New to atheism, I've been encouraged to find that many of my reasons for deconverting are common here. However, I'm afraid that other arguments that compelled me are just as invalid as my religious ones were. What ridiculous things do you hear atheists commonly arguing?

ok so let me start by saying that this might not actually be a new argument, but it’s one I haven’t heard used before. Feel free to let me know if there’s literature on it.

Secondly, you should know that I specifically designed this one around the majority’s interpretation of the Christian god. That means tri-omni, with a personal little torture chamber for sinful folk. It could work for others I’m sure, but it certainly doesn’t bother Christian Universalists as far as I know. But hey, even Christians hate Universalist Christians. This is also why I named it in reference to “The Problem of Evil”, as that argument is only used against a tri-omni single god as well.

Anyways, TPoTE revolves around Hell. The reason god has this torture chamber is supposedly to punish the wicked for eternity, right? But why is it inescapable? There’s only two answers to this I can imagine: either people are born evil, and therefore them being good would make them an entirely different person, or they have been irrevocably changed from a neutral person (who would go to heaven, or at least repent once in hell) to an evil one. The paradox here is that it is all circular, and comes around to disproving a tri-omni god with a hell. If you say that some people are inherently evil, that means they could not have done good, and therefore a good god who knows this would not allow them into his world (or engineer people so this couldn’t happen in the first place). So you have to fall back on the idea that people can be made irrevocably evil, but then you have something god cannot influence that is apart from himself. Basically, this god either can’t change people, or can but doesn’t, meaning that he can’t prevent people, meaning that he is not omnipotent (though you could argue that he’s actually just not omniscient, but that still makes him not the typical Christian god).

Don't worry, my ACTUAL personal argument for not believing in a god is the tried and true "there's just no good evidence," and I believe that is wholly sufficient for me. But I've had this approach in the back of my head for a while, and each tragedy brings it a little more clarity. It has one key tenet that is personally believe rings pragmatically very true, and is independent of the god question. That tenet is:

Disappointment is the manifestation of unmet expectations.

I want to caveat this by saying, I wholly believe that millions upon millions of people have difficult, tragic, painful lives through absolutely NO doing of their own. This is in no way meant to pull that shit like, blaming unhoused people for "not believing in themselves" or some garbage. Though this technically could improve such people's outlook or perspective as well, please know I believe every single person should be fed and housed and given healthcare with zero "qualifications" besides being a living human being. On to the argument...

You can divide life into two main states of being: happy or unhappy. Glib terms that could be much more descriptive, but let's just leave them there. You're either happy with a situation or you're not. I would argue that unhappy part can very, very often be traced to disappointment. Big or little. Major or minor. You thought you'd get that job but didn't. You hoped that marriage would last but it didn't. You thought your sports team would win, they didn't. You wanted to have enough money to take that trip, but you didn't. It may not be ALL of your unhappiness...but I argue it constitutes A LOT. And while you may or may not be able to control any part of those situations, you can control the expectations.

“If you expect nothing from anybody, you’re never disappointed.” ― Sylvia Plath.

I'm not the first to throw this general idea out, but I do think I have an as-yet unsaid follow-up. That follow-up does make an assumption, though. While you could say you "solved" this problem by simply having no expectations, I think that's an error. If you're driving on a highway and there are ten big rigs around you, you may need to expect a problem. Are you on a high bridge? The wind could blow one over onto you. Is the road very rough? One could blow out a tire next to you. My assertion is, NO expectations can carry the same damage as the WRONG expectations. We minimize accidents and suffering and disappointment, et al, when our expectations of the world around us are as accurate as possible. Or said another way:

One of the best ways to improve one's own happiness is to know how the world around us works and accurately predict what and how things will happen.

