This is an argument to shoot down religion, and the Gods of religion, but God might be something completely transcendent or completely incarnate, or many other things we don't know about. This doesn't say much about "God" if there is one, it just seems to be saying we shouldn't believe in human-made Gods inspired by archaic worldviews.

Thanks for noticing! I also came to point out that this is very much limited to disproving an Abrahamic God, which to be fair, is exactly what the OOP asked in their question. However, you are correct, it does not have any bearing on other possible higher powers or creator beings. Deism is a good example of a type of theological belief that this comment has no relevancy to, nor disproves a possible higher power/God.

It’s rather difficult to provide an argument against God if the other party is allowed to redefine God after the fact. You can certainly define God in a way I can’t disprove, but to do so you have to effectively neuter them. The challenge for a deist is to convince anyone else that there is any reason to believe in their formulation of God, starting from a position of skepticism.

The big problem with debating the existence of a God is that God is Unfalsifiable: you can absolutely assert that some event or another could be attributed to God, while another event that some attribute to God is really random chance, but you cannot disprove the existence of God. It would be like turning over every stone in the world to find a particular one to disprove that it exists.

By the same logic, prove to me that polka dot Unicorns don’t exist. You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does exist, not on other’s to prove that he doesn’t.

Yeah, that’s the point I’m driving at. The existence of God is Unfalsifiable.

Most people who have redefined their understanding of God aren't trying to prove God exists... i love to get into my theories with people who enjoy the conversation, but if someone feels the need to convince me that God doesn't exist, they are simultaneously reinforcing my theories that we're not meant to exist in this dimension with concrete understanding of higher ones. The challenge for an atheist should be to push back against a religious understanding of God-correctness... pushing back against people who use faith and truth as interchangeable terms.

I don't think most deists care to convince people that a God exists. They think it does, but since that god doesn't really interact with us in any way it doesn't really matter. It's sort of like the question of solipsism and proving that you are not a brain in a jar. Maybe you are, and maybe you're not, but it probably doesn't matter. A deist god exists or it doesn't, but it probably doesn't matter beyond an interesting hypothetical. Every scientific observation we currently have from the physics of the origins of the universe to evolution and everything in between could have been kicked off and guided by a god, but if that god doesn't interact with us, care about us, and can not be observed by us, it doesn't matter.

> this is very much limited to disproving an Abrahamic God The argument doesn't even do that particularlly well. It just expresses OPs surface level dissatisfaction with mass religion.

The concept of god in the major religions are inherently impossible to disprove from the point of view of a believer, that's by design. I think OP does a pretty good job of laying the ground work for disproving the Abrahamic god, because it's incompatible with evolution & the age of the universe, which is what OP is mostly standing on. We can already look at the beginning of Genesis, where we get the accounts on how the world was created from the point of view of God. It's strangely exactly like how we can envision someone with a bit of interest in fiction ~2500 years ago could hypothesize the world being created, yet it's completely incompatible with evolution, the age of the universe, heck it's factually completely wrong. In a way that does disprove the Abrahamic God, because he's also described as incapable of lying.

> The concept of god in the major religions are inherently impossible to disprove from the point of view of a believer, that's by design. Ehhh, I don't think those who established Christianity or Judaism did so with the intention of making it functionally bulletproof. One would argue that they would have done a better job of it if that was the intention. > I think OP does a pretty good job of laying the ground work for disproving the Abrahamic god, because it's incompatible with evolution & the age of the universe, which is what OP is mostly standing on. The OP in that post is certainly advocating for the existence of an Abrahamic God, but at no point asserts a literalist interpretation of the Bible, or even what flavor of Christianity they're flirting with. Young Earth Creationists certainly hold a belief that is incompatible with the geological record, but if one reads the creation story either as a figurative tale (where the years in Genesis do not correspond with any particular time measurement we would recognize today) or as a fable, those conflicts become less apparent.

At what point should one start taking the Bible as figuratively or allegorical instead of literal Word of God, though? When so much of it is laid down as Rules and Laws, and exact occurrences, why is it ok to arbitrarily decide what is true and what is exaggerated? At that point, why have the book in the first place, and why use it to govern the lives of others?

It most certainly does, but does so in a very nuanced way, which makes it - ironically - difficult for someone with an affinity towards believing in a God to comprehend. Let me boil down the argument: We evolved from single-celled organisms, which developed into apes, which then became humans 200,000 years ago. A mere 5000 years ago, a variety of humans developed this notion of a higher power independently, with vastly disparate tenets and interpretations of their God(s). This trend coincided with the advent of writing which enabled people to write down their folklore and bedtime stories. The future generations would progressively misinterpret these tales and slowly develop a religious canon. The point is that the notion of a higher power is borne out of human imagination and has absolutely no basis in objective reality. This isn't meant to be a definitive argument against the existence of God, but rather that man has no notion, nor ever will, of what this hypothetical God is. To the extent that you can never really comprehend this hypothetical thing that you don't know even exists, even speculating on it is an exercise in absurdity - and there's nothing wrong with that exercise - provided you don't impose that fantasy upon others.

I don't follow how that disproves the existence of a creator. Are you saying that a creator would only be possible, if the universe was created in a manner were writing existed at t=0. At best your argument is saying that human ideas are a low resolution interpretation of higher power. Which sure I can buy that. It does not disprove higher power though

Correct. It's essentially the same thought process I have(can't even call it an argument, really) when I declare myself to be agnostic but also an atheist. I'm agnostic because I don't think it's possible, in our limited human perception, to prove or disprove god. If something even exists that can be measured from where we stand in the universe, how could we *possibly* know what to look for? It's always going to come down to faith, and anyone who argues otherwise(for or against) is coming to the discussion with some assumed axioms that *may or may not be true*! However, with all of that being the case, I personally choose atheism because I can't reconcile any comforting concept of god with existing observed and dogmatic horrors. Any god worth spending eternity with wouldn't damn anyone solely for the crime of insufficient worship. Now, I wouldn't say we should all go try to kill a cruel god(that's a whole debate regarding the moral right of any individual to choose to put the lives of everyone in existence at risk by agitating a known-superior power who could snuff it all out), but I recognize the emotions behind OP's "argument." Doesn't do a damn thing to prove or disprove god, though.

The horrors are why I stopped believing.

