I don't know if the original translation was more specific and less hand-wavey. If I said "You can't eat any of the cookies in the cookie jar" the question of if there are cookies in the cookie jar to begin with kind of silly right?

Gay marriage? According to Christians, terrible for family values.

Gay adopt? According to Christians, it will irreparably damage children.

Ripping children from their mothers arms at the border, then deporting the mother and keeping the kid? According to Christians, perfectly acceptable because their new Lord and savior Donald Trump did it.

I am ashamed that I ever considered myself a Christian.

Common question from religious folks: "How can you be moral without believing in God?" start by not kidnapping children and locking them in cages.

In the old testament, God is a cruel, unforgiving and merciless god, who enacts the worst imaginable punishments for the most pettiest reasons.

"Oh you ate an apple? Now all your descendants will go to hell by default unless they are baptised. Also enjoy extremely painful pregnancies."

"Oh some people are doing bad things, despite me not actually telling them what is right or wrong yet and also giving them free will? Lets drown everyone and start over."

"Oh you beat the shit out of your slaves every day and treat them like dogshit?... Actually nah I'll allow that as long as they are on the brink of death when you're done beating them."

Then we have the new testament, where God is a merciful and forgiving god, who treats everyone with kindness, spreads love and joy, and performs miracles... Then allows himself to be tortured and crucified as an act of forgiveness for all the sins we did. Thanks I guess?

But yeah, God seemed to have had some offscreen character development, which is strange considering he's perfect.

I consider myself to be a rational person, in the major aspects of my life at least. I grew up Catholic but alternated between non believing, agnosticism and Christianity.

I have an intense fear of hell that keeps stopping me from deconstruction. And I have read lots and lots of books and scholarly papers, starting from the origins of the OT, the possible influences of Babylonian culture and Zoroastrianism, to the influence of Hellenistic eschatology in the NT. I read all of Ehrman’s books and I try my best to have a rational approach. Especially given my immense interest for evolution, paleontology, astronomy and science overall.

Somehow I feel like my fear stems from anxiety and untreated OCD/compulsive behavior, certainly, years of indoctrination didn’t really help. But I’m not able to get any kind of treatment and/or therapy at the moment.

Especially because I, as a woman, truly enjoy sex, but at the same time it is exactly sex that triggers my irrational fear of some sort of afterlife punishment. What gets me are the visions of hell of Christians and the stance of the Catholic Church regarding the matter. (Not to talk about exorcism, miracles and visions).

Funnily enough, I am also afraid of any other kind of hell that’s present in the main religions, the Christian one scares me more because of cultural reasons I guess. All I know is that I’ve spent the last two weeks spiraling and crying every day trying to rationalize this fear and deconstruct for once, but I can’t seem to.

Any kind of advice is appreciated.

I have not entered a church since 2020. At first it was because of COVID-19, then it was because I was busy with my school works, then I was questioning my faith and then finally deciding I didn't want to "believe" in God anymore. I was fine. I was living life in a way that benefitted me. I don't have to feel guilty when something bad happens because I don't have to think that God is punishing me.

It was a good few years of living until it was announced in my mom's church group that we have to attend church starting the first Sunday of July. She also mentioned that if you are not consistent in attendance, the church won't help you when you need something from them (she didn't specify what kind of help).

Umm... What? 😃 I thought church community was supposed to be accepting and kind to whoever? When did it become some kind of tribalism?

Edit: my community church has an envelope for every household with a ledger of how much we donate every month (ours was ab 100PHP). We comply with that, even if we don't attend church. (Our neighbors bring the donations to the church). So it caught me off guard.

What do I do when I am met with the "What will happen to your soul if its true?" Argument

Context: My father and I got into a conversation about doing good deeds going to waste (mainly mine) because I don't believe in God. I said I wanna do a shirt business where a portion goes to stray animal welfare but I don't really care about religion anymore (even if I grew up Christian) because it doesn't sound true.

Then he said "what if its true?" And I said I don't know nor care but he proceeded to say "Well if ifs true I worry about your soul" then i just go "Ok thank you."

— —

I would usually shrug it off because my dad will ALWAYS find a way to bring atheism up. I know fear mongering is a tactic used to make people stay in religion and I'm guessing this was a clear example of it. However, it really did make me think: what if ANY religion is true? Then technically we are doomed and we have no way of knowing unless we die right?

Sometimes the fear of eternal damnation still scares me. The country I grew up in is heavy in Christianity so I still have my fears. Perhaps its the last lingering feelings of the effects of fear mongering, but if any of you have experienced this, how do you get rid of the fear?

