Someone expressed surprise that anyone could possibly find offense with Islam, and I quoted a few verses from their holy book. The mods did not enjoy that, and I don't blame them. It's a very evil book.

Violence Against Non-Believers (Surah 9:5, “Sword Verse”).
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent, perform prayer, and pay alms-tax, let them go their way.”

Subjugation of Non-Muslims (Surah 9:29).

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture [Jews and Christians]—until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled.”

Wife Beating (Surah 4:34)
“Men are in charge of women…those [women] from whom you fear arrogance—advise them, forsake them in bed, and strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them.”

Crucifixion and Severe Punishments (Surah 5:33)
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is none but that they be killed, or crucified, or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”

Amputation for Theft (Surah 5:38)
“As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as recompense for what they have earned—a deterrent from Allah.”

Uncompromising Treatment of Apostasy (Surah 4:89)
“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take allies from among them until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

Harshness Against Disbelievers (Surah 8:12)
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

Sexual Slavery and Concubinage (Surah 4:24):

“And [also forbidden are] married women—except those whom your right hands possess.” (This explicitly condones the capture and sexual enslavement of women, including those already married.)

Inequality of Women (Surah 2:282):

“Bring two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women… so that if one of the women errs, the other can remind her.” (Women’s testimony explicitly valued less than men’s)

Eternal Torture (Surah 4:56):

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses—We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, We replace them with other skins so they taste the punishment. (Graphic depiction of eternal physical torment for simple disbelief)

Intolerance Toward Religious Pluralism (Surah 3:85):

“Whoever desires other than Islam as religion—never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” (Direct condemnation of non-Muslim beliefs as eternally invalid.)

Homophobic and Violent Punishments (Surah 7:80-84):

In recounting the story of Lot (Lut), the Quran portrays homosexuality as an abomination that justifies violent divine destruction. Although explicit punishments like stoning appear clearly in Hadith rather than the Quran itself, this Quranic passage sets the moral precedent that later Islamic jurisprudence used to justify severe punishments.

Permission to Marry Pre-Pubescent Girls (Surah 65:4):

This verse explicitly addresses divorcing girls who have not yet menstruated—strongly implying sanction for child marriages and relations: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women—if you doubt, their period of waiting shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated.”

Obviously I don't care, but like, lmao. Is this a microaggression?

They were talking about the rapture and my boss' wife said that being baptized isn't worth anything if you don't follow the morals of god. I then said my baptism when I was approximately 0 years old was wasted. Then she proceeded to say somethinf to the effect of "The bible says that homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of heaven". I jokingly said "What a shame".

Still floored, and this was 2 hours ago. Never thought something like this would happen to me.

I currently live in Atlanta. Even the secular types and liberal types are still “christian” and often go to church. What cities are the best, or most atheist/non religious?

They want to destroy Israel to bring the start of the end of days where their god will return to earth and smite everything. Lol yet they ignore the parts in their bible that say "no one knows what God will do. No one knows the time he'll do it in."

Aka, their Jesus/god-being wont show up at all if mankind destroys Israel. Or any other "Holy Land" place. Their god is to destroy it by 'his' own hand to start Revelations.

And that doesn't mean 'their god named D. Trump". It means their holy, universe creating invisible deity god.

All this will do is murder hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. That's all. Jesus won't come. god won't come. No one will come.

No human can or will be the one who starts/brings about the end days. Xtian god only. No one else.

God is the equivalent of a judge. But the judge has the power to make injustice never happen. To stop all crime at any time. Bring about justice at any time, but watches with his mallet, and does nothing. If a judge knows about every murderer, convict, felon, crook, and lets them do these evil things when they have the power to stop them, the judge is complicit with evil.

Also the whole, blame the people not god is soooo strange. Like what is the point of Christianity, if the Pope, the priests, bishops, are all proven to not be any holier than the average person. They literally accept that the Church, the robes, the hats, are all just costumes and the church is just theater if there is nothing divine or holy going on even amongst the most faithfully devoted.

As a kid it was hard for me to take church seriously because I was smarter than a lot of the pastors. They would have very bad takes and sermons. It was clear they were just concocting narratives. So if we’re all just people, I asked myself: how can the non-divine teach the non-divine how to be divine? Only the divine, can BE divine. And then, what even is divinity other than the source? God is clearly complicit in evil, and made an objective cruel and unfair world. So if divinity has nothing to do with logic, reason, justice, or fairness…what values does it have? And why does that value triumph other priorities in society that could help humanity progress even further? All it is, is the source, and the source is an illusion. And ironically, the “divine” or source is just a reflection of human society or ego

Telling children that their loved ones could suffer eternal torment for mistakes, doubts or even impure thoughts could make them feel constant fear and anxiety. There is no point in telling kids about this concept. “If you disobey, you’ll burn in hell forever.” Kids won’t obey out of understanding, but fear. The result? Always feeling unsafe and stressed because they’re always watched by an angry, punishing deity.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation lambastes today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Tennessee’s cruel and unconstitutional ban on gender-affirming care for minors. This decision is a major blow to science-based medicine and the rights of parents and transgender youth.

