes all denominations who call themselves christians .
A.I. answered this " No, Christianity is not a cult, but some communities within Christendom may be cult-like. A cult is a group of people who practice excessive devotion to a figure, object, or belief system, and often follow a charismatic leader. Some characteristics of cults include: Isolating members and punishing them for leaving, Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders, Dishonoring the family unit, Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability, and No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. "
since it defines a cult ( christianity checks the definition ) while is it defending its answers to be politically correct . Just because there is a fiction written by dead unknown people, does not excempt them from being a cult.
although it is possible to have a good socially acceptable cult.
What pointers can i use to confirm this (is a cult) conclusion.
I was at school debating this girl on Christianity, and she really pulled the “I spoke with him” and “I saw the Holy Spirit.” Does anyone not question that? Like, is that not schizophrenia? Im sorry, but every time she questions why I’m atheist, she always has to say that, and I’m genuinely concerned for her and slightly annoyed. I respect her being Christian I just don’t understand why she can’t respect that I’m not religious
Alright, this is one I haven’t shared with many people, but it’s been weighing on me for years. A while back, I was in a pretty toxic relationship. It wasn’t always bad – like most situations, it started out alright, but eventually it became emotionally and verbally abusive. It took me a long time to even recognize what was happening because, honestly, I thought it was just “normal” relationship struggles. But deep down, I knew something wasn’t right, and I started feeling really trapped and anxious.
So I did what I thought was the “right” thing at the time: I went to my pastor for advice. I remember pouring my heart out, telling him everything that was going on, hoping he’d understand and maybe give me some support or guidance to leave. But instead, he gave me a look of concern and then told me that relationships are “sacred bonds” and that “God doesn’t give us challenges we can’t handle.” He said I needed to “pray for strength” to endure this hardship and that, by staying, I was honoring God’s plan for my life.
He went on to talk about how, as a woman, it was my duty to be supportive and forgiving, and that God would reward my loyalty and resilience in time. Basically, he was telling me to stay and put up with it because that’s what “good Christian women” do. I remember leaving his office feeling worse than when I walked in, like somehow, I was failing both as a partner and as a believer.
It took me years to shake off the guilt that conversation planted in me. I stayed in that relationship way longer than I should have, all because I’d been told that leaving would be a betrayal of my faith. Eventually, I got out, but not without scars. And looking back, I still can’t believe that the advice I got from a spiritual leader was to accept abuse in the name of “honoring God.”
It was one of those defining moments that made me start to question everything. How could a loving deity want someone to suffer just to prove their faith? Why would a religion that supposedly values compassion encourage people to stay in harmful situations? It’s taken a lot of time, but I’m at peace now, knowing I don’t need to rely on “faith” to justify suffering or “God’s plan” to justify staying in a bad place.
Absolutely love this movie as it resurrects my youth. Watching it again though, I realize the over dramatic use of Christian mythology to sell it and make everyone watching them love how it affirms their viewpoint. Still great acting for the period but just disappointed in the overall vibe. Probably going to watch the Charlton Heston ten commandments next and, as a gay mature adult, going to be disappointed. However, at least they didn't realize how many young boys they might awaken to gay life through their movies so I'll take a win when I can get one for the sexy roman uniform fantasy.
People are ridiculous. I was talking to someone about modern day politics and somewhere in the conversation I simply said I think it’s valid to propagate against outdated religious systems. Particularly Abrahamic beliefs and they said I was an arrogant authoritarian and they compared what I said to what happened in the Soviet Union. I never fucking said ban them outright, I said we should use our FREEDOM of fucking speech to PROPAGATE FAIRLY against outdated belief systems. Am I a fucking authoritarian for this? Is this really that fucking wrong, to criticize belief systems that
So, this happened back in middle school, and it still baffles me to this day. I had this science teacher – let’s call her Mrs. S – who was known for her “unique” views on certain topics. Looking back, I’m honestly shocked she was allowed to teach science at all. One day, we were learning about fossils, evolution, and, naturally, dinosaurs. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs as a kid, so I was really excited about this lesson.
But Mrs. S had other ideas. She looked around the class with this serious expression and announced, “Dinosaurs aren’t real.” I remember just staring, trying to process what she’d said, thinking maybe she was joking or testing us. Then she went on to explain that dinosaurs couldn’t possibly exist because they weren’t mentioned in the Bible. According to her, the “so-called fossils” were just rocks, and scientists had been “misinterpreting them” for years. She even implied that fossils were a trick by the devil to test our faith.