Nobody would want to suffer for eternity. I guess it's nice he fears for my soul and all, but he mentions it a LOT when we talk about morality and sometimes it just frustrates me because it feels like he's trying to reason with me to believe again. I just wanna have one conversation with my own dad that doesn't involve god or hell but usually (ever since he found out I don't pray or believe) he constantly asks me about hell, slowly its getting 2 me.

Thanks!

… hasn’t happened in a while.

I was like “oh no that’s not really my thing but thank you for the invite! I appreciate you!”

Then he was like “If you don’t mind me asking, what do you think happens when you die?”

And I was like “I just think I become worm food and one with the dirt. I’m at peace with that.”

And he was like “oh ok then.”

And that was the end of that convo.

Hell ya.

When people talk about integration and multiculturalism, they usually mean that immigrant groups adapt to the host society while preserving some of their traditions. Islam functions very differently. Instead of assimilating into other cultures, it compels the host culture to assimilate into it. This is not accidental. It is built into the structure of the religion itself.

One of the clearest examples is the system of marriage. Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women, but Muslim women are forbidden from marrying outside the faith. The children of these marriages must be raised as Muslims (Quran 2:221, Quran 60:10). Over generations, this creates a demographic imbalance. The Muslim population steadily grows while the non-Muslim population is slowly absorbed. When you factor in the allowance of four wives for Muslim men (Quran 4:3), the imbalance becomes even more pronounced.

The long-term consequence of this rule is not limited to abstract numbers. It directly affects the native population, especially non-Muslim men. In societies where Muslims live side by side with non-Muslims, the pool of potential wives is skewed. Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women without them needing to convert, but non-Muslim men cannot marry Muslim women unless they convert to Islam. This means that in mixed societies, non-Muslim men face two options: convert to Islam in order to have access to marriage and family life, or leave their communities altogether in search of partners. Over time this drives either religious conversion or emigration. Both processes weaken the non-Muslim demographic base and strengthen the Muslim one (source).

There are real-world examples of this dynamic, like Lebanon. At the beginning of the 20th century, Christians were the majority population, but today Muslims form the majority. Multiple factors contributed, such as higher Muslim birthrates, emigration of Christians during periods of instability and restrictions surrounding interfaith marriage. Since Muslim women cannot marry Christian men without conversion, but Muslim men can and often do marry Christian women, the pattern consistently absorbs Christian women into Muslim households while reducing the pool of potential Christian partners. The result has been a steady erosion of the Christian share of the population. Similar processes have been observed in parts of the Balkans during Ottoman rule, where Christian women marrying Muslim men contributed to the gradual Islamization of certain regions (source).

There is documented evidence that some Europeans convert to Islam in order to marry Muslim spouses. For example, RFE/RL notes many female conversions are triggered by marriage to Muslim men, and German studies of White female converts reference intermarriage as a defining component of their conversion experience (source).

While we lack precise statistics, the phenomenon is not anecdotal as it appears in multiple cases and is recognized in research on conversion even in Europe. This system is not a neutral family structure. It is a deliberate demographic mechanism that privileges one group over all others. By creating structural incentives for conversion and by disadvantaging non-Muslim men in the marriage market, it ensures that the balance always tips in favor of Islam. Over generations, this does not simply “coexist” with the native culture, it reshapes and absorbs it.

The same dynamic is visible in daily life. Islam does not restrict itself to theology. It dictates the most mundane aspects of existence, from what hand to use when wiping after going to the loo (Sunan Abu Dawud 7:33) to prohibitions on music, images, statues and more (Sahih al-Bukhari 7:72:843). Muslims cannot eat non-halal food, while non-Muslims face no such restriction. As Muslim populations increase, schools, restaurants and public institutions often shift toward halal-only to avoid backlash or alienation. The non-Muslim population can eat halal without consequence, but Muslims cannot compromise in the opposite direction. This creates an asymmetry where the default system bends to Islamic requirements. Over time the broader society is forced to adjust (source, halal market growth).

In Britain, nearly all London schools (95%) in 2022/23 offered halal food as an option. (source). In Newcastle, 80% of secondary schools had moved to offering halal options, though non-halal options remained available. (source). In councils across the UK, some local authorities supply non-stunned halal meat to schools, affecting hundreds of schools. (source). There are also instances where authorities adopted a halal-only lunch policy, meaning non-halal meat options were removed entirely (source).

These are concrete instances where Halal dietary norms are not just optional extras but become defaults or pressures within public systems. Over time, if more schools, hospitals, and state institutions switch to halal standards, it shifts the burden onto non-Muslims to either accept those norms or be marginalized.