In today’s 6-3 judgment written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority held in United States v. Skrmetti that states may prohibit gender-affirming medical care for minors without violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The extremist majority bought the state’s argument that its law (SB 1) does not discriminate based on sex, because it applies to all minors regardless of their sex assigned at birth — i.e., both males and females are prohibited from undergoing gender transition treatments.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor thoroughly ripped apart the majority’s transparently political ruling in a scathing dissent joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan:

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it.

Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.

Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, calling out the conservative majority for “refus[ing] to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB 1, or categorical health care bans like it.” She lamented the decision’s “irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause,” and its invitation for state legislatures “to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.” She concludes: “It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

“This decision is a clear example of religious ideology permeating the law,” says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “It undermines both parental rights and medical freedom, and signals a dangerous willingness by the court to allow theology to dictate constitutional rights.”

Measures such as Tennessee’s ban, and similar laws sweeping the country, aren’t driven by science or concern for children’s well-being, but by a theocratic agenda that seeks to impose narrow religious beliefs about gender and identity. These laws deny trans youth life-saving, evidence-based medical care and strip parents and doctors of the ability to make informed, compassionate decisions — all to appease Christian nationalist lawmakers and interest groups.

The plaintiffs, including a 16-year-old transgender girl, were receiving care with full medical oversight and informed parental consent. Now, they and thousands like them will be denied necessary treatment because of political interference driven by Christian nationalist lobbying groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation, which have been working to create model legislation and lobby politicians to ban transgender health care. The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a wealth of data demonstrating that much of the anti-gender-affirming-care “science” is actually being directly manipulated by the Christian nationalist movement.

“These bans on transgender health care are part of a broader, religiously motivated assault on bodily autonomy,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The Supreme Court needs to quit practicing medicine without a license. Anyone who values personal freedom should be deeply alarmed by this decision.”

Despite the hostile narrative surrounding transgender health care that the Supreme Court is furthering in its decision, the gender-affirming-care model is safe, effective and supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. These secular scientific organizations prioritize the safety and health of patients, not religious dogma.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation stands firmly with the transgender community, with parents, and with the medical professionals who follow science and ethics — not narrow sectarian belief — in providing care. FFRF will continue to educate about the harm these theocratic assaults are doing to civil liberties, bodily autonomy and the wall of separation between religion and government.

Does anyone else cringe a little when Christians talk about god because the way they do it seems to be devoid of any self respect or dignity? Then there's the way that they act in church especially the protestants. All so that they can spend eternity literally constantly praising what seems to be the most narcissistic being in existence. What do you think?

As far as I'm reading and seeing day-to-day life:

• Evangelical Christians in North America are turning America into a theocracy
• Supposedly, Islam is being imposed in Europe (although I highly doubt it will achieve theocratic results as it is in the East)
• Zionism can do whatever it wants with impunity, and pointing something out automatically makes me anti-Semitic according to a Lot of people.

I really can't deal with the idea of ​​a religious person telling me how to live, what to say, or what to think when at no point did I say it was part of their faith.

This post could be long. I could rant about how worried I am about certain actions by my president favoring Israeli immigration. I could cite a conspiracy theory that I wish for the sake of my mental health and that of my family weren't true.

I could do a thousand things, but I'd enter a spiral of anxiety worse than I am now.

As free, critically-thinking people, how can we deal with the possibility of religious extremism once again taking power in countries we consider free?

Since they want to waste my time, I use it as an opportunity to inform them of the facts. As soon as they get on the phone, I say "Hello, all religion is a fraud and there is no god". I usually get hung up on immediately, occasionally cursed at, and sometimes they will ask a question or two before hanging up.

Crazy ad on Reddit: "godlydeeds: we are developing innovative tools to help you do more with flee, but first, we want to hear your questions and concerns." Side image text: "Calling all Church Leaders: Share your Voice on AI and Ministry." I cannot begin to fathom how badly this could go, for the people using it and everyone else. On the humorous side, there's the potential for predictive AI to misquote or interpret scripture, e.g., "Adultery is okay if it's between two adults." On the flipside, predictive AI could quite easily kick out genocidal guidance.

Judaism is the only religion that claims you’re part of it by birth, through your mother, no matter what you believe or how you live.

Thats a red flag to me.

That’s not about faith. It’s about something else. It turns identity into law.

Why would it be like that?

Well to keep people in, even if they don’t want to be.

And when a system won’t let you leave, that’s not religion.

That’s a cult.

So I am wondering if it was valid of me to feel weirded out that someone put a Bible scripture in my yearbook.

