Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[Shadow Wolf]

Christianity cover the whole array of possibilities. So just saying that Christianity is good, or bad, is wildly naive and overly-simplistic.

The Bible has at its center a god who describes himself as angry and jealous, and he shows us that he is indeed that and violent, blood thirsty, horribly repressive and intolerant and genocidal. He's so cruel he even sent his own son to die a violent death over a system of punishment that he himself established. He's so repressive that many trivial things are punishable by death, he doesn't tolerate the worship of other gods amd his law permits slavery (including sexual) to such a degree a guy can sell his family into it.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Because it's caused a lot of harm, and denying that means you either slept through, or played hooky during every single history class in school. Any institution that weilds uncontested power over the masses has been proven to be harmful. That includes religious ones.

 

[ppp]

My question is why? And how? How is christianity in any way form or shape harmful?

Because Christians think that Christianity cannot be harmful. That the harm that Christians have done in the practice of their religion for the past 2000 years (and still doing) does not count as "real" Christianity or as harm.

And how is sexual purity exactly a bad thing?

Sexual purity is a fiction used to shame and oppress.

 

[F1fan]

There is a strange hatred of Gods love, of Gods Son that's perplexing.

How is God's love expressed?

I don't find it loving of an omnipotent God to set up a solution to damnation (that God allowed in the first place in its creation) by impregnating a woman to bear a son, and eventually have tha son executed as an atonemtent for the sins that God caused. God can magically impregnate a women but can't absolve sins magically?

Do you see any love in a new born baby, that at age three is diagnosed with Leukemia, and after almost two years of painful medical treatment dies despite the best efforts of doctors? What love is expressed by a God that creates cancerous genes in a fetus that will die at five years old?

Feel free to explain God's love that is hated, as you assert. What is the love, and who exactly hates it?

The separated, primal human ego is threatened by the thought of falling under the dominance of the religion of Jesus.

Or rather is is the political dominance of believers in a Christian dogma that doesn't resemble anything Jesus taught.

When I was a functional agnostic I was really annoyed by evangelicals. It was written "the hated him without a cause". IMOP

Evangelicals behave and believe as if they doubt Jesus ever lived.

 

[F1fan]

You know, I think it is a very interesting development. Traditionally, atheists have been live and let live -- they only wanted equal rights for themselves. But then you had the development of the New Athesism in the earlier part of this century. Many people became anti-theist due to the writings of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, known sometimes as the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

We can't ignore that the rise of New Atheism correlated to the rise of Christian extremism, and now Christian nationalism. I think atheism is not as emphasized these days since the greater response against Christian nationalism/MAGA is a broader political movement, including moderate and liberal Christians. It's not such a matter of religious ideas, but of their politics that crosses too many lines of a sound democracy.

 

[Madsaac]

Obviously not all Atheists claim this, most atheists dont really care about ones faith. However there are some atheists who claim Christianity is harmful as a religion. They tend to be more on the antitheist side.

My question is why? And how? How is christianity in any way form or shape harmful? Some say its because of the strict rules, but how is that bad? How are rules who lead to a better society bad?

And how is sexual purity exactly a bad thing? I dont see how Christianity can be harmful at all. So why do they claim it?

I think you believing this is a good start to why atheists believe Christianity to be harmful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because it's caused a lot of harm, and denying that means you either slept through, or played hooky during every single history class in school.

The only time Christianity was portrayed negatively, for me at least, was World History in a secular high school, where it was listed as a reason for Rome's decline and fall.
I only remember it because it came as a shock to hear and read that. It was so shocking because I was still Christian at the time, amd freshly put back in a secular school after a few years of a church lead amd guided education. And I was a good student there, so obviously no hookey or sleeping.

Any institution that weilds uncontested power over the masses has been proven to be harmful. That includes religious ones.

Assuming someone will be taight how Christianity has been destructive and draw the lines to this part of your post assumes a person recieved an education of a certain quality. This assumption is not always true.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We can't ignore that the rise of New Atheism correlated to the rise of Christian extremism, and now Christian nationalism. I think atheism is not as emphasized these days since the greater response against Christian nationalism/MAGA is a broader political movement, including moderate and liberal Christians. It's not such a matter of religious ideas, but of their politics that crosses too many lines of a sound democracy.

The New Atheism was actually a response to 9-11 and Islamic terrorism.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

The only time Christianity was portrayed negatively, for me at least, was World History in a secular high school, where it was listed as a reason for Rome's decline and fall.
I only remember it because it came as a shock to hear and read that. It was so shocking because I was still Christian at the time, amd freshly put back in a secular school after a few years of a church lead amd guided education. And I was a good student there, so obviously no hookey or sleeping.

Assuming someone will be taight how Christianity has been destructive and draw the lines to this part of your post assumes a person recieved an education of a certain quality. This assumption is not always true.

Well that's the problem with your school for not covering the damage they did to the Native Americans, the Indians, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. As I've said before all institutions with uncontested power have caused great harm. Religious ones, government ones, mental hospitals, terrorist groups.

Still, both of us can agree that this is common and easily accessible knowledge. History books and even the history channel can tell us about lots of time periods from the dinosaurs, to the stone age, to pirates, to dust bowls. And I say this as someone who never cared much about history. I look at humanity and see Different Era, Same Old Crap. I've always been much more into nature's history. Edited: And now I'm rambling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The New Atheism was actually a response to 9-11 and Islamic terrorism.