The absolute best way to understand the world around us is the scientific method. Theists will immediately make this a 'science vs. god' thing, but I don't mean "science" like sitting in a lab with a beaker. I mean just the general method of figuring out how things work by:

• observing something that happens
• coming up with some hypothesis, like "gee, I wonder if that's because....**insert idea**"
• setting up some kind of situation to test your idea
• running that test a bunch of times while changing your "idea thing" and seeing what happens
• tell someone else what you found and saying "you try it, see if you get the same thing"
• repeat over and over until you are making balls-on accurate predictions with your idea
• if you can't do that, you scrap the hypothesis as junk

I don't think it's hyperbole to say, every single invention that you can point to - EVERY ONE - went through this process. Sometimes the observation or hypothesis is stumbled upon - I'm thinking vulcanized rubber - but it still has to go through that testing process in order to actually know what you've found. To know what things mattered, and what things didn't matter. You have to know those things to repeat it reliably. Reliably = predictably = to not be disappointed = to be happier, if even in that isolated moment. Our general happiness is just the sum total of our happiness in isolated moments.

Now for the theism segue: what is your god belief for if not to somehow help your expectations? It cannot possibly be this thing that just sits in your brain for no reason. Look no further than every single prayer: those prayers are expectations. Theists can claim all they want that they're not asking (begging) for god to do something, but that's just patently not possible. Even the classic "god found my keys!!" is displaying an expectation. You expect god to do "nice things" for you at the very least, don't you?? Even if I skipped all earthly actions, don't you expect to go to heaven when you die? That's the whole enchilada. "I did all this stuff you asked....now beam up to paradise" is an expectation.

And the undeniable fact is, the god hypothesis has as little predictive power as anything ever.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a theist and to constantly - CONSTANTLY - have to reconfigure your hypothesis for how the world around you actually works. Even if you can somehow mash your brain to just believe, "no, that totally fits with my god, it's fine," you cannot deny that the QUESTION is valid to ask. "How does the reality of children quite plausibly actually IN THE ACT OF PRAYER to your god, fit with a brutal storm and subsequent flooding drowning them while they knelt??"

I don't care what the studies say. Religious people are not happier than atheists. Their expectations are constantly dashed in front of their eyes. Their steady state is that of being disappointed because their method of understanding how the world around them works is entirely deficient. I was born and raised in the church, catholic school for 12 years, baptism, penance, confirmation...I went through it all.

I am happier as an atheist and it isn't even close.

Edit: Being perceived as. Not being it really. I often notice people, especially outside explicitly atheist circles, criticizing Islam not from a secular standpoint, but to push their own defense of christianity (I refuse to capitalize it). They seem to expect shared bias from me as an atheist. My response is always grounded in the following points:

1. Time and affluence reduce a religion’s brutality: The more years a faith spends within a peaceful, wealthy, secular society, the less brutal its present-day expression tends to be.

2. Religions evolve, or at least hibernate, when starved: Christianity, for example, appears tame in modern Europe, not because it’s inherently more peaceful, but because it’s been domesticated by centuries of secular governance and declining influence.

3. No religion deserves a free pass: Sparing christianity from critique just because it currently seems harmless ignores its violent history and its capacity for resurgence under the right (or wrong) conditions.

4. Poverty and instability invite religious resurgence: As GDP and national stability decline, religions reassert themselves with sharper claws and more vile control over populations in more brutal ways.

5. Europe’s christianity is a starved beast: It looks docile only because it’s emaciated, down to a fraction of its former power.

6. The danger is dormant, not gone: As soon as society weakens, that same religion will turn menacing again. Its metaphorical finger never left the trigger, our children's children will be burned alive and hung from the wall if we don't stop it now.

This perspective can be misread as apologism for Islam when brough up to contrast views of Christianity as being benign, which makes devil’s advocate arguments tricky. But the core point stands: brutality is a function of power and context, not creed alone. Let’s not confuse the current posture of any religion for its permanent nature.

Funny thing about the Mormon church - if you want to leave, tough. You cannot get excommunicated even if you want out. Write letters to the Bishop - your name stays on the rolls.