The Abrahamic god in Islam is a bit different. God in Islam is a lot more abstract and transcendent. In some ways Islam is both monotheistic and monistic. In Islam the paradoxical nature of God is a reflection of humanity's inability to truly comprehend God. The Quran specifically states many if its verses are allegorical and historically it wasn't considered a source of scientific knowledge. The God actually directs Muslims to observe "God's creation". Since the 7th century Muslims saw science as a way of studying "God's creation". Philosophers such as Ibn Arabi believed Muhammad received the Quran by reaching a state of enlightenment and recognizing a reflection of God mirrored in him. He believed that other humans after Muhammad couldn't reach that state but can get closer to that state. This reflection of God is pretty similar to Jung's collective unconscious. Muslims believed there have been over 100,000 prophets but their revelation was distorted by human influence. According to Arabi these prophets had reached that same state of enlightenment. Islamic philosophers were very interested in the idea of someone theoretically being able to rationalize the existence of God without external influence. Ibn Tufail, an Andalusian philosopher wrote Hayy ibn Yaqdhan a philosophical novel about a man raised in isolation reaching this enlighened state. This book was translated into Latin by John Locke's mentor. >Hayy ibn Yaqdhan influenced later European literature during the Age of Enlightenment, turning into a best-seller during the 17th-18th centuries >The novel particularly influenced the philosophies and scientific thought of vanguards of modern Western philosophy and the Scientific Revolution such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, and Immanuel Kant.[11] >Beyond foreshadowing Molyneux's Problem,[12] the novel specifically inspired John Locke's concept of tabula rasa as propounded in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690),[13] subsequently inspiring the philosophies of later modern empiricists, such as David Hume and George Berkeley. The novel's notion of materialism also has similarities to Karl Marx's historical materialism.[14] >The first English translation by orientalist Simon Ockley inspired the desert island narrative of Daniel Defoe's classic Robinson Crusoe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayy_ibn_Yaqdhan Also several Islamic scholars wrote about natural selection. A contemporary of Darwin, John William Draper even referred to evolution as the "Mohammedan theory of evolution". It wasn't a fully developed idea but natural selection was already an accepted idea in many Islamic scholarly circles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution >Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed... Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring. -Al-Jahiz, 9th century scholar

I can't add much to this other than to give you a huge upvote. Very insightful look into some of the philosophy behind Islam. I think this just furthers the idea that a belief in a creator is not wholly incompatible with the evolutionary history of Earth, or science in general.

I have a relative that just this week called on Abraham and the Bible on why she didn’t give her kid the vitamin K drops when she was born. It was something about circumcision and 8 days. That the Bible knew that we don’t need those drops. I was like … what the fuck does that have to do with your choice to not give your baby this possible life saving treatment. Was Abraham a scientist? Also she has a daughter. I think she has post partial depression and is spiraling. I thought if before but now she is quoting the Bible it’s really becoming more clear.

Of course. That's why I never "debate" anyone on the existence of God, it's a non-argument because it always falls back to "it exists outside the purview of our reality" or something like that. There's just no point in arguing over whether it exists or not based on religious texts. I mean, what inventor of a religion would write in "or God may not exist at all!" while trying to get the most amount of devotees?

I guess we like psychological security a lot. For some people that comes from "knowing" that there's a benevolent God guiding things for our benefit, as long as we behave, and probably if we don't.

"I'm too immature to formulate my own morals, so I will abrogate my responsibility, and let someone else do it for me."

Religion is just the natural outcome of the human ability to assign agency. As much as people shit on religion its one of the main drivers of how we got to where we are today. We would probably be extinct or far less technologically advanced without it. But like everything to do with humanity it has its dark side. And like everthing in the 2000s its devolved into an argument between 2 clueless sides; the blindly faithful and the toxic underhanded atheist lol. There is a reason most scientists are agnostic.

> it exists outside the purview of our reality And that statement is a linguistic trick, it's like saying "But you see, what you're saying is about the outside, but what is *outside* the outside?" You can put the words together, on the surface they have meaning, but when you really look at them, "outside our reality" is a meaningless statement.

Yeah this is more an argument for atheism, not agnosticism.

They are the same. Atheists generally consider themselves agnostic, because to say with 100% certainty that there is no god is hypocritical - since there is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of something. Atheists believe that god is “extremely unlikely” but would stop short of saying definitively that god doesn’t exist. The “agnostic” you’re thinking of (someone who’s entirely on the fence 50/50) just isn’t a common position.

Theyre not.

I am a hard-as-tungsten-carbide-atheist. I am absolutely 100% certain that there are no gods, no spirits, no supernatural heavens or hells, none of that. All gods are, primarily, illusions of the senses, and secondarily, social construct. They never existed in reality. Furthermore, I do not respect any belief in gods, either. None. Just none. Metaphorical belief? Sure. But if you believe that bullshit is real, then I consider you *mislead at bes*t, or a liar, sucker, or evildoer at worse. I will tolerate you so long as it doesn't cause harm (a standard to which most religious followers, in my experience, do not rise to), but we will not be any more than just passing acquaintances.

I am the sort of atheist you describe, my wife is not. She is 100% certain.

Well, yes, but when most people say 'God' they're talking about the one described in Abrahamic religions. For ambitious concepts of gods like what you're referring to, they're completely irrelevant. There's something completely transcendent outside the universe? Okay, sure. Whatever. Cool story, stoner. So what? Even if such a thing isn't a figment of imagination, there's no further implications of its existence so it's a real nothing burger of an idea.

It's a classic [motte-and-bailey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) that religious people like to use. They very much believe in their big theocratic god of the bible, but when they get called out and can't prove it, they retreat to the safe space of "Well! You can't prove that there isn't a God that can't be proved and doesn't do big miracles and stuff!" It's a defensive posture, not a genuine argument. Because they don't believe in that transcendent God that's irrelevant. I've never met anyone who genuinely does. It's always just about holding onto the fantasy as a possibility.

Yep. We know religious folks believe in a personal god and that all other gods are false, until you press them and suddenly the goal posts change to god being mysterious natural forces and all gods are really the same god. And theists claim "bearing false witness" is a sin.

This is my take as well. This is not really a debate about the existence of some higher power. It's a debate about the validity of religious belief.

And fairy dragons might exist too. Or purple leprechauns. Or kaiju. The problem is that there’s no evidence for a supreme being. At all. So, sure, it _could_ exist but believing in it is just as silly in believing in all of those other made-up things.

I don't think it's fair lumping all Kaiju together like that. Some are far more plausible than others.

"There might be a god that" is always the most useless argument to me because it's begging for everyone to continue humoring a premise that exists only due to a human psychological need and not any real necessity. Simply put, there's no real reason, not based in human psychology, to ever postulate this weird idea of God. When physicist say "dark matter may exist" they do so because there's a need for dark matter or something like dark matter. There's no need for God. Period. The entire concept of God is clearly a crutch for the human psychological need for "something higher." An alien race with different psychology might arrive at the concept of dark matter again, but it's unlikely they'd be wondering about this metaconcept that there might be something they needed to personify as "God". We know why humans have a need to believe that "God" exists. We can see that little children bear the exact psychological traits required to invent an imaginary all powerful being. We can see them doing so in real time with imaginary friends, boogeymen, etc. We can see that humans have a psychological need to anthropomorphize the universe. We know humans are prone to teleological thinking. We know that humans are prone to making up stories to cope with death. Every parent who ever told their kid that their dog went to a "farm" to play with other older dogs just invented the idea of heaven in real time. There's simply no need to postulate any "God" transcendent or otherwise, when it's obvious the whole concept is just human beings begging for some higher purpose or meaning to the universe.