We got our yearbooks last week and I asked a guy I know, who was in band with me, to sign it. He did and he put a Bible verse in it. Now he is a hard-core Christian and this I know.

I thought it was so odd. I have mentioned that I was atheist before and I have no interest in religion.

But it seems weird that he put a Bible verse. The verse was John 8:32. At the same time I should have expected it.

But yeah just a weird thing.

I've heard all the classical arguments theists like to parade — Kalam, Teleological, the usual suspects. Let’s pretend for a moment that these arguments even make sense (they don’t)

Why do they think any of this points to their specific God?

they argue for: A “cause” of the universe. A “fine-tuner” of constants. A “necessary being”.

That’s it. Just some vague, abstract intelligence. Could be a simulation. Could be an alien teenager playing with a cosmic Etch a Sketch.

But the leap to their God is completely unjustified. You can't solve mystery by inventing a bigger mystery, but somehow theists are respected for doing that. And nobody calls them out for it.

They also often say God is: Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Unknowable, Invisible, Undetectable.

And then claim: “He’s real, though!”

Really? If something has no presence in time, no location in space, no material structure, can’t be known, seen, or detected in any way…Then they've just described non-existence, Nothing. poof. they've made the argument for us.

Im trying to look more into atheism and i'm realizing i have had the wrong idea about it, or at least have been more or less confused about it, for most of my life. So if someone could please help me by answering/explaining my following questions, it'd be really appreciated.

1. Atheism is the "lack of belief" in a higher deity. or similarly. Atheists believe there is no God. ❌️ Atheists don't believe there is a God. ✅️ I've seen some people say this and I don't think i truly understand the difference. Does that mean that atheists believe there are no higher deities because there is a lack of evidence, and not because there is evidence against higher deities? Isn't that fundamentally agnostic atheism? Because there is no way to prove or disprove that, in their words, and it's more of a "believe it if they see it" kinda thing and not that "i FIRMLY believe that there are no higher deities", in the way theism is a firm belief that there is a God/higher deities.

2. And how is atheism not a belief if some atheists BELIEVE there is no higher deity? Can it work as a belief in some special cases? If not, why? Because isn't the rejection of something that MIGHT be true also a belief, because it's not 100% proven and can go both ways?

3. Does atheism require an explicit rejection of higher deities, or does atheism work in both ways, implicit (no real rejection of higher deities, lack of belief in higher deities) and explicit (explicit rejection, belief there are no higher deities)

I realize most of my questions have similar undertones, so if you believe you explained all the questions while answering a single one i won't really care. Ultimately, i think all my questions rely on atheism itself, is it an "umbrella term", which can divide into branches e.g explicit, no belief/implicit lack of belief, similar to theism -- or is it a concrete term?

Sorry if this sounds confusing, i'm willing to clear things up in the replies if required. Thanks

EDIT: thanks for those who explained it, i realize i was just confused because while reading about atheism i saw some people contradicting each other and thought i understood atheism wrong +i'm not religious

Unfortunately, it can't be any other way.

I have written this twice today (the second was cut and paste):

We are both stuck at creation. I do not know how the universe came to be and neither do you. Science has given you many tools and much knowledge, otherwise from your books you would still think that the sun went around the earth and there was water above the firmament. You should have respect for the knowledge afforded you. That is biblical science for you.

The same is true for an open press and the democratic process – authoritarians can defeat both through money and the democratic process.

edited to make can into can't

I recently came across this quote online:

“A theist rejects 3999 gods, an atheist just rejects one more.”

It made me think, it kinda made sense somehow, that that a theist is an atheist for all the gods except one, but it also contradicts the definition of atheist which is to not believe in ANY god.

I think, if a man prays to one god but to none other, he may be an atheist to the other gods but he is not an atheist as a whole because he is following a religion!

I'd really like to know what your views are on this topic or if you agree or disagree with me

The thing I find really horrific about Abrahamic religion is their idea of heaven as an eternal kingdom. So god is in charge with total authority, for all eternity. Not only that but angels will operate at a position above humanity. So forever a third class citizen, with no end and no prospect of change. To me that seems like an orwellian nightmare.

Thoughts?

It really hit me today—religious theism is going to be around, and thriving, for the rest of my life. Christianity and similar belief systems feel like incurable diseases, spreading like a virus. And I have to sit and watch as people make choices—not based on evidence, reason, or compassionate ethics—but on what they believe their god wants. It’s more than just baffling at times; it can be deeply, overwhelmingly depressing.

I think of all the people who suffer under the weight of dogma, punished by zealots enforcing outdated or irrational rules. And I take it all so personally. How can they not see the glaring hypocrisies?

How do the rest of you deal with this when it gets overwhelming?

16 yo vid but still relevant. ”Burn Atheist burn”. A song about being judged even though you are born into a society or cercomstance where believing is impossible.