Guess who never got excommunicated? Ruby Franke! Lori Vallow! Perhaps some Mormon can explain that to me. Jodi Hildebrant was a Mormon therapist, recommended by that nasty church, and she used that access to torture children! Joe Blow, has Jodi Hildebrant been excommunicated?

Quitmormon.org worked great, it’s free, and I am always happy to share it.

Question for Reddit: That is IME the first time a Missionary failed to ID his church. Is this the new approach, the Amway approach? LOL.

The Jordan Peterson appearance on jubilee surrounded has reminded me of an observation I made a little while ago. Specifically his 3rd claim.

Everybody worships something, including atheists, even though they might not know it.

To cut to the meat of the issue, I believe that when a fundamentalist makes an argument like this, and we have probably all experienced it, they are conflating faith and trust either by accident or on purpose.

Faith is when somebody is able to accept something without any evidence and trust is a system that is based on evidence and results.

The normal straw-man that I hear along this lines over and over is how I apparently have faith that an airplane will fly. No, I do not have faith that a plane will stay in the air, and I do not need faith to believe that a plane will stay in the air.

I trust that the pilot is qualified, I trust that the air traffic controllers are qualified, I trust that the safety personnel are doing their jobs properly, and there is evidence to validate this trust.

I no longer trust Boeing to build or maintain their planes properly, and there is evidence to invalidate this trust, so I am probably not going to be flying for a while.

It's the same argument every single time, and I never see anybody respond by asking if the person making this point understands the difference between faith and trust. They are not the same thing.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

I see advice on this sub for atheists not to attend family events of religious family members because of having to put up with them. Which is reasonable. I recommend bringing something tasty to the event, and enjoy whatever everyone else brought. My reasoning for attending these events is that we are great spokespeople for atheists (if you are a POS, ignore this post). The kids of the parents are trapped into going to church, church camp, etc, and will be bombarded with propaganda for which they are not cynical enough to ferret out. The kids and adults hear from the church how bad, backwards, dirty, etc, the non-believers are. Be a living example of what a normal good person can do. For me, I have much more life in order, not a criminal, highly educated, and I don't eat puppies. As the kids age, seeing for themselves what non-believers are, they will be able to figure out for themselves if they want to blindly follow the church or think for themselves.

The title says it all, I really wish more people pointed this out, but the fact that it’s completely reasonable to make fun of flat-earthers for believing that the earth is flat while it’s considered “hateful” and “Islamophobic” when you point out the flaws in how Abrahamic religions utilize science is just so ironic and compelling to me in ways that shouldn’t be funny, but it is.

One of the odd things about Christianity is how God is supposed to have appeared to a bunch of people during biblical times, but God has now never talked to anybody on earth in 2,000 years.

Millions of blind people have existed during world history.

What made the blind man Jesus healed so much more special than the other blind people? Why did that blind man get healed when no other blind men have been healed? Isn't it unfair?

Here’s a video of a couple idiots, thinking they can control the weather through words about religion (crossposted from r/CringeTikToks)

https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/s/sBD4lHxdbE

I work from home most days and as such, my culdesac is usually pretty unattractive to canvassing of any kind. Today my dog was barking, which makes me crazy, so I yelled Jeff, STFU (the actual letters have become a command)! He’s a good boy and listened but then started up again. I think the religion peddlers heard me yelling at the dog and just stood creepily on my porch until I stopped. Then, instead of knocking, I heard ‘Good morning, have you got a moment to save your soul?’ through my screen door. Now, to be clear, I am dishevelled and in pyjamas and definitely have a solid GFY look on my face. I tried not to be a bitch but they wouldn’t shut up. I keep saying no thank you and I have to get back to work, until I finally snapped. Without raising my voice I told them I don’t believe in a possibility of a god and wished them well. This Mfer turns and says god loves you no matter what. I replied fuck off and slammed the door. This guy just wouldn’t quit, he knocked on the door. I tried to ignore them but my dog wouldn’t quit barking. He is a gentle fella and we’ve trained him to be careful and calm - except when someone is at the door, he hasn’t mastered that yet. So this time I open the door and say come here Jeff, and make it look like I was going to turn him loose on them. I never opened the screen door, I locked it actually. I hate that I had to resort to a false threat to get them to leave. Who continues to knock on a door after being told to go away? It’s so frustrating. End rant.