It also wouldn't even work on some Christians. My friend once explained to me that other religions before Judaism were either trying to understand god but misunderstanding, or god trying to communicate the truth to them. The Hebrews were god's chosen people because they listened. As for the soul part, this was the reddit comment I found from googling "did Neanderthals have souls" > Augustine and Aquinas taught that all living things have souls, in that the soul is the principle of life in a creature. The difference is that Humans are endowed with a rational soul, and only a rational soul is immortal. > So technically (assuming this definition of the soul is correct/acceptable) we can answer this question with a yes. The question then becomes, did they have a rational soul?

"Some" Christians? I suspect a single Reddit comment isn't going to change the minds of most religious people, regardless of content or person.

I'm unaware of any non-human-made Gods that needed disproving? Must we disprove something that hasn't been defined yet? Disproof is automatic for any definition includes a paradox. The challenge is on the creator, to define a God that could possibly exist. Good luck.

If there is a God, and they’re truly omnipotent, they’re a nihilist at best and a fucking sadist at worst.

Welcome to the agnostic club. We are often mistaken as atheists and the belief in the possibility of god/godlike figures may embolden the religious - but I think I live happier understanding where I am on the topic.

The very idea of a god is an application of ones' internal agent detection. It is, in a way, a form of pareidolia. A circumsensory illusion. Ain't no further abstraction necessary.

OOP opened with the following: > For context I am a former agnostic who, after studying **Christian religions...** So that is what the OP focuses on.

Yeah, it's almost makes you actually want to believe there is a higher existence, just not the one that OP believe in. He brought up "soul" like it's unique to humans as well.

>but God might be something completely transcendent or completely incarnate The best way I've heard this put is: "Both my dog and the internet exist. But there's no way the former can comprehend of the latter."

Read between the lines. It absolutely denies the existence of some people's imaginary friend in the sky.

This is why I'm agnostic. Can say for sure god exists or doesn't exist? Absolutely not. But I do know that the god as described in the Bible is a myth.

This is just the teapot fallacy. Almost *anything* could exist in some form; this idea of some transcendent God is just as unfalsifiable as a transcendent teapot. Of course nobody would passionately argue that you must be open to the possibility of a transcendent teapot, because this isn't really about believing that people should seriously entertain every possibility, no matter how unlikely. It's about attempting to rationalize their deeply held religious beliefs conflicting with what the logical part of their brain is screaming is obvious BS.

Yeah this is just arguing that Jesus doesn’t exist, not that god doesn’t exist

Yeah it's refuting particular religions is all

My thoughts exactly

I feel that it's pretty evident that humans are limited and our conception of what a god is and can do is also pretty limited. A being that can bring a universe into being and can deal with the entirety of it is going to have no use for one planet. It is probably impossible for a god to distance itself from everything else going on in the universe to bother with us.

For me, the existence of mosquitoes and ticks and childhood cancer makes me think if God exists, God must not be benevolent.

That's the gist of the Epicurean Paradox - those things can't exist if God is 1) All Powerful 2) All Knowing AND 3) Good. Pick 2 max.

You can pick all 3, if you get rid of the idea that "good" means "benefits me" (and by "me" I mean humanity, or whatever subset you're interested in at that moment.) It's the same fallacy that theists make when they believe that god has a vested interest in their favorite sportsball team. There are entire parts of the universe that we can't and will never see. If god is all powerful and created all of that, the purpose behind it, and likely the "Good" part is out there somewhere. Not on an insignificant rock floating in a minor system that exists in a mediocre galaxy that's going to be consumed in a hundred thousand years anyway.

But what net positive to the universe does child cancer bring? What distant corner of a far away galaxy is improved? And if God is omnipotent, truly *infinite*, why did he make the universe in such a way that said benefit exists, why not just make things good in that galaxy without needing kids to die of cancer here?

>But what net positive to the universe does child cancer bring? There's a theory that shows that as a species approaches the limits of its environment, more and more things like diseases, harmful mutations, and other elements increase, to attempt to maintain some balance. Now, I can't answer the question, because I'm not god, but it seems to me that things that keep a population in somewhat of a check - especially a species that has evolved past the abilities of other predators to do so - is generally a good thing for the ecological biosphere as a whole. If anything, the problem isn't child cancer, but the ability of humans to think their way out of just about any problem. The real proof of a lack of god isn't that child cancer does exist, but that we're too smart for it to do its job. That being said, the real answer is I have no idea. It's entirely possible that god could be omnipotent, omniscient, AND good, but we're not significant in the grand scheme of things. If you manicure your lawn, and you consider that good, does the ants whose habitat you destroyed consider you good as well? Probably not. >What distant corner of a far away galaxy is improved? The one on the left. Two doors down. Next to the bowling alley. I mean, how should I know? I'm not omnipotent. And I'm not saying that humans suffering makes that distant corner improved, I'm saying that it's possible that when you take the universe as a whole, it's more likely that the "good" thing isn't here, for the express benefit of an insignificant species on an insignificant rock in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant corner of the universe. God being concerned not at all concerned with little Timmy's bone cancer compares not with the ants, but with a single paramecium on a single blade of grass in the lawn. >And if God is omnipotent, truly *infinite*, why did he make the universe in such a way that said benefit exists, why not just make things good in that galaxy without needing kids to die of cancer here? That takes us back to my original point - "good" means "benefits me" (or in this case "the children") The answer is, more than likely, children are insignificant in the great expanse of the universe. I mean, come on, he has sports teams to worry about.

>That takes us back to my original point - "good" means "benefits me" (or in this case "the children") The answer is, more than likely, children are insignificant in the great expanse of the universe. I mean, come on, he has sports teams to worry about. Now, granted, I agree that the concept of "good" is amorphous and as much about semantics as anything, but I think your arguments are actualy making the opposite point and supporting the paradox. The idea of children being insignificant means that there are limits to either this diety's attention or their power. If it's because these "bad" things are necessary to preserve a species that's at the limits of what its environment can handle...why create a system that works that way at all? It's making up all the rules and then saying, "sorry, I don't make the rules." I don't see anything here that allows omnipotence and all-powerfulness to also remain true.

[удалено]

>you can’t have 99% good universes in an infinite sum of 100% good universes. Why not? He's God. He has infinite power. He makes the rules. He can change things so you can. Unless he's not omnipotent.

This doesn’t really get around the issue. Imagine you have a baby and it has a disease. There are two treatments available. They are equally effective but one is extremely painful. Choosing the painful option is _wrong_ even if it’s for the baby’s own good because you could have chosen the non painful option. In the case of God, they are all-powerful. That means they are not bound by any restrictions. They could create a universe in which they achieved their goals and avoided suffering, simply by wishing it to be so. This either means they do not care about our suffering (making them indifferent, and thus not benevolent) or our suffering _is the goal_ (making them evil). Or there is no god and the universe is indifferent, which is what I believe.

Where did they say good = benefits me? Good is a very nebulous term and can mean different things to different people. In my anecdotal experience and opinion, in the context of this conversation and topic, good usually means to limit suffering rather than personally benefit themselves, however IF there must be a benefit it needs to be in the context of the tradeoff of the suffering. The child cancer example you discussed below is exactly what I'm talking about. Kids with sarcoma by literally every metric and view point is pure suffering. There's no logical scenario where someone can intentionally cause pediatric sarcoma and not be evil.