A few of us asked questions – like, what about the massive dinosaur bones we’ve seen in museums? She just brushed it off, saying they were “exaggerated” or “misleading.” She even encouraged us to talk to our pastors and parents if we had “doubts” about what she was saying. And let me tell you, I went home that day more confused than ever. I’d always been taught that science was about understanding the world, and here was my own science teacher telling me to reject all of it if it didn’t fit her religious beliefs.
This experience just planted the first seeds of doubt in me. I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that someone who was supposed to teach us science would rather we ignore evidence because it didn’t match a religious text. It made me start questioning a lot of other things, especially since this was the same teacher who regularly talked about creationism and how evolution was “just a theory” (and not in the scientific sense).
Looking back, it feels surreal to think that in a science classroom, I was basically told to reject science itself if it clashed with religion. It was one of the first moments that made me realize how powerful and limiting blind faith can be. I’ve since learned a lot more about evolution and paleontology, and the irony is, understanding these things has made me appreciate life and the universe even more – no ancient texts needed.
Hi everyone, sorry about a bit of a rant, but I'm wanting to get some input.
My parents were super religious when I was growing up. I was even in a private Catholic school when we lived outside of the US for a few years (it was much too expensive for me to attend something similar in the US). However, I don't get the impression that they are as religious now as they don't force my younger brother to go to Mass like they did me.
I explain all of this background to share where I am now: I don't know if I am atheist so much as I am just burnt out. I wouldn't consider myself religious, not because I don't believe in it, but just because I don't care. I spent so long having to care about it, that I just don't have any more energy to even think about religion now.
Does that make any sense? If so, has anyone else been through this and where did you end up in terms of belief down the line?
Thanks <3
Like when someone tells you nothing came to exist randomly and everything had to be created by a higher power, im not sure what to say
Just look at how Islam majority countries feel about abortion and how it is almost universally banned. Let alone the basic rights to vote or get an education. I am sick of seeing it
I am sick of it. Just look at what the Supreme Court decided on in the past 4 years and tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about basic human rights in our country.
So I recently got into an argument with a friend of mine about how religion incites violence against non-believers. I’m ex-Muslim and he was an atheist about 3-4 years back but then 2 years ago he became Christian ( Jehovah’s Witness) again. He did so because of “the core principles , such as love thy neighbour” and other logically inconsistent reasons.
His argument was that it was mainly people who are the problem and not religion, and that people interpreted things to suit their likings. I agree with the second part but stood my ground that if religion didn’t exist, there would be nothing to misinterpret. He said that it was human nature to want to build hierarchies and discriminate, I agreed but said that religion has been the worst catalyst for that, as it brainwashed ppl and is a fraudulent ticket to heaven, and that there would significantly be more peace without religion. Misogyny existed , but medieval Europe was catholic and burned women alive. The bible was used to justify colonialism. Islam was spread through the sword and many were killed.etc. And these people didn’t pull all of this out their asses, they had something to work with. Like they could force ppl to convert as a “greater good” because they would’ve gone to hell, and used violence as a means. I even noted how the word pagan till this day still has a very negative connotation. But he still argues that it is people who are the sole problem. He said that if ppl stuck to the core principles of love and kindness, all would be good. I told him the core principles were actually “believe or you’re subhuman and are going to hell” , and that you didn’t need religion to be a good person, as atheist are even better people imo.
He tended to agree with a lot of things I said but would would still try to counter with “but…”. He contradicted himself a lot. I told him he was ignorant , and could not even speak for Christianity as a whole , as he has been a Jehovahs witness for only 2 years of his life , and is the only one in his family, as his family follow their tradition cultural religion. I am a bit more aware of Abrahamic religions , as we learned about them in madrasah (Islamic school, and for the main purpose of shitting on them)
Right before I ended the convo, he asked me to quote a place in the bible that directly incited violence against people. I don’t know if the bible does this like the quran , but I know that Abrahamic religions have a very intolerant nature towards nonbelievers.
So could you please give me evidence that religion directly incites violence ( verbal or physical, discrimination included) against ppl ( women and nonbelievers, and specifically,but not limited to, Christianity, as I am well aware of islams bs). If there isn’t any, I’ll take the L but won’t give up my stance that religion is inherently bad and contributes to the greater evil.