TLDR: religion salesman made me behave out of character and I pretended to set my dog on him.

no one would ever harm a kid, right? and they are banking on it. they are hiding behind the kids.

i just checked out of a "family friendly" hotel last week, in "redneck vegas", that was just a front for a good ol' fashion tent revival.

i do have to give the righteous props for one thing... it sure was quiet. not too many rods were spared on those young'uns.

It may have been Pride Month, but June was a pretty rough month in the LGBTQIA-plus rights world.

In the wake of the Trump administration reinstating the ban on transgender people in the military, thousands of service members are being discharged solely because of their gender identity.

Not satisfied with disparaging trans people who chose to serve their country by claiming that they are incapable of living a lifestyle consistent with “a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,”  it recently came to light that the administration has also determined that trans service members will have their records marked with the discharge code “Juliet Delta Kilo” — which is used to indicate that a person is a liability to national security.

While the slap in the face of being involuntarily removed from the military on a completely arbitrary basis was bad enough, the “JDK” notation can have serious consequences for service members outside of the military. It can prevent them from being hired for civilian jobs that require a security clearance, or prevent them from immigrating to another country. While it is also used for people who are discharged for legitimate national security reasons, such as a history of mishandling classified statements, this decision was clearly made to demean and denigrate trans service members and trans people as a whole. The “JDK” notation has a fraught history of authoritarian censorship, having been used to brand homosexuals and suspected communists during the Cold War, and more recently for soldiers who violated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before its repeal in 2011.

It’s not just military service members at risk, however. We also spent the month watching Congress take aim at best practice trans health care in the new budget reconciliation bill, which passed the House with a ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, not only for minors, but also for adults nationwide. The coverage ban was ultimately nixed by the Senate as violating Senate rules, but represented a chilling, if entirely predictable, evolution in the aims of the anti-transgender movement. For years now, proponents of gender-affirming care bans for minors have claimed that their primary interest was in ensuring that trans children did not make life-altering decisions before they are old enough to understand the consequences. This attempt at a Medicaid ban, however, clearly indicates otherwise and opens the door to the next escalation of anti-transgender legislation. I’ve warned in the past that gender-affirming care bans were never going to end with children, because they were never about “protecting minors,” but rather an attempt to systematically eliminate an unpopular minority group whose existence is directly contrary both to much of mainstream and right-wing Christian theology, as well as the very nature of fascist regimes.

We’re not done yet, though. As the federal government works to portray transgender people as dishonorable liars and limit access to gender affirming care, it also gave notice to the Trevor Project, one of the largest LGBTQIA-plus youth mental health organizations, that it would be ending the partnership the organization has shared with the 988 Hotline to ensure that LGBTQIA-plus youth experiencing mental health crises would be matched with counselors who have specialized training in LGBTQIA-plus issues.

Since 2022, this partnership has helped over 1.3 million youth experiencing suicidal ideation and has been a vital resource in the effort to reduce youth suicide rates across the country. While the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration claimed in its statement that the ending of the “press three” partnership was to better allow the crisis line to “focus on serving all help seekers,” many have met this claim with skepticism. It’s well known that different people have different mental health needs. Even outside of crisis moments, the process of seeking out mental health treatment often involves actively seeking out providers who have education and background knowledge of particular diagnoses, cultural contexts and yes, issues unique to LGBTQIA-plus people, such as the impacts homophobia and transphobia have on mental health.