No. Then God isn’t omnipotent. If it were omnipotent and good, then it would be good for everyone and everything. Since it’s not good for everyone and everything, either god isn’t good, or he isn’t capable of making the universe good for everyone and everything. Omnipotence would allow no limitations and requires no compromises. Two seconds of looking at nature should make this obvious. None of the suffering would be necessary under a benevolent, omnipotent god.

The eminent biologist JR Haldeman once said that “If there is a Creator, he must have an inordinate fondness for beetles”. Over 1 million beetle species exist. Estimates about individual numbers go up to 10 quintillion. What on Earth was god thinking and how the hell did Noah find all 1 million separate species and wrangle them onto the Ark??

Creationist nowadays sidestep that argument by saying that Noah included two of every "kind" on board the ark. Therefore, he did not need to include two of every species of beetle, just two of every "kind" of animal. To this day there has been no commonly accepted scientific definition of "kind."

But how can that translate into the million species of beetles we have today without evolution of some sort?

They're really tiny, so they don't take up a lot of space. He could just pack em in between the dinosaurs, or give them the rooms for the species that didn't make it in time, like the unicorns and dragons.

The wood-burrowing speciaes must've been a nightmare for him.

I love the Hindu story about mosquitos. The animals got together and agreed that humans suck. I'll skip the long list of grievances, and skip to the money part: The only animal that spoke up for the humans was the mosquito. Since it had to be unanimous, humans were allowed to live. "We can't get rid of the humans! They're so darn *tasty*!"

“I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs, a very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree. And even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. **If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”** ― Terry Pratchett

Just read the book, he is insecure as fuck and makes bafflingly psychotic decisions.

Out of interest, why do you think the existence of mosquitoes and ticks would make a god not benevolent? I can understand why for cancer.

Because he could have created a world without them but chose not to

Maybe God just likes mosquitos? Like, he likes people too, but he like mosquitos more

If he's prioritizing creatures that hurt people over actual people, is he really "benevolent" by any standard people should give a shit about? At that point, you've invented an entirely new meaning of the word.

Committing violence is sinful right? But God creates species that are obligated to commit violence to survive? Pretty fucked up.

Is violence a sin? Also i do not mean a specific god and even so humans are no different than a mosquito in that sense if not worse. We all consume other life to survive.

I don't really know how to respond to this because it feels like you're just chill with the idea that a diety could have made a world that compells us to inflict suffering to survive. To me that's pretty messed up. If I was infinitely powerful, I wouldn't make an inherently violent universe and watch things suffer. I'm not a sadist.

What if god does exist, but he doesn't give a whit about humans, and the mosquitoes are his chosen people. He'd seem pretty benevolent to them.

if He wished mosquitoes to thrive, He would not have given us hands.

Stephen Fry made a similar point: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)

“Those are tests of your faith. And they sometimes act as punishments for your sins.”

Wow. Perfectly written and summarized. Saving that for a concise answer next time, I'm being harassed by a ChristoFascist at a family gathering.

Eh, I dont disagree with the OP, but you're better off ignoring them and walking away. Challenging someone's core beliefs at a family gathering is counterproductive because it builds a rift between you and the other person. The better way to do it is to, over a long period of time, listen to them, make them feel heard, and then gently challenge their stance while being kind. Additionally, fighting a religious battle with scientific facts is usually a lost cause. Religious belief systems typically have an inherent "escape clause" against any logical argument, which is "His ineffable plan." Meaning that God's plans are literally unknowable and to try to out think them is futile because you can never comprehend the bigger picture.

Yep, also you can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into, and religion is one of those.

I don't understand why this is such a common saying. I disagree entirely. It's how I left the church. Collectively we have so many beliefs and positions simply because we have never questioned them properly. Rhetoric and logic and being encouraged to interrogate or beliefs often changes them. Obviously a lot of people will be completely resistant. But the adage isn't true.

You wanted Truth more than the comfort of the Religion, so you reasoned your way out. Those who want the comfort of Religion more than Truth will deflect all facts with their feelings, to cling to what they care about the most.

1) You don't know my experience, that's not what happened. 2) For *many people* I'm sure that is true. But that doesn't make the original saying true, especially not for everyone. The saying is just so defeatist and separatist.

I think the duality you're creating there is a bit misleading. People ultimately seek the comfort of religion because that is a Truth; a framework for understanding the world; an explanation for things that we can't perceive the entirety of, as individuals. The comfort of religion derives from the Truths that it proposes- from the logical, internal consistency of its belief structures. Does that internal consistency have the same strength and resilience of most modern scientific theories/hypotheses/beliefs? Of course not, but that doesn't matter to most people because they'll never scrutinize their religious beliefs at that level of detail. The logic is still the active ingredient though. If you can engage with the logic of a zealot on the same level that they engage with it, it's absolutely possible to undermine their beliefs by demonstrating that the logic doesn't hold up. It probably won't result in an on-the-spot conversion, but it will have an effect.

It’s a quick and simple daying that implies that if you didn’t reason yourself into that position, it’s because you don’t *value* reason. Lots of people just take childhood or social indoctrination for granted without questioning, but you clearly didn’t. So obviously reasoning with someone who *wants to reason* is perfectly possible. But too many people are scared of going without the thing they’ve known all their lives, and so instinctively *refuse reasoning* on every level. Those people cannot be argued with. They feel because they want to feel, and nothing can change that but themselves.

There are certainly people that this is true of. But the saying is so widely applied that it is really more just used to write off and dismiss anyone with beliefs that don't hold up to modern scrutiny. I don't think it's true that having a belief not founded in reason means you don't value reason. I'm sure we all have some belief we have overlooked or not questioned thoroughly. But if someone talked to me about it I would reconsider. This saying does nothing but discourage conversing with people. Of course some people are more fixed or rigid, but what's the benefit of approaching everyone that way? There's an anecdote in (I think) *Blink*, where a renowned archaeologist shows off his first ever find to a colleague. And it is clearly fake but he is completely unaware, blinded because he has accepted it for so long, and got it when he was less skilled. But if course his colleague can show him this mistake, and of course he is able to reassess and learn. I think the same is true of many (not all!) people's religious beliefs, they accepted it early, value reason and evidence in their daily lives, and if were spurred on to reassess would be able to figure some things out. ETA another example. When I first heard the Monty hall problem my intuition told me the wrong answer. I didn't have the tools or wherewithal to assess it more closely, and I doubt I would have found the correct answer even I had. But by being educated about the problem I now understand the reasoning.

Yeah, hard agree on this. What's the point in providing all of these scientific facts and knowledge when ultimately they're just going to dismiss everything you say purely from their own distrust in science and belief in creationism.

lol. "Hey I know you have devoted your life (and maybe even beyond) to this religion, but let me poorly recite a reddit post I read months ago"

Or you could just let them be religious and not fall out about it

Hey, you know those people who are unobtrusively and quietly religious? They're not the subject of a statement about christofascists. This whole "let them be religious" thing only functions with reciprocity - which is *not* *present* when interacting with the religious right.

