governments and religions

This is a response to your last comment with the intentions of resetting the comment count.

I hate to argue the English language with you. An agnostic atheist says that he believes that God doesn't exist. A straight up atheists claims that God doesn't exist. I get your belief, it makes sense, you can say that's not what atheism means, I can say it is, just agree to disagree, done. That's not important. What's important is that you're an agnostic atheist.

Heh. Of course not. I was making sure that that can't be a front you can flee to if my argument works out. Your claim is that faith shields any and all immoral things, which, in and of itself, is immoral. This is not the case. I believe in Jesus Christ, not in the idea that the world is flat. Just because people thought that the Bible said that the universe revolves around the Earth doesn't mean the Bible did say that.

Ethics are the result evolution and philosophy, eh? Well, I am not learned on how evolution makes an action right–would you care to enlighten me? I mean, I get that over time, people supposedly would start thinking morally because it helps them care, but how does that make something moral, is it some predetermined code?
Yes, you are correct, ethics did come before belief at all, they came from God. Your statement is just a statement a claim at this point.

Oh, I know it wasn't a rebuttal, it was simply a statement. You can't see any real evidence, so you don't believe it. You claimed there is none. I claimed there is. Comes from logic, history, whatever. No assertions, (ancient texts are evidence of what happened in the past), or personal feelings involved!

My defense was fine, you just missed an important aspect of it. I don't admit that Christianity aligns with immoral things, I admit that "Christian" rulers align with immoral things. I say that your claim only applies to a specific Christianity, and not the one that I believe in, then I assert that your worldview has the problem. I hope that clarifies my meaning.

Huh. I wonder where the government part slipped away from our debate...

God doesn't need you, you need God. He does not need a person t worship him to exist. He's all-powerful.
If there is a God, he doesn't need you, he wants you.

I never once said anything about your invisible, all powerful, make believe sky daddy...
Please learn some reading compression skills
Also; go preach to some other gullible morons, they're everywhere.
I'm going to go ride my purple unicorn now; leave me be!....(btw; I named her Violet)

Oh look! she just ferted! Get you some unicorn love RtR-r🤣!

Wow that's a statement. I understand that you don't think that religion and God don't correlate. They do. If I didn't believe in God, I'd not be considered religious. When you bring up theology/religion, you bring up God. So despite the fact you think God is irrelevant in this conversation, He is very relevant.

Clearly you don't think there is a God. No need to slap my butt about it. If the prompt says to change your mind, what do you think I'm here to do? (Surely not change your mind?)

Also, this is kind of a side note, but yeah, I agree with you that governments need people in a sense. However, if you have a large group of unified people, you have a government. Government is more of a given when there are people than it is a people's need.

You are obviously not very intelligent. Your reply's make no sense.

You're the one who came talking shit to me; about some imaginary sky daddy, not the other way around... Therefore there is a need to slap your ass about it.

People can exist perfectly fine without governments or religions. Neither governments nor religions can exist without people throwing money and support at them.

Dude, you believe in imaginary beings, that's a non starter in and of itself. We have nothing to talk about. There's nothing either of us can say to ea other to change the others mind. However, you are the one who claims an all powerful, imaginary being; the burden of proof lies with you.

Hitchen's Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Uh, hello, I'm applying the Christian point to the matter. Outside of God, I totally agree with you.

People don't have to believe in God if they don't want to, such as you. A society doesn't need a religion to survive. That's obviously true.

As for government, I don't think you're 100% correct there. Yeah, you could theoretically have no government for your people (though that is technically anarchy), but then you'd have no unification, nothing to stop you from dying, from getting murdered, from getting conquered by another government.
Sure, you don't "need" a government, but it's certainly not a bad thing.

You think you can shut me down by dissing my belief? You should know that that will only get a person started.

I don't have evidence? You have no idea how much evidence I have. Miracles, fine tuning (teleological argument), deductive reasoning (kalam cosmological argument), historical proofs, etc.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” -C.S. Lewis

Educate yourself in something besides superstition there "brother", then maybe we can have an adult conversation.

You're an atheist to all the other 1000+ gods besides yours...

Your meme makes no sense. I'm not struggling with shit; the worlds beginning ISN'T/WASN'T an impossibility; otherwise we wouldn't even be here. It required no god or gods.