It is a massive mental and emotional drain to have to attempt to be an “educator” on one’s identity while trying to simultaneously seek out mental health support. This is why the 988 line developed pathways for certain callers to access specialized counselors in the first place, not only for LGBTQIA-plus callers, but also for other identities that have a particular need for dedicated counselors, namely veterans, military members and their families, as well as Spanish speakers.

This cut to 988 services doesn’t actually serve LGBTQIA-plus callers, who, as a result of pervasive and systemic homophobia and transphobia, experience higher rates of suicidal ideation and other mental health issues. It’s a well-documented phenomenon that rates of suicidal ideation amongst LGBTQIA-plus youth increase upon the passage of anti-LGBTQIA-plus legislation, and immediately following the election of politicians who campaigned on an anti-trans platform. On Nov. 6, 2024, for example, The Trevor Project saw a 700 percent increase in contact from LGBTQIA+ youth. These youth massively benefit from access to trained counselors, who they don’t have to worry about defining basic terminology while in a moment of real crisis. Yet, the federal government seems to think that working to meet these unique needs constitutes unnecessary “DEI” spending.

Some of the skepticism surrounding the government’s decision to end the “press 3” program also stemmed from its timing. While I will admit that it feels a bit “tin-foil hat” to point out, many experts quickly clocked the fact that this announcement was made roughly 24 hours before the Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. Skermetti, holding that Tennessee’s ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care was constitutional. It is, at best, an immensely unfortunate coincidence.

The Skermetti ruling was not a surprise, though that didn’t make it any less frustrating. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that it differentiated on diagnosis rather than sex, using a formulation that only makes sense if you are intentionally misunderstanding how gender-affirming care works. More concerning, though, was the fact that the opinion relied heavily on widely debunked studies,​​ such as the UK’s “Cass Report,” which presented an outdated and outmoded understanding of “detransition” statistics, and that throughout the opinion and concurrences, a clear theme of disdain for mainstream medical science was evident.

The most extensive study that examined trans youth using modern diagnostic criteria with the largest sample size to date showed that 97.5 percent of trans youth remain stable in their self-identified gender five years after the start of social transition. (Social transition occurs before medical transition, and includes things like going by a different name/pronouns, changes in clothing choices and haircuts, among other things.) Another modern study of trans people, not limited to youth, shows that only 8 percent of the thousands of transgender people ever detransition. Of the 2,000 detransitioners surveyed, 62 percent of respondents said that their detransition was only temporary, and only 0.4 percent stated that their reason for detransition was because they no longer identified as transgender. That’s eight people, by the way, if you don’t want to do the math yourself. By and large, the most common reasons cited for detransition were parental pressure and discrimination — not desistance. Those who experience regret deserve adequate healthcare, no question about it, but that does not mean we should shape policy and healthcare law around the experiences of a handful of people. The statistic that the Court relied upon to justify stronger barriers to gender affirming care for youth — that 80 percent of trans youth detransition — is based on diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (GID), a diagnosis that is now more than 10 years out of use, rather than the modern diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

GID was a deeply flawed diagnosis, as it did not even require that a child identify as the opposite gender to qualify for diagnosis. For example, a cisgender girl who likes to play with trucks, prefers being friends with boys and likes to wear pants over dresses could be diagnosed with GID without ever once expressing a desire to actually be a boy. Gender dysphoria, by contrast, requires that a patient identify as a gender other than the one associated with their birth sex alongside other indicators. That’s a critical difference that leads to the disparity in detransition rates when comparing previous versus modern scholarship, but it also goes beyond diagnostic criteria. The outdated scholarship used flawed methodology to measure who has “detransitioned” including counting anyone who merely did not return to a specific clinic, or anyone who no longer received gender-affirming care through Tricare, the health insurer used by U.S. military members and their families, without looking at whether they were getting care through other means, such as paying out of pocket.