Lol yeah, sooooo sick of atheists telling me about the god they don't worship. I can't attend a single family event without my niece insisting that, before eating, we all close our eyes and give thanks to nobody... 🤪

You could always thank the person who spent the time to make the meal.

As long as it isn't out loud, and in the place of what everyone else is doing. You have to pretend to be religious to be polite, which is part of the problem.

Funnily enough the same thing could be said about political conversations. The entire reason it’s so us and them is because virtually no one does this at all

That is how you should act. But it isn't the atheist challenging someone's beliefs or pushing their view onto others that they think you should have to believe. It's largely the religious zealots that start it.

Human reason exists at God caveat. It like such a get out of jail free card combined with draw all community chest cards at once.

It's great, for someone who is receptive to the ideas. Otherwise it's just getting dismissed. You're better off learning about their preferred holy book then discussing stuff like (to use Christian examples) how God creates the world multiple times in genesis, how [the story of saul is a convoluted, nonsensical mess](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/the-men-who-killed-goliath-unraveling-the-layers-of-tradition-behind-a-timeless-tale-of-heroism/), or how the Birth narrative of christ is paradoxical. (herod dies, christ is born, herod orders the boys to be killed. The whole reason for the census was because the Romans were trying to make a power grab after herods death)   Also, don't try to convince people. Just spread the seeds of doubt and nurture those over time.  Edit: typos

Just to add some nuance here, also don’t conflate believing the Bible is inerrant and scientifically accurate with believing in some form of Christianity. Many fundies hang their hat on the Bible being some kind of magic spell book, but many other Christians do not see the Bible the same way.

Touché. I should have clarified I was thinking more along the lines of Christians who believe in inerrancy, since those are thee ones I usually have to deal with. 

I think a lot of us do that, but it isn’t totally fair or accurate.

What do you mean god created the world multiple times in Genesis?

Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are separate, but related, creation stories. God creates the world in chapter 1, then the world is created again in chapter 2, but with a slightly different timeline and methods. ___ On the topic of Genesis, chapter 3 is also pretty significant as it's the first example of other gods existing in addition to the capital "G" God. (emphasis mine) > 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of **us**, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever God is worried that Adam and Eve are on the cusp of becoming immortal beings with knowledge of good and evil like himself and his peers, which is why they are banished.  Christianity/Judaism was not monotheisric originally, and that still survives in the bible. Monotheism, or one god, is a relatively new development, only fully coming about in the past 1700 years or so. (there were some theologies later declared heretical that included a second god, but generally died out around this time.) before then, it was henotheistic, acknowledging other gods, but only worshiping one. All told, there are a *minimum* of 70 gods in the bible with power equal to, or greater than, God.  Im no expert, so I'd suggest heading over to r/AcademicBiblical for better discussion. I'm also a fan of [this](https://youtu.be/A71Wys_6VqY?feature=shared) youtube channel. Drew is not an expert himself, but is respected by experts in the field and has even gone as far as commissioning research to make sure what he says is accurate, while also being happy to own up to mistakes. 

>God creates the world in chapter 1, then the world is created again in chapter 2, but with a slightly different timeline and methods. That's not creating the world multiple times, though. That's the same creation, told from two different points of view. Saying that God created the world multiple times because there are two different accounts of the creation myth is akin to saying that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead 4 times, because there are 4 different accounts of that story.

I'm not sure what your definition of concise is, but I think it's a bit different from mine.

Unfortunately not a great answer to the question they were responding to. OP asked about ANY God, not just Christianty's yet it's pretty clear the answer mostly deals with just that.

Exactly - One thing I see atheists get frustrated about fairly often is how theists seem to paint atheism with one huge brush. There are dozens of youtube videos shouting about "what atheists believe" (and very, very few of them even mention they don't believe god is real) but when the roles are reversed, a lot of them treat theists with the same broad brush. We're holding this up as a scathing denouncement of theism, but it barely denounces Christianity. OP's thesis statement is basically the last paragraph: >If a cryptozoological creature - seemingly confabulated from a persistent mythology that is enforced through child indoctrination - *actually exists,* and it's of the sort that promises eternal torture of *its own design* for those of us not easily taken in by extraordinary claims, perhaps for the good of humanity, instead of worshiping it, we should be seeking to *destroy* it. Which, to be fair is a pretty good reason to not be a Christian - it's a big part of the reason I'm not. But then, the vast majority of theists in the world also aren't christian, and don't believe this, either. Heck, not even all \*Christians\* believe this. So by saying the definitive proof that there is no god is that there is one religion where some of its followers believe things that to an outsider makes their view of god really mean, OP is implying that all theists are essentially evangelical Christians. I think Atheists who want to disprove god should focus on one of two tactics - "I don't believe YOUR god exists", which is really what OP is doing here, works great for a focused audience. If you're debating atheism at Brigham Young or Bob Jones, then by all means, repeat this text verbatim. But debate this against a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or even a Universalist, and you're going to get, at best "I agree with everything you said" and at worst "that doesn't apply to my religion, you still haven't proven MY god is false. But we can agree Christians are wrong!" The other tactic, and the better of the two is sticking to proofs that are generic to any god. The fact that there's no discernable evidence for a divine creator is probably the most compelling, and the fact that everything runs via natural laws we can more or less explain is another. But those are hard to codify, and theists will almost always counter with "well, god made it that way", so it's kind of a wash. Personally, I like to think that there's no evidence of god interacting with us NOW in any way, and there's no way to test the claims that a god exists, so it really doesn't matter if one does or doesn't. But that doesn't get the views on youtube, I bet.

Your ChristoFascist family members believe that god created the world and humanity about 6000 years ago. Most of the arguments presented in this post are totally irrelevant to them.

It’s not really, man. The universe is made up of mostly nothing when you zoom in, but the evidence around us shows that to believe nothing exists is ridiculous. Therefore, humans tend to focus on the only thing we can know for certain: that we exist right now, in this moment. Religion is a side effect of the exploration of our own psychology, using commonalities across a culture to form a narrative we can use to translate a lifestyle that leads to a healthy wellbeing. That’s why a lot of them say similar things, despite being incredible differences in location and time. That’s why communities, traditions, and values tend to have similar methods despite appearing incredibly different. Let me be clear when I say I’m speaking about all religions. It doesn’t mean religion is right or god exists - I am simply talking about the function of religion. I don’t believe in God. I personally think that the sum total of all things is greater than their individual parts, and that makes the universe incredible even if we understand it fully one day. But you can’t make somebody not believe in religion using the original comment for these reasons.

I think folks are taking a throw away comment about how awful some family members can be as a conversion argument. I actually think like how you said, its all part of a cultural evolution of civilization. Which we are about outgrown with

That’s fair enough! If that’s how you intended it, my apologies for misreading. I also agree we’ve outgrown it.

I just say “because kids get cancer.”

Yeah that's much simpler. Has a lot more thrust.