We now know that there are at least 2 trillion galaxies, with hundreds of billions of stars each, countless fkn planets and yet you think that you and your sky daddy are somehow special?

https://youtu.be/_BFIRgn9OLI?si=NSMcKqKE_RBmP209
https://youtu.be/DoIe2PYivKQ?si=TRDw0dnzkZd88awj
https://youtube.com/shorts/EYWoDiUH6BU?si=jAftESprwGlcaieq
https://youtu.be/TAp_S1V-wuc?si=JTbcMUX_mC5DpCtP
https://youtu.be/yOVSfNyiZoA?si=WKfjmfE99949NUJZ
https://youtu.be/iQMOMy1lTEE?si=PJynGH6cM6AjWMfb

Ever heard of the celestial teapot analogy?

Is that what you think an atheist is? You are no atheist. The definition of atheist means that you don't believe in God or gods. It does not mean you are skeptical towards God or gods. That's what an agnostic is for.

I was giving you compelling evidence what, do you just ignore it?

There are more than 2 trillion galaxies, and yet the chances that even one of them could host intelligent life are so low that it's impossible that even this earth exists.

Do you believe that a God or gods exist or not? in that meme you sent you say that there is no point believing in a God or gods, yet you claim that that is not your belief, you claim that there could be other gods out there.

You should stop bro. The more you type, the more you show your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.

"Ever heard of the celestial teapot analogy?"

Yes — very much so.
The “celestial teapot” (often called Russell’s Teapot) is a famous philosophical analogy created by Bertrand Russell. You moron, it totally supports my position that your god is just as make believe as any of the other 1,000+ gods that have been discarded like old rags throughout millennia.

"Do you believe that a God or gods exist or not?" Short answer:

No

"Do you believe that a God or gods exist or not? in that meme you sent you say that there is no point believing in a God or gods, yet you claim that that is not your belief, you claim that there could be other gods out there.

I'm saying anything is possible in an infinite, or near infinite quantum, Kosmos; but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... You have not met this burden.

"There are more than 2 trillion galaxies, and yet the chances that even one of them could host intelligent life are so low that it's impossible that even this earth exists."

That statement is pure christian arrogance and ignorance

You're the one who jumped me out of the blue and said that I need god... I'm saying show me evidence of your gods existence; or gfy. It's really that simple...

As far as the meme:
I'm not going to bother re-typing it, you didn't read it once and comprehend it; there's no reason to think reading it here would be any different.

You haven't posted compelling anything. Only made up nonsense.

I'm done with you troll...

If you're unwilling to even consider the possibility of something else, suit yourself. Call me an idiot and walk away, no need to understand what other people with other ideas have.

Just know that you cannot be an atheist unless it is a 100% guarantee that He doesn't exist, because by saying that you claim that you know everything, essentially making you God. This is also why the teacup analogy works in my favor.

Dude, you're a moron. Educate yourself, nobody or no god or jebus can do it for you...

I am an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist. Those three positions are not contradictory — they address different questions.
Agnosticism is about knowledge: I do not claim absolute certainty about the ultimate nature of reality.
Atheism is about belief: I do not believe in gods, because no credible evidence has been presented that justifies such belief.
Anti-theism is about consequences: I oppose organized religion because of the demonstrable harm it has caused — historically and in the present.
This is not an emotional position. It is an evidence-based one.
________________________________________
On Belief Without Evidence
As Bertrand Russell put it, belief should be proportional to the evidence.
If you claim an invisible, all-powerful being exists — one that intervenes in reality, judges human behavior, answers prayers, and suspends natural law — then the burden of proof is entirely on you. Not on me to disprove it.
Saying “you can’t disprove my god” is not an argument.
You also can’t disprove invisible dragons, cosmic teapots, or undetectable fairies. That doesn’t make them reasonable beliefs.
I reject gods for the same reason I reject astrology, alchemy, and mythological creatures: there is no reliable evidence they exist.
________________________________________
On Why I Don’t “Respect” the Belief Itself
I respect your right to believe. I do not respect the belief automatically.
Richard Dawkins said it cleanly:
“Religious faith is belief without evidence — and sometimes in defiance of evidence.”
Faith is not a virtue in itself.
It is simply the act of being convinced without sufficient reason.
And when that kind of conviction is tied to morality, law, politics, medicine, education, and violence — it stops being “personal” and becomes everyone’s problem.
________________________________________
On the Historical Record
This is not about a few bad believers. This is about systems of power built on unfalsifiable claims.
Across centuries, organized religion has:
• Enforced mass censorship of information
• Criminalized scientific investigation
• Punished heresy as a political weapon
• Justified slavery, conquest, and genocide
• Suppressed women as a theological doctrine
• Delayed medicine, astronomy, biology, and psychology by centuries
Even when religion wasn’t pulling the trigger directly, it was providing the moral permission structure.