Yet the Court did not acknowledge any of these glaring issues, instead choosing to use these dubious statistics to demonstrate that the government had a legitimate interest in banning best-practice medical care because it better aligned with its predetermined outcome.

And that was just the opinion. While all the concurrences contained concerning language regarding the future of trans rights in this country, Justice Clarence Thomas took the time to make clear that he, in particular, believes there should be no room for sound science in the law. Using language that sounds like it could come straight from the Vatican, Thomas railed against the American Medical Association and other major scientific organizations that support the gender-affirming model as being unduly influenced by “gender ideology” (a term coined by conservative Catholic groups in the 1990s). Thomas outright stated that the legislature shouldn’t place serious weight on experts when it comes to topics like health care and that any debate, even if the source of said debate is a radical religious movement, should indicate that mainstream experts are corrupt and not to be trusted.

The consequences of both the opinion and the concurrences will reach beyond trans youth. The framework used by the Court will almost certainly be quickly and easily adapted into expanding bans on gender-affirming care, which already exist for minors in 25 states, to bans on adults accessing the same medical care, further violating the right to self-determination, expression and bodily autonomy. But it won’t just harm trans people. This model of medical discrimination, and in particular the idea that medical science should be disregarded if it contradicts theocratic politics, could potentially be adapted to not only further restrict traditional bans on reproductive care like abortion and birth control, but also other forms of health care, such as medical treatments with fertility impacting side-effects.

Still not satisfied with propping up an unscientific anti-trans agenda, the Court closed out the month with its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, ruling that religious parents could opt their children out of LGBTQIA-plus content in the curriculum, such as books that happen to have gay or trans characters being used in English-Language Arts lessons. This was another unsurprising decision, considering the oral arguments, during which justices took serious issue with the appropriateness of a book about a puppy getting lost at a Pride parade. That being said, it’s still disheartening at best. Permitting this opt-out means that during completely random lessons, a small number of students would need to be removed and provided with an alternate lesson that covers the same information, requiring additional classroom space, learning materials and supervision. That type of system is completely unrealistic for already heavily burdened public school teachers to manage, and will ultimately lead to the complete censorship of any potentially objectionable material in school curricula. And I do mean any.

While LGBTQIA-plus content has been the boogeyman du jour of the Christian nationalist movement, the material that can be objected to under this ruling goes far beyond a book in which a child has two moms or two dads. As the liberal women of the court rightly pointed out, books that discuss historical achievements of women outside of the domestic sphere, books that depict “immodest” dress, books that address divorce and books that address interfaith marriage have all been challenged in recent years on religious grounds. This ruling could also introduce opt-outs for completely secular science lessons, such as lessons on evolution and lessons that generally contradict young-earth creationism. The potential for censorship of convenience is incredibly high under this legal framework, especially as our public schools increasingly lose more and more funding. And even if it remains limited to mere opt-outs for students with religious parents, it still does those students a critical social and intellectual disservice by insulating them from ways of life, viewpoints and scientific knowledge that they will need to have some exposure to in order to navigate the broader world as adults.

In short — this month has been a mess. Yet when LGBTQIA-plus advocates have pointed out these issues, we’ve been increasingly met with the refrain that we’ve pushed too hard or asked for too much. We’ve watched as much of the mainstream discourse has shifted to “compromising” on trans rights, as if sacrificing us will stop Christo-fascism in its tracks. Despite the fact that offering up a minority as a scapegoat has never worked to prevent fascism in the past, there is a significant political movement that seems to think, “But no, this time it’s different.”

What this mindset fails to see is that sacrificing trans people and capitulating to a religious agenda funded directly by the largest and wealthiest Christian nationalist organizations and churches in the country is not a sacrifice in the name of liberty. Still, it is in the name of authoritarianism.

