Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[Sgt. Pepper]

I won’t argue with your own experience or perspective. But I personally know real Christians who love Jesus and put Him first, while caring for and loving others, believers and non-believers. On the other hand, I have also personally known those who claim to be Christians, they can quote the scriptures inside and out, and appear to live such a “godly” life impressing everyone, teaching Sunday school, Bible studies…but it’s not authentic. Some have been domestic abusers, some use the scriptures to manipulate and control their families, one man we knew turned out to be immersed in child porn. In all of these situations the person gave the outward appearance of being a Christian, but they were certainly not putting Jesus first or honoring Him. Instead, they were exalted themselves over Christ and others while indulging in…

…the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life —is not of the Father but is of the world. 1 John 2:16

In other words, Christians aren't any more moral than anyone else. They can be decent, morally upright people if they choose to be, or they can lie, steal, cheat, cuss, get drunk, take drugs, commit adultery, divorce, remarry, lust, and be promiscuous before marriage, just like non-Christians. There are many Christians who have committed crimes, even heinous crimes such as murder. In my experience, the vast majority of the Christians I know are hypocritical because they pompously judge other people's moral flaws while purposely ignoring their own. Like I said, I don't believe in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

More the attitude that all men want is sex. While it's important it's not a main driver.

It is the main driver for all men I have met on dating sites, and I have met a lot of men.

Physical intimacy is necessary for a man to fall in love though.

I would hope that first the man or woman would fall in love and then the physical intimacy would take place.
That's just me. I guess I am a little old-fashioned.

 

[The Hammer]

I would hope that first the man or woman would fall in love and then the physical intimacy would take place.

This doesn't reflect reality (or biology). Male or female. Past or present, unfortunately.

Edit: For men, sexual connection is often necessary to feel safe enough for emotional vulnerability.

Sex is the way he gives love.


Sexual release makes men feel like they are finally home. After the world’s hurts and challenges, sex embodies love and care and provides soothing and support. While he may be accused of “only wanting sex,” most men want and feel a much more emotional connection than a simple bodily release. Making love literally creates a deep feeling of attachment to his partner and spurs relational generosity, faith, and optimism. Being desired by his partner can be the single most reassuring part of his relationship.

6 Truths About Men and Sex

While women’s desire for sex may be prompted by their mind, memory, or emotional feelings of connection, for men, desire is physical.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Heyo]

What U.S. secular institution threatens you with torture?

The CIA and by extension all of US legislature. The US has, what is seen as torture by the UN and most of the rest of the world, redefined as "enhanced interrogation".

 

[Eddi]

What are you talking about? Priests are not wealthy.

The institution is, the corporation

The Vatican is wealthy

I've been to some very beautiful and well-furnished churches

A quick look on Google showed me they have quite a few billions in the bank although I got loads of differing results

Either way, they're not exactly short in the money department

But why focus on its wealth?

I don't think it's particularly bad that it's wealthy, that's not really a fault

And if has plenty of those

But I don't really care, it's got nothing to do with me and there are far worse things to be concerned about

But if someone goes on the internet and starts talking about how ace it is I will always argue that it isn't

The problem with me is that I don't like it when people are wrong on the internet

 

[InChrist]

In other words, Christians aren't any more moral than anyone else. They can be decent, morally upright people if they choose to be, or they can lie, steal, cheat, cuss, get drunk, take drugs, commit adultery, divorce, remarry, lust, and be promiscuous before marriage, just like non-Christians. There are many Christians who have committed crimes, even heinous crimes such as murder. In my experience, the vast majority of the Christians I know are hypocritical because they pompously judge other people's moral flaws while purposely ignoring their own. Like I said, I don't believe in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, in other words, some who claim to be Christians, are not and never belonged to Jesus…

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.
Matthew 7:22-23

 

[Orbit]

The CIA and by extension all of US legislature. The US has, what is seen as torture by the UN and most of the rest of the world, redefined as "enhanced interrogation".

I was thinking about the "classic" institutions of society: education, government, media, family, law, etc. I wasn't thinking of individual organizations like the CIA. But yes, U.S. foreign policy is generally evil at that level.

 

[Orbit]

No, in other words, some who claim to be Christians, are not and never belonged to Jesus…

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.
Matthew 7:22-23

This is a common but ridiculous slander of ex-Christians.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is a common but ridiculous slander of ex-Christians.

I agree, and here is why.

According to Romans 10:8–13, whoever declares with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. Not only that, but they are justified by the belief in their heart and the profession of their faith in Jesus, and they will not be put to shame. In fact, verse 13 plainly states, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Furthermore, Ephesians 2:8–9 states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." However, there is an apparent loophole in this seemingly hopeful promise, such as the implication that a person could lose their salvation and be eternally damned if they don't follow God's will.