My mother and father are both Muslim, while my step father is catholic, I like to consider myself as an atheist. However I have been diagnosed with depression and have been on medication and therapy for almost a year now, one of the techniques my therapist and I have come up with is medication, it started of simple with just breathing exercises but now over the past few week I have accumulated statues of Buddha, candles and offering bowls. Now I do not consider myself Buddhist nor will I flat out come out and tell my parents that I’m an atheist because I rather not deal with that drama but sitting down everyday and meditating over my pray beads at my alter brings me peace, I do not believe in god but this has helped me to better deal with my depression
Am I slowly becoming a Buddhist?
Lately, I have been thinking about why I am an atheist as opposed to a theist. There are good arguments on both sides, but when it comes down to it, the main issue for me is which one is more likely to account for reality. Here is my argument.
Although there are many unknowns in this world that can be equally explained by either Nature or God, Nature will always be the more plausible explanation.
Naturalism is more plausible than theism because it explains the world in terms of things and forces for which we already have an empirical basis. Sure, there are many things about the Universe we don’t know and may never know. Still, those unexplained phenomena are more likely to be explained by the same category of things (natural forces) than a completely new category (supernatural forces).
For example, let's suppose I was a detective trying to solve a murder mystery. I was posed with two competing hypotheses: (A) The murderer sniped the victim from an incredibly far distance, and (B) The murderer used a magic spell to kill the victim. Although both are unlikely, it would be more logical to go with (A) because all the parts of the hypothesis have already been proven. We have an empirical basis for rifles, bullets, and snipers, occasionally making seemingly impossible shots but not for spells or magic.
So, when I look at the world, everything seems more likely due to Nature and not God because it’s already grounded in the known. Even if there are some phenomena we don’t know or understand (origin of the universe, consciousness, dark matter), they will most likely be due to an unknown natural thing rather than a completely different category, like a God or spirit.
What do you think of my argument? Are there any holes or fallacies? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I’m thinking the reason freedom of religion exists as an idea is because of religious persecution. But isn’t it true that religious persecution is perpetrated by other religious groups? Which should tell us that the only thing we actually need, is freedom from religion. I’m sure this has been thought before, but it sortof occurred to me that the idea of freedom of religion didn’t really go far enough into the logical conclusion. Not that logic ever mattered to believers…
So my husband and I are both atheist and his parents are VERY strongly religious and conservative and it leans culty (granted I think all religion is a cult but damn go to one of these funerals and its like wtf). My parents are dead fwiw. Their church does a trunk or treat every year the Saturday before Halloween as many do. We have a small child and have declined going these first few years but now my husband “kind of wants to think about going”. I am just like, why? Personally I don’t want to do any trunk or treats, religious or not. I REALLY don’t want ANY affiliation with this church or to show ANY sign of weakness toward his parents on our stance about religion and how we want to raise our child. My husband doesn’t see it the same way. What are others thoughts on these types of situations? I don’t want to die on every religious hill so wondering if this is one I just push back on slightly futuristically and if that’s enough to reason with my husband then cool and if not just take the L.
Yeah, sure this is largely a woe is me post because I’ve had some significant invisible shit problems I’ve had to deal with in life, as has everyone (some people obviously with bigger problems than others as you can see on the news). I made bad decisions in the past and drank way too much. I could have fried my brain and ended up homeless. I happened to get lucky and have job in a family business to turn my life around. But why the fuck are (mostly) rich conservative Christians repulsed by the poor, immigrants, disabled, mentally ill, LGBT, etc.? Two verses that come to mind from their own book is “don’t judge less ye be judged” and “no one understands, no one does good”. So if someone is a Christian, reading that no one does good and that they shouldn’t judge, why wouldn’t they think “Hey, I should have sympathy for immigrants and the poor instead of supporting Trump who is only going to help evil (as the bible says no one is good) rich fuckers get richer while common people end up homeless because rent, mortgages, and healthcare are too expensive.” Sure, you’re expected to show up to work and be able to do your job, but why isn’t the MAGA Christian cultists mentality to help people who are struggling than help the rich? I just don’t get it.
When discussing theodicy and divine morality, we often encounter abstract philosophical arguments that distance us from the real implications of these beliefs. However, we can cut through these abstractions with a simple thought experiment that forces confrontation with the practical consequences of divine command theory.