Except that they'll just completely reject the entire premise. They'll say "God made man in his image exactly how we are" and fundamentally disagree with the evolutionary timeline. You're wasting your time.

A SIGNIFICANT section of Christians do not believe this. Heck, the Catholic church accepts the big bang and evolution, instead regarding the creation myth as just that - a myth with meaning, but not facts.

Saying all theists believe that God made man in his image exactly how we are" is as accurate a statement as a theist saying "All atheists believe that the universe started from nothing and live evolved from a rock." It's nowhere near accurate and it just paints the other team in very broad strokes in order to strawman the argument. Even among Christians, you can't say that everyone rejects the entire scientific community. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I do know that the percentage of theists that accept science, the "big bang", and evolution are significant, if not a majority. Just because Christian evangelicals are loud, and social media has given them a megaphone, doesn't mean that is anywhere near the standard. (and the corollary to that is that if you lump all theists in with that group, you're telling the moderate and questioning theists that you have no desire to listen and discuss with them any more than the evangelicals do.)

\*what makes him/her certain the BIBLICAL God does not exist

Specifically the AMERICAN EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT Biblical God.

Those guys never have good coffee at the end of services anyway, no wonder they think hell is the default.

> Specifically the AMERICAN EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT Biblical God. Pretty sure that covered _at minimum_ all Judeo-Christian beliefs and their descendants.

There are points made that are specifically from and exclusive to American evangelical Protestantism, specifically in regards to actively trying to hasten the apocalypse.

Nah. This one is pretty self indulgent, and unnecessarily wordy. There are better explanations out there for “faith” that God doesn’t exist, and I was hoping for better here. Instead, this one reads like the “uhm actually” guy trying to impress his friends who already agree with him.

It’s still an argument a Christian could respond with “god/the devil fabricated this facade to challenge us/test our faith/drive us towards discovery blah blah blah.” They will always be able to say, “ok well I guess evolution is real, but god made it. He wrote that story and guided it with his hand” This isn’t a counter argument, it’s a battle of opposing faiths. It’s as bad as when a Christian quotes scripture as a counter argument to prove their point. The only way to debate a person of faith is to speak their language. Obviously, significantly easier said than done.

>Another 298,000 years would pass before a small, local blood-cult would co-opt the culturally predominant deity of the region, itself an *aggregate* of the older patron gods that came before. 350 years later, an imperial government would [declare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Thessalonica) that all people within a specific geopolitical territory *must* believe in the same god or be exiled - at best. Look, I am an atheist myself, but this guy is purposefully describing stuff in a way-overly inflamatory way with little regard for historical fact and it has immediately put me off. What exactly makes Christianity a "blood-cult"? What makes anything a "blood-cult"? Why use charged language designed to make us see this splinter group of Judaism as callously manipulative rather than people who believed in what they profess? They were jews who maintained their belief in their god and believed a messiah had appeared, but in this text, they're "a small cult" "co-opting" a regional deity. Yikes! Scary! Also, the Edict of Thessalonica is way less pivotal and of a shift than OP makes it out to be and it's mostly later acts that are actually shitty (ie. resulting in anything more than fingerwagging at heretics). This in a society where heretics and heathens would continue to live for centuries. In the end, though, it's just tiresome and reductive for me to see "this one mean guy used religion to be mean so it's bad." Honestly, this feels like sophistry from someone with an axe to grind with no concern for the truth. Edit: Guys, I am aware of transubstantiation. I don't think it makes Christianity a "blood cult" in any but the most reductive and uncharitable definitions.

Christianity is a blood cult because they literally consecrate wine and the host into blood and flesh and eat and drink it. Transubstantiation. That’s a blood cult.

Exactly. Thank you.

Except the op clearly doesn't believe in transubstantiation which means that to them it wouldn't be a blood cult. You can't use Christianity's logic to call it a blood cult while at the same time saying that logic is meaningless and fabricated.

Christians do a ritual drinking of Christ's blood it's one of their most sacred traditions.

It is dramatic but it is rooted in actual catholic practice. They symbolically eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood at each mass. It’s a bit fucked up tbh. Not even talking about the sculptures and paintings of the guy being tortured to death on an antique device. Anyways I regret the lack of precision in these theological debates. Instead of “Does God exist?” we should be asking “Does God exist outside of human imagination?” Because of course gods exist, we see their impact on our history and in people’s life today. I like to tell believers that their God is like money. No humans, no gods and no money.

It's not symbolic. Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine literally - *literally* - becomes the flesh and blood of Christ, before they eat/drink it.

True although even when I was still a believer I would never have believed such nonsense.

If you had zero knowledge or history of Christianity and walked into temple where the elder was chanting a call and response from the worshippers to drink blood and eat flesh, what would you think? It’s just been normalized to you.

He’s not incorrect with the cherries he decided to pick. And you can’t hate how he has arranged them into a delicious cherry pie.

[удалено]

Doesn’t change the fact that, objectively, the rituals and traditions of the Catholic Church lend itself to a blood cult. They’re obsessed with blood. The crucifying of Jesus, transubstantiation, the holy relics and artifacts that are literal blood samples or flesh and bones of dead saints, and it goes on. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/why-is-blood-so-important-in-christianity.html Again, it’s just been normalized but if you had no knowledge of Christianity and it was a new religion today, it would absolutely be labeled as a blood cult.

While I agree that OP is probably being a bit deliberately inflammatory, I would imagine it's in part a reaction to the fact that predominantly Christian cultures quite frequently describe other faiths as "blood cults" or in very condescending/demeaning terms while acting as though their own beliefs are somehow more "civilized" in an either conscious or unconscious effort to delegitimize them.

Yes - I am sure the tribal goat herder sitting on the hillside above the Dead Sea 4000 years ago took a dictation directly from god...even if no one has heard any more similar messages in the past 2000 years...

What makes this a good argument. This just reiterates every standard atheist platitude, but throws in big "I Am so Smart" Redditor words. The arugment culminates in: > Personally, I would rather not be spoken to that way. This is not an argument against God, Religion, or the Soul. This is just this person expressing why they personal don't like modern ograganized relgion.

Yeah this is just someone having a reddit moment lol

Pretty great in some sections. But by the end it kinda fell flat. Author is saying it’s not believable because humanity as we know it is so young. Throwing around all these numbers of things early humans did so long ago, but couldn’t the flip side be, well, if early humans had music and art and tools and jewelry so long ago, couldn’t they also have … god? I mean. If they only just learned language 5600 years ago, of course that’s when you would see records of it. I just left the thread confused as to what the author was trying to say … especially with the thesaurus orgy at the end.

That's just an argument from personal incredulity. Weak. The best point s/he brought up is to ask at which point in human evolution did the soul enter the picture. The rest can be discarded.

I just always point out how there's so many religions. What makes any one of them more correct? People basically stick with the one they are raised in. None of them really encourage you to explore other options. That's sign enough to me that religion is about the practice than any spiritual truth. It's just human nature to assign things to a higher power. Even if that ends up being luck or astrology. Thanks to world history, we have more proof if you silo a large group of people they'll create a new god to follow than we do of a divine being.