I'm speaking of Matthew 7:21, which states, "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven," and the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31–46). In this parable, the "sheep" were rewarded with eternal life for their good works of feeding the hungry, giving water to people who are thirsty, inviting in a stranger, clothing the needy, and visiting the sick or people in prison. However, Jesus lambasted the "goats" for failing to feed the hungry, quench the thirst of the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the needy, or pay visits to the ill or those in prison. Jesus cursed them and sent them to eternal damnation. As implied, the "goats" lacked the good works to be rewarded with eternal life, in spite of the fact that they were Christians who accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Herein lies another inconsistent message in the Bible, in my opinion, as Romans 10:8–13 states that a person will be saved if they declare with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Ephesians 2:8–9 also states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." In my opinion, if someone gives you something as a gift but arbitrarily takes the gift away because you don't follow their rules, then it isn't a gift. I don't consider something a gift if the one who gave it to me could ruthlessly take it away if I don't obey them.

 

[Heyo]

I don't believe that sexual purity is bad either, but I don't think hat is the reason atheists consider Christianity harmful.
I think more of it is about Christians threatening people with hell if they don't believe Jesus died for our since, stuff like that.

Threats of hell are empty in an atheists mind. It's the real threats to peoples lives and freedoms that worry us.
And "sexual purity" is a threat to world health.

 

[Trailblazer]

And "sexual purity" is a threat to world health.

How is sexual purity a threat to world health?
Imo, sexual promiscuity is a threat to world health.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yet the KKK is a Christian organization. The Nazis that committed the Holocaust were Catholic and Lutheran. I suspect you don't have a complete understanding of Christianity.

Ignorance and prejudice are everywhere mate; and it’s always easier to point it out in others, than to admit to it in ourselves.

 

[Heyo]

My point is, atheism gives people no hope.

That has never been the objective of atheism. Atheism is just a single position, I don't believe in any gods.
Hope comes from the world view that is independent of atheism.

 

[Heyo]

How is sexual purity a threat to world health?
Imo, sexual promiscuity is a threat to world health.

The RCC condemns the use of condoms, full well knowing that people are not celibate. This has helped the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa.
The RCC condemns abortions which has helped the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the US. (Iirc the majority of Justices is Catholic.) I.e. the RCC is using their political influence to lessen the standards of women's healthcare.

 

[ChristineM]

My question is why?

I have been harmed 5 times by Christians,each time i can include the teachings of the bible as the root cause.

 

[danieldemol]

How is sexual purity a threat to world health?

As defined by the OP sexual purity means not having sex without making babies. Such radical overproduction of people has lead to all sorts of problems for the health of our planet in my view.

 

[rocala]

The crusades were a reaction to islamic expansion and persecution of pilgrims in those areas, so yes, they were good and ABSOLUTELY justified,

Really? How many Muslims were around the area of that nasty Catholic genocide called the Albigensian Crusade, 1209-1220.

 

[Altfish]

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?

Christianity becomes harmful when it moves into politics, starts promoting one party ahead of another.
Then it starts weaponising anti-abortion, anti-women policies.. Opposing euthanasia.
If it remains as a religion, not telling its followers how to think/vote, it is harmless but too many branches of Christianity are incapable of doing that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The crusades were a reaction to islamic expansion and persecution of pilgrims in those areas, so yes, they were good and ABSOLUTELY justified, a

And the fourth crusade? Which ended with the sack of Constantinople, the heart of Christianity in the east?

And the genodide of the Jews, as the Crusaders left for war?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It kind of depends on which flavor of christianity we are talking about. But yeah, I say that when it comes to specific flavours.
I will answer your questions in context of those specific flavours

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

Because it's a gigantic guilt trip. Through concepts like "original sin", you tell children that they are "guilty" of the "crime" of being a human.
Like The Hitch once said: "created sick and commanded to be well".

The concept of hell is also very traumatic. It's fear based tactics. Psychologically, that is very harmful.

It's also snake-oil / con-man tactics. First you assert they are "ill" and then you conveniently off the "only" cure.

I could also go on and talk about things like how in Africa AIDS became rampant as a direct result of the pope calling condoms "tools from the devil", about how in Nigeria people are burning women alive because they believe them to be "witches" on biblical grounds, etc.

Some say its because of the strict rules, but how is that bad? How are rules who lead to a better society bad?

Does it actually lead to a better society? It's not at all clear to me that it does.
If it actually did, then why did we move into secular democracies? Why don't we still live in christian theocracies? Why is life in secular democracy demonstrable better then life in christian theocracies?

And how is sexual purity exactly a bad thing?

"Sexual purity" as defined by the religion, off course.
Calling people "evil" merely for their sexual orientation (homophobia) for example, isn't exactly a good thing.
Calling people "evil" / "sinners" because they are in a loving monogamous relationship while not being married is also not a good thing.

Christianity, like most religions, pretends to have a monopoly on morality but the fact is that what it defines as "good" isn't necessarily what is also "good" in a reasoned morality.

I had a discussion with a muslim the other day who claimed that if "everybody" in the country were muslims, life would be better here.
I questioned that statement and, unsurprisingly, when he said "better" he was talking in terms of what islam considers "better". Not in terms of what is objectively better. "objectively" as in higher life expectancy, overall happiness levels, levels of individual freedoms, low infant mortality rates, high levels of literacy, human rights, etc etc.... Instead, he was talking about what he beliefs was "good" in context of what islam considers "good". Which is likely also different from what christianity considers "good" or what buddhism considers "good" or what scientology considers "good".

I dont see how Christianity can be harmful at all. So why do they claim it?

Well, I gave you a few points above in how I think it is, or can be, harmful.
Did those make sense to you?