Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Thanks.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Not to mention the constant onslaught of the barbarians.

Thanks for replying. It's the first time I've heard of this idea.

 

[Kfox]

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?

When I was Christian, I was taught I was born in Sin and shaped in iniquity; I thought I was born a bad person in need of getting saved. This was okay when I was young, I just learned to hate myself. But when I began going through puberty, my natural sex drive caused my body to react every time I saw an attractive girl and I was convinced this was the devil causing my body to do this. No matter how hard I prayed, I could never fix it, I was too ashamed to tell anybody about it for fear of condemnation so I kept this to myself. I remembered a quote in the bible that said if your eye offend thee cut it out because it is better to go to heaven blind than to spend eternity in hell with both eyes. I remember wanting to blind myself but I didn't have the nerve to do it so (thank goodness) I didn't harm myself but I felt bad about being too afraid to do this. I remember admiring my dog because I believed when my dog dies, nothing happens; but when I die, I knew I was going to hell. I think the version of Christianity I was taught as a child was harmful to me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

This is about a study of youth and religion in USA so it's representative of Christianity (about 70% of the youths).

The study shows there is a positive relationship between religion and constructive youth activities. In addition, those who participate in religious activities seem to be less likely to participate in many delinquent and risk behaviors. Furthermore, they are significantly more likely to:

• have positive attitudes toward themselves
• enjoy life as much as anyone
• feel like their lives are useful
• feel hopeful about their futures
• feel satisfied with their lives
• feel like they have something of which to be proud
• feel good to be alive
• feel like life is meaningful
• enjoy being in school

Reports // Youth and Religion // University of Notre Dame

The National Study of Youth and Religion is a research project directed by Christian Smith, Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame and Lisa Pearce, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This project, generously...

youthandreligion.nd.edu

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is about a study of youth and religion in USA so it's representative of Christianity (about 70% of the youths).

The study shows there is a positive relationship between religion and constructive youth activities. In addition, those who participate in religious activities seem to be less likely to participate in many delinquent and risk behaviors. Furthermore, they are significantly more likely to:

• have positive attitudes toward themselves
• enjoy life as much as anyone
• feel like their lives are useful
• feel hopeful about their futures
• feel satisfied with their lives
• feel like they have something of which to be proud
• feel good to be alive
• feel like life is meaningful
• enjoy being in school

Reports // Youth and Religion // University of Notre Dame

The National Study of Youth and Religion is a research project directed by Christian Smith, Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame and Lisa Pearce, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This project, generously...

youthandreligion.nd.edu

I only looked at one of those reports and it waa written more than 20 years ago and used data that's almost 30 years old. Are all of them this out of date?

 

[Augustus]

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.

The Roman Empire lasted until the 15th c, and the Eastern bit was, if anything, more Christian. This kind of ruins the theory completely.

The theory was created by Gibbon who hated Christianity and had a Eurocentric bias typical of the age. A lot of terrible historiography (particularly religious history) has its roots in the 18th and 19th c.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I only looked at one of those reports and it waa written more than 20 years ago and used data that's almost 30 years old. Are all of them this out of date?

A meta-analysis of 62 relevant studies over four decades shows the same:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016815605151

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Roman Empire lasted until the 15th c, and the Eastern bit was, if anything, more Christian. This kind of ruins the theory completely.

The theory was created by Gibbon who hated Christianity and had a Eurocentric bias typical of the age. A lot of terrible historiography (particularly religious history) has its roots in the 18th and 19th c.

I realize that scholars have many different opinions on this, but I am of the persuasion that the Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire (not to mention other Rome wannabes like Russia) are different enough from Ancient Rome, that I really do not consider them continuations of the Roman Empire. You really can't have a Roman Empire if you don't have Rome. If you disagree, I'm fine with that.

 

[Augustus]

I realize that scholars have many different opinions on this, but I am of the persuasion that the Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire (not to mention other Rome wannabes like Russia) are different enough from Ancient Rome, that I really do not consider them continuations of the Roman Empire. You really can't have a Roman Empire if you don't have Rome. If you disagree, I'm fine with that.

The HRE was very different.

The BE was just the Roman Empire, centred in the capital established by the Roman Emperor Constantine, comprising many core parts of the Roman Empire. No one living at that time would have seen it as anything other than the Roman Empire.

This is what it looked like under Justinian

Anyway, regardless of what later historians came to call it, the problem it poses for the idea that Christianity caused the end of the Roman Empire is that the Eastern half, whatever you want to call it, went from strength to strength and only the Western part was made effeminate and weak or whatever mechanism was supposed to be at play (even though many of those who overthrew rule in the West were themselves Christians).

It's a view steeped in prejudice (particularly anti-Catholic), Western European chauvinism and poor history given there are numerous far more plausible and direct reasons. I'm not saying that you hold these views, but that is what drove the popularisation of such ideas.

Western-Eurocentric views of history are very common, and I think we are better off without them and can understand the world better without them.

For example unless we see Rome as specifically a "European" Empire rather than the North-Eastern Mediterranean one it really is, the Roman/Byzantine distinction makes less sense and seeing the Graeco-Roman world as specifically the foundation of Western civilisation makes far less sense also. It is basically Germanics appropriating classical culture to cover up their parvenu roots (and often to bolster racist theories as if white folk are indeed genetically superior, they had to have been superior in the past too rather than simply "barbarians").