...tbc

As Hitchens said:
“Religion poisons everything.”
Not because every believer is cruel —
but because belief without evidence + absolute certainty + divine authority is one of the most dangerous combinations the human mind can produce.
________________________________________
On Meaning Without God
Camus showed that the universe does not need to provide meaning for meaning to exist.
Spinoza showed that nature does not require a supernatural dictator to be worthy of awe.
Russell showed that ethics do not require divine surveillance.
Dawkins showed that complexity arises from natural processes, not magic.
I do not reject meaning.
I reject the idea that meaning must come from something unproven, authoritarian, and ancient.
My values come from:
• Human well-being
• Evidence
• Reason
• Consent
• Reducing suffering
• Expanding knowledge
Not from fear of punishment by an invisible authority.
________________________________________
On Why I Oppose Religious Imposition
You are free to worship.
You are not free to impose that worship on me, my body, my education, my medicine, my science, or my future.
When religious belief tries to write laws, restrict rights, control knowledge, or override evidence, it stops being faith and becomes coercion.
And coercion justified by supernatural authority is one of the oldest and bloodiest tools in human history.
________________________________________
My Position, Precisely Summarized
• I do not claim certainty about ultimate metaphysical truth → agnostic
• I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence → atheist
• I oppose organized religion because of its demonstrable harm → anti-theist
This is not rebellion.
This is not hatred.
This is not nihilism.
It is intellectual self-defense.

There's a difference between an agnostic atheist and an atheist. You just said that you were atheist, not a word about agnosticism. Saying you're atheist without the agnostic next it is saying you're God.

Now as for the problem with anti-theism, that kind of reasoning won't get you far, because, as it turns out, humans are a civilisation of tools. They use whatever thing they can get their hands on–you name it, religion, propaganda, science, nuclear missiles–and they turn it into a tool for subjugation, power, and money. Notice how I mentioned both religion and science. If you've ever heard of Social Darwinism, then you'll know it's science that was misused to excuse white people's subjugation of enslaved black human beings.

I do not deny that religion has been involved with wrong things, it's obviously true. Take most European kings and emperors and knights. The Byzantine Emperor calls for a recapture of the holy city. However, even the Bible itself does not call for this, it calls for the opposite.

Imagine a world where science and scientists rule over every aspect of life. There would be no morals, just tests and experiments, even on people. Check out "That Hideous Strength", it 's a dystopian short story about that.

And you're not an atheist because there's no evidence, you're an atheist because you can't see the evidence.

This is in reply to your last response, there is no [reply] tab:

Your opening move fails at the level of basic definitions.
Atheism answers one question only: Do you believe a god exists? My answer is no. Agnosticism answers a different question: Do you claim certain knowledge? My answer is also no. These positions are not contradictory; they address different axes — belief vs. knowledge. Saying “you’re either agnostic or atheist” is like saying someone can be either skeptical or uncertain, but not both. That is a category error, not an argument.

Anti-theism is not the claim that only religion is abused by power.
It is the claim that religions uniquely grant moral immunity to unverified authority. Yes, humans weaponize tools — but only religion allows atrocities to be framed as divinely mandated and therefore beyond moral appeal. Science makes no such claim. When science is misused (e.g., social Darwinism), it is corrected by better science. When religion is misused, it is shielded by faith.

Your “science without morals” dystopia misunderstands where morals actually come from.
Morality long predates Christianity and long outlives it. Empathy, reciprocity, fairness, and harm-reduction are products of evolutionary social behavior and philosophical refinement — not revelations. Science does not prescribe values; it tests claims about reality. Ethics belongs to philosophy and human consequences, not to laboratories.

As for “I’m not atheist because there’s no evidence, but because I refuse to see it” — that’s not a rebuttal.
That’s an accusation without a demonstration. If evidence were present, it could be presented. Assertions are not evidence. Ancient texts are not evidence. Personal feelings are not evidence. Claims about the universe require universal-grade proof, not regional tradition.

Finally, your defense quietly concedes the central problem.
You admit religion has repeatedly aligned with conquest, kings, censorship, coercion, and mass violence — yet you excuse it by saying “humans misuse everything.” That does not absolve a system that repeatedly blesses the misuse as holy.

My position is simple and fully coherent:

I do not claim certainty about ultimate metaphysics (agnostic).

I do not believe any gods have met the burden of proof (atheist).

I oppose institutions that claim moral authority based on unverifiable commands (anti-theist).

...tbc