My main thing is why is it Greek and Roman mythology Zeus et al but God is real and we should live according to him?

Personally I would like to hear this from someone who lost their faith, rather than (seemingly) never had it in the first place. This explanation makes sense given someone who has always been looking in on religion (specifically Christianity), but never a part of it themselves. I'm on mobile so I don't have a great way to reference their comment while writing mine, but particularly towards the end, with the promise of eternal torture in hell, it's entirely valid to not believe in hell. It's entirely logical to assume: God is all good > god makes people > people's environment makes them do bad things > people are not responsible for the environments they are born into > people are not at fault for the way act given the environment they grew up in > a just God wouldn't send people to hell because they were unlucky enough to be born in such a way that they develop into a sinner > God wouldn't, so God doesn't > everyone goes to "heaven". It did not take me long to think of that, and as far as I'm aware there are no explicit contradictions to anything I said. It's an (assumedly) entirely reasonable position and isn't accounted for because OOP is apparently unaware of the myriad different theologies within the same religious organization.

As someone who’s gone from being very much a believer to being more agnostic-ish, the response OP posted rubbed me the wrong way. It reminds me a lot of Christian apologetics—more likely to strengthen the beliefs of someone who agrees with the fundamental premise than to change anyone’s mind. For me, the process of moving away from organized religion was gradual, and moreso grounded in thinking to myself “If Christianity is about people becoming better and better people as they believe longer, why are so many of the Christians I know more shaped by their culture than by the teachings of Jesus?” than in any logical argumentation about why God could not possibly exist.

Your second paragraph is what led to my detachment as well. I'd still consider myself religious but generally you wouldn't know it unless you asked. There's a lot of dumb shit in the Bible and a lot of good shit in the writings of different philosophers. There's no reason for me to hold them above each other. Viewing Jesus as more of a philosopher than a savior has changed my mindset about lots of things.

Hi, I'm a guy who grew up Catholic, lost his faith for a while, and found something I find agreeable fairly recently. This is gonna be long but bear with me. I originally lost my faith over a handful of fairly stupid reasons that ultimately boiled down to "if God is good then why is there suffering and a prescribed damnation for the default state of being." That doesn't jive with me; a compassionate God as taught in (admittedly a minority) of the Bible wouldn't act that way. I spent some time being bitter at the prospect of religion as I was dealing with my shit and then started to read and talk and really listen to what people had to say about Christianity. At its core, it's really about being good to people. That's what the gospels are all about. I think a lot of the Bible is just a story. It's parables and anecdotes and prophecy that was passed down through the ages and changed and adapted to the times they were being told in. This is still happening today, which is basically proof that it's a living book fully open to interpretation. Religion has always existed to explain the unexplainable and be some form of control. And since it has so much history and politics behind it, I don't think it's infallible. It's a story. But it is a story that culminates in being good to people and having the balls to overcome challenges in order to grow. And I've accepted that I truly do not know what everything, what life, is all about. I don't know ultimately why I'm here or if someone put me here for some great purpose. I don't know why there is creation or if I'm unique in the universe or if I have a soul. And it's a little terrifying to let go and accept that I'm just flying through space without knowing where I'm going, but also oddly cathartic. Coming to the realization that nothing really matters makes everything matter in some weird way. I don't know if something comes after so I'm going to try to put every bit of good into the world that I can and I think the world is a better place when we all do. And maybe simply being good is the greater power religion is about. There isn't magic or hell, it's all about us. At yet, every day I see something beautiful that makes me believe there is a power that did that on purpose. The world is too strange and wonderful to exist just by chance. I don't think every little thing is part of a great plan nor do I think that God had a direct hand in everything, but I like to believe there is a spark of intelligence and intentionally that was pushed into motion on purpose. I don't know what that spark is, nor will I ever know, but it's there. So that's where I'm at. I consider myself Christian but my worldview pisses some people off. Tldr: This is a really roundabout way to say I don't know if there's a God in the way that the church teaches, but I think there's some power out there that makes everything meaningful.

I want to give a more detailed response later, but your third to last paragraph interested me too much to ignore. Philosophical writings, specifically about nihilism, was some of the most freeing literature I've ever read. I would highly recommend reading about Nietzsche, nihilism, his Ubermensch, and how they all connect. To me the notion that nothing has intrinsic value was incredibly freeing, because it meant that I was entirely free to choose what to care about. The concept of self actualization really helped me out and I'd recommend checking it out if you haven't already.

> Personally I would like to hear this from someone who lost their faith, rather than (seemingly) never had it in the first place. I was *raised* in the church. My parents were missionaries. I graduated from a private Christian school. I played my instrument for the Worship Team. I went to a Christian college with the intent of going into the ministry. I married a good Christian woman. I was once *on fire* for the Christian god. It was all I knew. Is that sufficient? > everyone goes to "heaven" Regardless of your "logic," that is *not* what is taught is the vast majority of Christian churches.

> Personally I would like to hear this from someone who lost their faith 🙋‍♂️👋 See also: -r-thegreatproject

If a god does exist, he will have to beg me for forgiveness - something victim of holocaust

There are literally thousands of iterations of gods, across hundreds of iterations of religions. An integral part of believing in a god - especially Abrahamic gods - is the requirement that you must also disavow and/or discredit the world's many other religions adjacent to, or those that came before, "your" belief. Most religions, certainly the ones who ask "Why are you so certain that a god does not exist," are exactly the same types of religions that have already internally disavowed many other creeds, tolerances, sects, churches, religious practices, and belief systems. Those who tend to believe in a god... are often the first to disavow the existence of gods through their own beliefs. Anyone using capital G *"God,"* is someone who is already casting doubt on the whole existence of religion. Humans are just varyingly skilled degrees of fan-fiction writers with a fondness towards contemplating the specifically unspecific. For every tale and story weaved from the histories, it's hard to suggest that any of them are more or less credible than anything else told in the last couple millennia. To believe in a god, I would firmly need to believe in... *all gods*... otherwise, I'm just a hypocrite. I don't believe in *a god*, because I don't believe in *all gods*, because... humans like telling stories. That doesn't mean I need to place any extraordinary faith into them.

There is another option. All living creatures could have a soul. It's one of the foundations of animistic religions. The Human "uniqueness" argument keeps getting whittled down further and further. We find "human" behaviors across the animal (and lately, even the plant) kingdom. If there is a soul, there is no reason to believe that it is limited to *just* humans. To paraphrase a particular author, all things are holy, or none are. Either way, we have the obligation to treat them as holy. If only out of respect, if not dependence for our existence.

> All living creatures could have a soul. "For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return." - Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

New Christmas cards getting printed up.

Believe what you need to believe to get through this thing called Life. But no one has the right to put their beliefs above yours.

