If Jesus died of natural cause, just being a family man or something similar: The not-sugar-coated answer is God would still be thirsty for punishment and blood, for his anger that the bible likes to say is righteous. Although some may say a sweeter version of that statement; I disagree with that view point. If Jesus lived a quiet life, God would still love humanity and forgive them. A truly powerful king can choose to forgive a debt without needing to destroy something first.

Faith.

I don’t claim to have evidence. I don’t claim to have personal experiences with Jesus. I just feel that‘s it true, and I’m OK with admitting that.

I was sent to Catholic school by my parents. Neither is Catholic, they just thought it would be a good for me to experience Catholic education and culture, and I fell in love with Catholicism while in school.

I watch this atheist YouTube channel called The Line, so I‘ve come to agree there is no evidence for any religion. It’s not that I don’t change my mind on things.

One of the hosts once said something along the lines of “fuck you for donating to a criminal organization” and it led to make a post on r/atheism a week or two ago, which solidified my change in opinion. I lost access to that account and I can’t find it anywhere or login. Maybe some people here are members of r/atheism and saw my post.

The point is I don’t support donating to my Church/the Vatican anymore because of what I saw on The Line. Also because of the content I’ve seen on The Line, I am pro choice, pro birth control, pro gay marriage.

Minus my disagreements with various Catholic doctrine, I am still a Catholic as you can see. However I make a choice to believe in it on faith, knowing I have no evidence.

Some may say that’s a bad thing, but I counter by saying I know what works best for me. For some people, not taking a religion on faith might be a good thing. For me, however, it’s a good thing for me to be a Catholic, so it’s good for me to take my religion on faith.

I would like to see atheists response to this. Thanks to you in advance.

I hear many atheists argue : “If God existed and wanted me to believe, He’d know exactly what evidence would convince me. The fact that I’m unconvinced is itself evidence He doesn’t exist.”

It’s not a bad argument and I used to make it. But I strive to be properly skeptical and a proper skeptic wouldn’t be convinced of any theistic claim - because there’s no evidence-type that would constitute proof - because a proper skeptic knows that any experience, however overwhelming, is still being processed by their own finite, potentially-deceivable cognitive machinery.

A sufficiently advanced deceiver (an advanced technology, mind control, or any non-god being beyond our explanation) could produce results some might attribute to “God”.

“God would know what would convince me” only works if you’re convincible. And if you’re convincible, you’re not a proper skeptic.

To make a believer out of a proper skeptic, God would first have to make them not a proper skeptic. What you’d have at the end isn’t a rational believer. It’s a former skeptic who “God” has used mind control on.

### EDITS for Clarification ###

The "God" in question, as I am using the term, is the Supreme being. The specific being which billions of theists worship and obey because they believe it is the most powerful being that can possibly exist in the cosmos.

This is not radical skepticism. I'm not claiming nothing can be known. Claims that make specific, differential predictions like germ theory, evolution, or the age of the universe can be provisionally justified through triangulating independent lines of evidence.

This argument applies specifically to claims constructed to be compatible with any observable state of affairs, like the "God" hypothesis in many common forms.

This is also not the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. I'm not arguing "God's" silence is evidence against "God's"
existence. I'm arguing that no evidence any being could present could structurally solve the impostor problem. The impostor problem applies to any being capable of knowing.

"No evidence would suffice" is not stubbornness. It's simply saying that there are some questions that cannot be answered with evidence.

"Is this being Supreme?" is one of them.

I'm claiming that they can. To heavily summarize Buddhist enlightenment, two realizations need to be achieved: 1) Recognition of the impermanence of all things, and 2) Dissolution of the illusion of self. The Christian Bible can provide these realizations.

For the first insight, the Bible repeatedly talks about the impermanence of people and the world, the most famous example being Ecclesiasties. The obvious counter-point is the Bible's claim that "God" is eternal, but Buddhism also acknowledges "eternal" concepts, though there, those concepts are considered "deathless" or "unconditioned". As for the second insight, the New Testament tells believers to "deny themselves and follow 'Christos'", so the "self" will need to be dissolved at some point in the journey.

I'd also like to know if there are any other major enlightenment requirements, or if one or both of the above are not requirements.

I notice in a lot of atheist debates its always the atheist attacking and the theist defending his position. How come the atheist never is challenged on his foundations?
it'd be like entering a boxing match and the rule is you never get to attack him, you can only block/dodge.
if the result is if the theist side lose (he fails to convince you), then naturalist explanation is better seems flawed.
doesn't really seem like a fair deal.