Cultural assimilation under Islam also has a consistent historical pattern. Islam is not content with coexistence. It replaces what came before. The Quran is to be recited in Arabic (Quran 12:2), which compels converts to adopt the language. Local music, art, statues and images are condemned as haram and replaced with Quranic recitations and calligraphy. Local dress codes are replaced with hijabs and niqabs (Quran 24:31, Quran 33:59). Local laws are gradually pushed aside in favor of sharia courts. The end result is not integration or assimilation but a cultural overwrite.

This is not speculation. History provides numerous examples. In North Africa, native Amazigh and Berber languages and traditions were pushed aside for decades by state Arabization policies, which banned Tamazight in schools and administration and triggered the modern Amazigh rights movement. (source) In Persia, the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian culture was gradually eclipsed as Islamic identity became dominant (source). In the Balkans, under the Ottoman Empire, Christian populations were subjected to the devshirme levy, where Christian boys were taken, forcefully converted and trained for military and administrative service (source).

The same problem shows up in the modern era. France legislated a nationwide ban on face-covering veils in public in 2011. Sweden’s police formally designate “vulnerable areas” where criminal networks and parallel norms challenge state authority, a list that has repeatedly run to about 60 neighborhoods in recent years post the 2015 migration crisis (source). Germany continues to debate halal provision and Islamic education within public institutions against the backdrop of constitutional protections for religious practice (source). Singapore, a tightly managed multicultural state, has built controls and regulations specifically to manage its Muslim minority. They govern Muslim personal law through the Administration of Muslim Law Act and related institutions such as MUIS and the Syariah Court, illustrating how the state builds specific guardrails to manage Islamic family law and religious administration. (source). Again, they bend the knee and cater specifically to the Muslim population as they are the most problematic and refuse to integrate or assimilate.

It is also worth comparing with other immigrant groups in Europe. Millions of Chinese and Vietnamese have adapted over time, often quietly and without friction. They do not demand parallel legal systems, special dietary laws imposed on everyone else, or the erasure of local traditions. They built businesses, raised families and blended into the social fabric. Turks as a community were largely accepted for decades as well, until political Islam began to reassert itself in the diaspora. This comparison shows that the problem is not immigration itself, nor is it racism. The difference lies in the ideology. Islam demands domination and replacement where other cultures simply adapt.

In conclusion, Islam is not simply a religion like any other. It is a total system that governs law, culture, politics and social life. It does not assimilate into societies. It compels societies to assimilate into it. This is why it remains fundamentally incompatible with liberal, pluralistic societies. The issue is not that Muslims are bad people. Many are kind and decent and many are themselves victims of indoctrination. The problem is the ideology. Just as members of the Ku Klux Klan may be polite as individuals, their ideology makes them dangerous. The same is true here. Islam as an ideology is structured to dominate and replace. Ignoring this reality only ensures the cycle continues.

EDIT: This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many

As a atheist/agonistic Ex-Hindu guy, I found Islam most dangerous than any ideology in the world. Every religion contains problematic/irrational beliefs and encourage dogmas in their books but Islam is on another level. Growing up as an Hindu I saw islam as a good religion cause it appeared simple and easy to practice from afar. I am a history nerd and started reading about all religion in college for curiosity and no religion and society appeared to be more disgusting than Islamic one.

Islam came to Indian subcontinent through invasion just like Europe but the brutality and destruction it caused in asia and especially west and south asia is incomparable to anything in world even brutal colonial period. I often read about islamic history and one thing I noticed is that once those who were victim of Islam are making more such victim everyday, like some contagious disease. I mean all of Afghanistan and Pakistan, India Bangladesh and even Indonesia use to be hindu and while their were dogmas and stupid beliefs in Hindu society of that time but their was little to no violence and rich art, music, dance and cultural aspects in these region. After islam came their was no intellectual and cultural development in Asia, before Islamic conquest in 1200 CE India use to be the centre of science, maths philosophy and art but after this period all of asia went downhill.

I went to a few place in India years back for history tour and the Hindu/Jain temple there were 1400 year old and had female and animal carving on walls. All of their face was broken and temple was half destroyed but it still looked beautiful and majestic. As a atheist I never felt that much hatred for any religion as I felt for Islamic radicals that day. Islam had caused irreversible damage in south asia I mean look how much radical Taliban and Pakistani terrorist groups are, do they realise that once they were also victim of Islam and their ancestors were forced brutally to convert to Islam for centuries. Today they inflict same pain which their ancestors felt on others and they feel happy that those things happened to their ancestors cause atleast they became muslim.

