Since you’re arguing in bad faith and treating me like I’m an asshole, I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults.

The truth is that I had no animosity. I thought we could have an intellectual discussion.

The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.

Just because someone respectfully disagrees, it doesn’t mean it’s some emotionally charged interaction. Grow up.

You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.

Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.

Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.

You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.

Me: I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.

You: Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.

Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.

And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.

Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.

Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.

Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.

what is right and wrong? how should we treat each other?

You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)

Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).

Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He’s a good read on this.

An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. Source

Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That’s because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There’s plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.

why are we here?

Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.

I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.

I’ve known atheists who go to church for the community. I’m an atheist, and I have recommended going to a nondenominational church to other atheists who had said they really lacked community support.

Of course, sometimes religious community systems can actually be very hostile and nonsupportive and downright exploitative. Really just depends on the specific church community. Just like there are some great people and some major assholes out there. Churches are no different.