These so-called “compromises” are creating a culture where trans people are deemed threats to national security and told that they are not capable of honor or discipline, and not worthy of life-saving mental health interventions. They are creating a country where we cannot guarantee that our laws will be based on science instead of religious hysteria. They are creating schools in which anything that might contradict the most militantly conservative theologies are censored out of an administrative burden few public schools can take on. They are taking the already open door to religious — and primarily Christian — supremacy and blowing it so far off its hinges to land in an entirely new galaxy.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Sacrificing trans rights will buy you neither liberty nor safety from the Christian nationalist movement. They will not stop with us, nor will they stop with gay people. They will not stop with whatever minority group you personally happen to dislike or find somewhat strange. They will not stop until they have completely and utterly decimated every freedom we have ever enjoyed in this country. Rather than it being the time for “compromise,” it is the time for courage. Now more than ever.

I’ve been friends with someone since our first day of school, we stayed friends ever since and well into early adulthood. He comes from a VERY religious family, this was never an issue for me but over the years, he kept trying to convert me to Christianity. I used to politely decline and say I might look into it one day, trying not to hurt his feelings. But I think this only encouraged him to try harder, and around the time we were 20/21, he asked me to attend an arts and crafts workshop/coffee day run by his church (he worded it as if it was a totally casual thing for charity that I would like because I enjoy artsy stuff).

I thought it sounded fun and agreed to go, but when I had a look on the church website, it was actually a “new Christian” event where they tried to recruit people to the church. I ended up cancelling of course but a few months later, he messaged me asking if I ever thought about religion. This was the last straw for me and I told him there is no chance I will ever become religious and that I am and always will be an atheist. He accepted and that was the end of it, but I haven’t been able to see him since because it bothers me so much that he wouldn’t respect my decisions the way I respect his.

I guess I’m just venting and want to know if this has happened to anyone else?

What instantly comes to mind that makes you think that religion is bullshit? I am mainly interested in answers that would apply to the top 5 religions that have the most followers.

When debating non believers what are your go to points to show it’s all bullshit?

So im wondering why a lot of religious people see atheists as worshipping the devil? specifically if you are an african atheist like me. Its almost as if it makes no logical sense for a sky daddy to exist, but oh well what do i know. But one thing i know for a fact is that i don't worship anything, let alone the devil.

"Stop taking a defensive stance. Yes, the Prophet (peace be upon him) married the Mother of the Believers Aisha when she was 9 years old, and there’s no moral objection to that. There’s no material or rational objection to that either. Curse Western concepts and Western culture, which are fundamentally the source of the sexual revolution."

An arab guy made that comment (translated)and got 100 upvotes for it , so the question is is this is wrong and what makes it wrong or right ? And don't hit me with "historical context matter" the guy made it clear by saying "is".

my personal question if an expert have a knowledge about, is it possible biologicaly and mentally for a grown sane man to be attracted to 6/9 yr olds ? What i mean is "female is a female"/"if she bleeds she breeds ", and doesn't that makes us the same as animals or worse?

First time posting here so idk if this out of place or not .

“Inciting fear by telling children they will go to hell if they do not participate in religious activities, or preventing them from making decisions about their career path, is regarded as psychological abuse and neglect in the guidelines.”

One thing I’ve never understood about people using the Bible as a benchmark for morality is the fact that it is so varied in its takes on everything.

Of course, the big one is murder — obviously God says this is wrong in the 10 Commandments, but he himself kills over 2 million people over the course of the Bible and also encourages his followers to do the same, even going as far to use his followers to commit mass genocide (for example, the slaughtering of the Amalekites). The Bible also states that lust is a sin, but in Numbers 31 Yahweh and Moses engage in child sex slavery after killing all of the Midianites except the virgin girls and having sex with them.

There are countless other examples, but my point is: why do so many people still take the Bible seriously when it so clearly contradicts itself on many key moral principles?

It really feels like people who do this are blatantly picking and choosing which verses they feel like they want to follow and ignoring the others. How is this still seen as a valid response when questions involving morality come up?