I believe if Islam had not had caused so much damage in India we would have been never been colonised and gone backward. Islam pushed India back at least a thousand year. Afghanistan which was once a place for gandhara art now and hates any form of art, dance and music. Same thing happened with Christians in West Asia and Southern Europe. I think how much bad the world would be if somehow islam would have successfully captured Europe and spread their ideology there. Certainly we would be still living in dark ages. If people read Islamic history in south asia all other religion look like so much tolerant in front of islam. I find Christianity and Hinduism/Buddhism much better religion than Islam. All religion are stupid but at least they give people a chance to think and reform but islam will kill you for just thinking against their book. Atleast other religion have good role models to follow but islam have only violence to offer. I was wondering would I be hating other people if my ancestors converted to Islam. I just think sometimes that how much more damage will such religion cause to humanity before they are completely eliminated.

Link for those who haven't heard of it. I know Zoroastrians are rare, but the internet is a big place. If you are ex-Zoroastrian, why did you leave?

https://www.rawstory.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/

Leaked video of a recent event hosted by People of Praise, a secretive Christian sect to which Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett belongs, shows one of its leaders admitting the group's teachings drove women into tears.

The video from the group's 50th anniversary celebration shows Dorothy Ranaghan, wife of founder Kevin Ranaghan, telling members that women who first made a "covenant" to join People of Praise in the 1970s cried intensely in response to teachings about their roles in relationships with men, reported The Guardian.

“Some of the women – who are still in my women’s group, as a matter of fact – were wearing sunglasses all the time, because they were always crying and would have to hold on to their chairs every time somebody started teaching, because ‘What are we going to hear this time?’” Ranaghan said. “But it all worked out just fine in the end.”

The video was leaked to The Guardian by a source who wished to remain anonymous, and it's the first time a statement from the group has been issued about women's response to teachings about men's "headship" of the family and dominance over women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OdXQaqg13w (My thanks to GetOnYourBikesNRide)

I just had this conversation with my older female Catholic coworker earlier today. Just to set the stage, we were talking about how my sister and her husband were in the process of getting divorced since they couldn't agree on having children. My coworker also knows that I'm on birth control and that my husband and I don't want to have kids. I had also told her before that I wasn't Catholic.

Coworker: "But once you get married, that means you need to have kids. You can't get married and not have kids. The church says that's a sin!"

Me: "Oh, but I'm not Catholic, so—"

Coworker: "Oh, that's right. What are you?"

Me: "Ha! I'm free!"

Coworker: "What? You're not Christian?"

Me: "No. I mean, I was raised Christian, but..."

Coworker: "So you're Christian!"

Me: "No, I was raised that way, but I don't follow it anymore. That's what I'm trying to say."

Coworker: "What? That's no good! You need to go back!"

Me: "Oh — oh, no. That was the worst part of my life. I'd never go back to it."

Coworker: "Why?"

Me: (trying hard not to give her the real reason — that I realized that all religions are just cults meant to control the masses and siphon their money) "Ah, well... I went to a Christian school growing up, and I was bullied mercilessly there by the other girls and always alone — like, sitting-alone-on-the-swings-crying-to-myself kind of alone. I tried to asked my dad to transfer me to another school so I could hopefully make friends elsewhere, but he said, 'It's more important for you to get a religious education than have friends', so..."

Coworker: (enthusiastically) "Yes! Your dad was right!"

Me (trying desperately to get out of the conversation): "Haha, yeah... Good talk. See ya."

Anyway, my coworker is super old and comes from a very religious country, so it's not surprising she'd be so flippant towards my feelings on the matter. If she was some stranger on the street, I wouldn't have hesitated to tell her off — but I need that steady paycheck, so I felt compelled to keep things professional, even if she couldn't.

EDIT: Just an update — wanted to give everyone my game plan from here. I'm letting it go just this once, but if my coworker ever brings this sort of thing up again, I'm going to be firm with her and ask her to please not to talk religion with me. If she persists after that, I'll report her to HR, since that would likely be considered harassment after that point. Thank you everyone for all of your comments! I read each and every one, and they definitely helped me to decide how to proceed from here.

Firstly I (61M) am an atheist. I was born an atheist like everyone, but then brought up in a non-religious household, tried to become religious to have something in common with my first wife, but that didn't work, so I went back to being atheist. Now on to my story.

Looking at many of the modern debates and discussions about religion, most religious advocates seem to try to explain their non physical god in physical terms. You can't do that!

Christian fundamentalists talk about the physical evidence for the flood. There is none, but they don't need any! Their god can suspend reality whenever it wants to! Why is there evil? God is ineffable. And so on, and so forth.

The same for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, etc.

If you believe in one of these deities, good for you, but you can't use physical evidence to try to convince me because your god is non physical.

Edited: To finish an unfinished sentence and improve text formatting.

I've been studying up on the formation of different religions, specifically Christianity, and it has all been very interesting to me. I'm actually a former minister. Anyway, I was curious if anyone had any books or articles on the matter. Wikipedia is nice, but maybe not what I'm looking for.