Consider this scenario: Tomorrow morning, you hear God's voice in your head commanding you to murder the little girl next door. According to divine command theory, where God's commands define morality itself, you would be morally obligated to commit this murder. The uncomfortable reality is that believers rarely want to answer this question directly, because doing so forces them to confront the horrifying implications of their theological position.
Some might attempt to find refuge in the story of Abraham and Isaac, suggesting that God would surely stay their hand at the last moment, just as He did with Abraham. This defense fails on two levels. First, it requires acknowledging that they would actually take up a knife and approach their neighbor's child with murderous intent – a disturbing admission in itself. Second, and more critically, the historical record of divine commands in religious texts overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.
The Abraham and Isaac story stands as a singular example of divine restraint among countless instances of completed divine-commanded atrocities. Entire tribes and populations were eliminated under divine command. Cities were razed, populations massacred, and civilizations wiped out – all under the banner of divine instruction. The historical pattern suggests that if God were to command violence, there is no reasonable expectation of a last-minute reprieve.
This creates an insurmountable moral dilemma for believers. They must either admit they would commit murder on divine command (revealing the bankruptcy of their moral framework), acknowledge they would disobey divine command (undermining their theological position), or evade the question entirely (exposing their intellectual dishonesty).
The power of this argument lies in its ability to strip away theological abstractions and force a confrontation with the practical implications of divine command theory. It reveals how theodicy's attempt to whitewash biblical atrocities requires an ongoing commitment to potentially whitewash future atrocities as well. In doing so, it exposes the fundamental incompatibility between divine command theory and any meaningful system of moral values.
In the end, the believer's retreat to the single "safe" example of Abraham and Isaac, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of completed divine-commanded violence, demonstrates how maintaining these beliefs requires selective interpretation and intellectual dishonesty. This thought experiment thus serves as a powerful tool for exposing the moral and logical contradictions inherent in divine command theory and, by extension, in the broader project of theodicy itself.
The most powerful counter for people who lack the intellectual honesty to reach an uncomfortable conclusion is to ask them. So if tomorrow a voice in your head told you to murder the little girl that lives next door, you would do it because what God commands is moral. Of course, no one would be willing to answer that because it's even more uncomfortable, but that is the logical conclusion.
And, of course, a counter, they might say, well, but think of Abraham and Isaac. God will just stop me before I have to actually do it. Well, so, first off, that means that this person would still go next door with a fucking knife. And second, no. Entire tribes have been wiped off the map by a bunch of genocidal asteroids because God commanded it. So there is no reason to believe that if God commanded you to kill your next door neighbor, he would stop you. There are countless more examples of God going through with atrocities then the single example of Abraham and Isaac.
In argument form:
Premise 1: Whitewashing is the act of downplaying, justifying, or reinterpreting a negative event or action to make it seem acceptable or less harmful, regardless of the intent behind it.
Premise 2: Theodicy is the attempt to justify or explain the existence of evil and suffering in a world governed by an all-powerful, benevolent deity.
Premise 3: In justifying or explaining evil, theodicy reframes events of suffering or harm as part of a larger, morally acceptable plan, effectively transforming the perception of these events from "evil" to "necessary" or "good."
Premise 4: By reframing or justifying evil in this way, theodicy diminishes the perception of evil as something unequivocally unacceptable, making it seem more tolerable or even purposeful.
Premise 5: Since whitewashing, by definition, involves making negative events appear more acceptable, the act of justifying evil in theodicy constitutes whitewashing, regardless of the intention to provide comfort or meaning.
Conclusion: Therefore, theodicy is, in effect, a form of whitewashing because it takes an act or situation of evil and reframes it in a way that justifies or lessens its perceived negativity.
For the record, this is totally a non serious question and I was just thinking it would be funny.
That said, let’s look at the stats. Both fairly equal as far as powers go, but the Christian God (whom I’ll refer to as Jehova to make it easy) seems to be over everything whereas Zeus seems to only he the god of the sky and such. Though Zeus strikes me as much more of a fighter and definitely has a murderous aurora about him. Though Jehova in the Old Testament is pretty freaking psycho himself. I feel it could go either way, but I’ll let you guys have it.
(And please don’t be afraid to use specific portrayals as examples)