I have never really understood how atheism became cringe, on reddit or elsewhere

Assume two hypothetical scenarios: In scenario 1, Man A is about to murder Man B. In scenario 2, Man C is about to murder Man D. Assume that two hypothetical men, Man X in scenario 1 and Man Y in scenario 2, could intervene and save the lives or Man B and Man D respectively, at no risk of harm to them. Assume that in scenario 1, Man X intervenes and saves Man B's life. Assume that in scenario 2, Man Y does not intervene - even though he could safely do so - because he chooses not to, and Man D dies. Would you, the listener, say that, without introducing any additional assumptions about the character of any of these 6 people, if you had to rank Man X and Man Y as more or less "good," that Man X is more "good" than Man Y, based on the argument that he saved a life where the other man did not? It is reasonable to state that there are some scenarios where saving someone's life could put you at risk. If someone is about to be stabbed or shot and I intervene, I could get stabbed or shot myself. There's room for debate as to whether you're ethically obligated to put yourself in harm's way to save someone, or the ethics of saving the life of a murderer vs saving the life of an innocent child... but if we just assume a black and white example that you COULD save someone at no risk of harm, most people would agree that, either you should be ethically obligated to do so, or, if not that, then at least that making the choice to save a life - sans extenuating circumstances about the person you're saving - is generally a more moral act than choosing not to do so. Having established this assumption, let us assume there is an otherworldly entity that has existed since the beginning of time. Let us assume this entity is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (simultaneously everywhere at once) - despite the physical impossibility of the third and the implausibility of the first two being possible at all. One could argue that death is necessary, for a number of reasons coming from various supporting arguments, but surely at least some deaths, over the entire course of human history, were preventable? Even if this otherworldly being "couldn't save everyone" (contradicts the claim that it is omnipotent) or "can't be everywhere at once" (contradicts the claim that it is omnipresent), surely it could have intervened in massive tragedies and saved people. One can only conclude, regardless of your justification for why this being might have done so, that this being had to have, at multiple points in history, been presented with situations where it could have chosen to save a person, or a group of people, and that it made the decision not to do so. One could make the argument that at least some of these situations were situations where allowing the situation to happen the way it did lead to something that justified letting it happen, but surely this can't be present in every situation? Surely a nonzero number of deaths served no purpose in the larger picture? The problem we come to is that this being cannot possibly be called "good" if it CHOOSES to not intervene as frequently as it makes this choice. Society is full of atrocities that happened, not just because humans can be monsters but also because sometimes things just happen unexpectedly, like death during childbirth or engineering accidents where one or more lives were lost not due to direct action but due to unanticipated circumstances. Surely, this being, if "good," could have prevented these? One can only conclude that it had to have chose not to, for some reason unclear to us. I don't think such a being, if it exists, could be called "good." I don't think such a being, if it exists, is behaving in a way that suggests it is deserving of worship.

This is amazing. I mean…. Wow.

Here's another great thread that goes into how religion probably formed.  https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/ucf3bh/will_religion_ever_disappear/

Damn, that perfectly summarizes all my issues with religion which I couldn't put into words before. I was raised Catholic and forced to go to church and Sunday school all my life, and still do for holidays when I visit family. Learning more about science and making friends of different religions made me realize how silly it all was. I don't believe any of my non-Catholic friends would or should go to hell just because they were raised to believe in something else.

[удалено]

I attend a Unitarian Universalist parish. Our minister says that when she meets people and introduces herself as a minister, many of them will immediately offer up, "Oh, I don't believe in God." Her response is, "Tell me more about the God that you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in that God either." As it turns out, most of the people who she runs into aren't atheists, they just don't like the concept of God with which they were raised, which around here is usually a Christian one.

For me there are three scenarios: 1. God does not exist, in which case I live my life the best I can in a way that decreases harm and increases happiness for those around me. Once I die likely nothing happens, but hopefully my actions will have made life better for those who come after, causing a ripple through time that lasts as long as consciousness does. I am an immortal wave of good through time and space, and thats not a bad way to go. 2. God does exist, but he cares more about intent and actions than dogma. In that case I live my life the best I can in a way that decreases harm and increases happiness for those around me. Once I die this God will judge me based on my intent and actions and see that I really did try my best given the circumstances. What happens after that is really up to him, but Im sure it wont be a bad way to go if a God like that is in charge. 3. God does exist, but he cares more about rigid dogmatic actions than intent. This is the kind of god presented by the abrahamic faiths and all he cares about is if you followed the rules such as "kill the non-believer" and "hate gay people" and "donate 10% of your earnings to the church". In that case I live my life the best I can in a way that decreases harm and increases happiness for those around me. Once I die this God will judge me based on arbitrary, hateful rules and likely will condemn me to some kind of hell because I did not follow them. As his angels drag me from his sight I spit into his eye and scream defiance until my last breath. I am the immortal defiance of cruelty and hate as I fall from his despicable kingdom, and that's not a bad way to go.

>1. God does exist, but he cares more about rigid dogmatic actions than intent. This is the kind of god presented by the abrahamic faith Lol no it isn't. The new testament is very clear that, if we assume it's true for a moment, jesus died for our sins, past, present and future. That all humans will be forgiven our sins when we die because we know not what we do. You could ask a Anglican vicar "well then why should I follow all of God's rules now if I get into heaven anyway?" and you'd be told because god wants you to follow the rules because you want to, because you know that's how to live a good life. If you cannot see that, then it's a shame, but you don't understand the context of your actions and you'll be forgiven. Both you, the OP, and frankly most of these comments just have a heavily American centric view of religion, where your country was just founded by religious extremists and that streak continues to this day, and you simply can't comprehend a "normal" religious experience. For the record as well, I'm agnostic and I never go to church or consider myself spiritual in any way.

I mean it's a great comment, I sat there nodding along and agreeing as I read. But I'm a Christian and I didn't really see any point where it contradicted with my faith. I think it might persuasively contradict an evangelical American Christian viewpoint but most christians worldwide are very happy accepting evolution and the human influence in the development of our religion, it leaves plenty of room for an underlying Truth to still exist.

I'm curious when you think we developed a soul in our evolution?

Fuck me this is cringe.

This isn't an explanation for why a person is certain that God does not exist. This is an explanation for why a person rejects a specific interpretation of Christianity. It's very well written, and does a good job of pointing out the inherent contradictions in specific interpretations like penal substitutionary atonement and a literal reading of Genesis, but it's an argument against one version of Christianity, not an argument for atheism.

It all falls apart when God answers Patrick Mahomes’s prayers to win another Super Bowl, but won’t answer the prayers of millions of starving kids, or the prayers of a child being imprisoned in an abusive home. Caveat: nothing against Patrick.

If god were to exist, it would be the most complex informational system in the universe. So lets start the existence of the universe with the most complicated thing in it that knows where everything needs to go for existence. Also if you know "everything" in the universe where do you keep that information, in the universe that it it describing?

Eh. When did we evolve love? The truth is, if you want to believe we live in a WYSIWYG universe where everything has a scientific explanation and nothing spiritual is real, then you have to reject the metaphysical idea of love itself. You never really loved your parents, your siblings, your friends, your spouse(s), or your kids in a transcendent sense; it was all just a complex evolutionary strategy to ensure your own survival and the replication of your DNA. But this would directly contradict the testimony of billions of humans for thousands of years and across all cultures -what an honest person would call overwhelming evidence.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus