[abusoufiyan]

>Let's not make atheists look like evil people who make children depressed. This is not OK.

That's not what he's doing at all.

But it is also true that religion is largely the underpinning of morality for most people in the world and early exposure to the idea that morality is relative and malleable and that actually the only real motivator is self-preservation is probably unhealthy for adolescents.

>Solving my problems actually seems to be the solution to my happiness, not to believe or have faith in anything. On the other side, a big part of many religions seems to involve thinking about death and guilt

A big part of religions is also charity work and the idea that you aren't just doing things for yourself or solving your own problems but solving the problems of others because they are your equals (at least in Abrahamic traditions, I am familiar with these).

I don't see where you can pull that out of atheism.

>What happens when this child learns that there have been wars about such things as religions when the claim is that they are about tolerence?

What a silly thing to say. Religions would not need to preach tolerance if mankind were inherently tolerant, no? If mankind is not inherently tolerant, why will a child be shaken to understand that that inherent intolerance causes wars over nearly everything (from religion to culture to language to land).

[watwut]

> the idea that you aren't just doing things for yourself or solving your own problems but solving the problems of others because they are your equals

Equality really really does not describe views of hardcore christians I personally know nor the content of sermons I personally heard not christian journals articles I read.

Nor does tolerance, no matter how you define tolerance.

[abusoufiyan]

I am not a Christian but I grew up around very faithful Christians and my experiences are not the same as yours. Just to put that out there. Many of the devout Christians I knew took actions to rectify the wrongs around them that people would be awed by.

[throwaway2801]

Parts of my problems are others problems, that is not mutually exclusive.

Actually, one could argue that at the end of the day, any action is egoist at some level, even charity (my experience is that this argument leads to interesting discussions were people try to define things).

Also, I know that religion is linked to charity, but I don't see why would one need religion to help other people. I'm doing it pretty often actually, at my level.

Why should I need faith in anything to help someone? How an atheist would be unable to help anybody?

So,

> I don't see where you can pull that out of atheism.

I would say that beliefs (atheism is a form of belief, for some definition of atheism) and helping people are orthogonal notions. As an agnostic, linking those things feel absurd (in the mathematical definition of absurd, not in the definition of "stupid").

P.S.: I don't feel I said anything stupid. Let's use real arguments. If you think I said something wrong, feel free to argue about it. I'll be glad to recognize that I was wrong or to further argue.

Edit: I would say that one acts according to what drives their life. This can be faith. Or something else. Or a mix of things.

[abusoufiyan]

>As an agnostic, linking those things feel absurd (in the mathematical definition of absurd, not in the definition of "stupid").

It's hard for me to reply to this because I just have a hard time understanding what you are talking about. What is the mathematical definition of absurd? What is an "egoist" action.

All I was able to really understand was that you don't see why you need religion to help people. You don't. But every religious person can be reprimainded for not helping people because it is a religious tenet of nearly every major faith to help others as they are your equals under God. Every atheist cannot be taught to help others in this way.

In essence, an atheist can be good if they choose to be. A religious person is specifically being told to be good.