Sam Harris's contributions started as a response to 9-11. Sam Harris is not the be-all and end-all of New Atheism.

A lot of it was in response to Kitzmiller v. Dover and the rise of "Intelligent Design" as a threat to education.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

How bout this then? Humanity as a rough whole causes more harm then good.

 

[ppp]

Sam Harris's contributions started as a response to 9-12. San Harris is not the be-all and end-all of New Atheism.

A lot of it was in response to Kitzmiller v. Dover and the rise of "Intelligent Design" as a threat to education.

Yep. I had been an atheist for decades, but it wasn't till the ID incursions into my goddaughter's school that I became active about it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The only time Christianity was portrayed negatively, for me at least, was World History in a secular high school, where it was listed as a reason for Rome's decline and fall.

I'm just curious how that was supposed to have worked. I'm not saying yes or no, I just want to learn more about this theory. I realize that Christianity spread at the same time that Rome was diminishing, but correlation does not mean causation. I'm very curious what the reasoning/evidence is behind this theory. Thanks

The story that comes to my mind is about Pope Leo the Great. During the sack of Rome in 455 by the Vandals, Pope Leo I is credited with negotiating with the invaders to prevent further destruction and violence. Additionally, he worked to alleviate the suffering of the Roman population by distributing food and providing aid. He handled the inevitable legal disputes and dealt with criminals. That doesn't sound to me like bringing down Rome, but rather, keeping it propped up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just curious how that was supposed to have worked. I'm not saying yes or no, I just want to learn more about this theory. I realize that Christianity spread at the same time that Rome was diminishing, but correlation does not mean causation. I'm very curious what the reasoning/evidence is behind this theory. Thanks

The story that comes to my mind is about Pope Leo the Great. During the sack of Rome in 455 by the Vandals, Pope Leo I is credited with negotiating with the invaders to prevent further destruction and violence. Additionally, he worked to alleviate the suffering of the Roman population by distributing food and providing aid. He handled the inevitable legal disputes and dealt with criminals. That doesn't sound to me like bringing down Rome, but rather, keeping it propped up.

IIRC, Gibbon argued that the abandonment of Rome's polytheistic state religion came as a package deal with the abandonment of civic virtue. He also argued that Rome adopting the Christian Church led to a siphoning off of wealth to maintain the Church at the expense of the Empire.

I'm not sure how much I agree with either claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well that's the problem with your school for not covering the damage they did to the Native Americans, the Indians, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. As I've said before all institutions with uncontested power have caused great harm. Religious ones, government ones, mental hospitals, terrorist groups.

The problem is your assumption such things are taught from that perspective. I went to one of the top performing public schools in Indiana. Those things, if covered (Salem wasn't....to embarassing that the last witch trials in the West happened here to the outrage, chagrin and objections of England) tjry didn't portray is as a problem with Christianity.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

The problem is your assumption such things are taught from that perspective. I went to one of the top performing public schools in Indiana. Those things, if covered (Salem wasn't....to embarassing that the last witch trials in the West happened here to the outrage, chagrin and objections of England) tjry didn't portray is as a problem with Christianity.

Hence why I said that's a problem with your school for not teaching history.

 

[Audie]

I think you believing this is a good start to why atheists believe Christianity to be harmful.

It isn't a case of "believing". It's observing and
knowing.

The " why" is provided by the very people disingenuously
asking why of why dont ya love us.
And our God of jealousy, torture, wrath, and mass murder

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

@Shadow Wolf

I'm sorry, I think I understand where the disconnect is coming in from now. It's my fault I frustrated you, because I can be really slow on the uptake. No, none of my schools outright said that this group, or that group has caused harm. When we learn about nazi Germany, or the Egyptians enslaving the Hebrews, or the way that Christian pilgrims slaughtered and converted the Native Americans, then we can simply see how wrong and horrible it is for ourselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hence why I said that's a problem with your school for not teaching history.

Im not the only one. We simply cannot assume someone had a certain quality of education. I had an especially bad AP biology teacher, didn't last her second year, and she skipped over evolution because "it doesn't make sense and we all know god created everything."
But I had a very good, an excellent government teacher and it's clear most didn't have nearly as good of a teacher as I did. There is no assuming what he taught is commonly known because it's not. Stuff he taught us I see Americans here gettimg corrected by Canadians.
It's also well known American education is a mixed bag of results, with individual states amd school districts having various levels of control over school cirricula. And once we add the culture preferred treatment of Christianity there is just no way we can reasonably assume most Americans learned of the problems caused by Christian as a problem of Christianity. Of course the Pilgrims were Christian. What's not offered is the context showing us where Biblical influence allows, and even encourages, for such misanthropic opinions amd treatmemt of others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm just curious how that was supposed to have worked. I'm not saying yes or no, I just want to learn more about this theory. I realize that Christianity spread at the same time that Rome was diminishing, but correlation does not mean causation. I'm very curious what the reasoning/evidence is behind this theory. Thanks

In a nutshell, social panic and upheavels over such a change, especially with Constantine converting and causing turmoil throughout society (such as seen in Egypt when whatever Pharoah it was caused a nasty stir with his unpopular changes to their pantheon, or would soon be seen in Europe as Christianity replaced the Pagan religions).
Of course there were several other reasons (such as it's massive military being around the world making it spread too thin and too costly to maintain), and it was presented as a complex issue with many layers adding to the decline of Rome.