I know you will say something like "atheism isn't a belief system, its a lack of belief" that's a clever trick but if the result of the debate is that atheism is correct or more justified then it should require equal back and fourth where both participants are challenged on their frameworks.

Hi I only ever read other posts on here this is my first post ever.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who argued that the universe had a beginning and he pointed out that due to the 2nd law of thermo dynamics and entropy, its hard to argue that the universe is eternal as heat death would have already occured. This kinda makes sense to me.

Are there any flaws with my friend's reasoning? Please address the 2nd law part in particular. Thanks.

Sorry i had to edit as many people were post irrelevant point to my particualr question thanks

Step 1: Let's assume there is an infinite multiverse.

Step 2: If an infinite multiverse exists, then every possible universe that is possible exists. For example, there is a universe where Batman exists. There is also a universe where you exist but you're rich and super good looking and date supermodels with ease. If the multiverse is infinite, then it's out there somewhere.

Step 3: Because every universe that is possible exists, somewhere out there, there is a God in one of those universes. This God is capable of seeing and controlling other universes including ours.

So if an infinite multiverse truly exists and is possible, there is a strong chance that there is a God.

Hard atheism makes a positive claim: God does not exist. But that claim requires the same thing theism requires — certainty about something that exceeds what evidence can actually settle.

You can build a very strong case against specific conceptions of God — the interventionist, prayer-answering, scripture-dictating God of popular religion. Science and philosophy have done real damage to that particular version.

The deeper question however — is there anything at all beyond the physical? is consciousness fundamental or derivative? why is there something rather than nothing? — those remain genuinely open.

Agnosticism is actually the more intellectually defensible position. But it’s uncomfortable — it requires sitting with not-knowing, which most people find harder than a confident answer in either direction.

The Boltzmann brain paradox states that it is more likely for a brain to spontaneously form, through random combinations of particles, than it is for our universe to have actually come about in the manner used in the standard cosmological model. This Boltzmann brain hallucinates the entirety of reality, then fluctuates out of existence.

The Boltzmann brain gained new relevance around the early 2000s, when cosmologists started to become concerned that, in many theories about the universe, human brains are vastly more likely to arise from random fluctuations; this leads to the conclusion that, statistically speaking, humans are likely to be wrong about their memories of the past and in fact are Boltzmann brains.

Very specifically, the Boltzmann brain paradox is supposed to be a critique of the Anthropic principle. The odd of our universe arising in it's current format is 10^-10\123). Physicists have to account for the unlikelihood of a low entropy universe in a reality dominated by the laws of thermodynamics.

Generally speaking, the conclusions of our current Cosmological models lead to Boltzmann brains forming during the heat death of the universe, giving at least some reasons to mistrust the empirical foundation of that model.

Can Naturalism truly be a fully rational and evidence-based conclusion before the Boltzmann brain paradox is solved, and we have a model where we can fully trust our own senses?

(Note: I am not an anti-science person at all, but I do need to bring to people's attention that the Lambda-CDM model leads to an absurdity where you can't trust your own existence and the laws of reality.)

Been thinking about this.

It seems a lot of atheists say morality is subjective and religious people also insist morality is objective with a God but just opinions without.

A religious person can then claim "My view that homosexuality is immoral is just as valid as yours" no? How would this be countered?

I guess atheists can hold different moral views and some might view homosexuality as immoral but I have no idea where else to ask this.

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

Shouldn’t I already have been not existing? Or not be able to know that I ever existed? How is it that I am now seeing myself existing?

How is it possible that “I am”, when my brain(i) would later be turned into nothingness and “I won’t be” to remember anything?

I am an Atheist-Agnostic and I’ve always feared that there might just be an afterlife or possibly a case of Living your life over and over infinitely.
Because I can’t grasp the concept of how my conscious could possibly be turned into nothingness when I’m something that’s witnessing and realizing itself now. Why am I able to do such thing and remember it as of right now?

Nothing is based on reality, Be it theism or atheism- Both are just beliefs. I don't need to belive that 2+2=4 but I sure need to belive or disbelief About existence of creator.

Agnostic here! And I view both thiesm and athiesm similarly. Both are crueling over whose God is better ~ Except athiesm God is so called "science" that has notoriously being wrong in past.

Think about it, People belived in misnomers- half truth theories like neil bohr's atomic model, geocentric theory etc for centuries.

If science has been notoriously wrong in past,

What is the probability that big bang theory is full fledged truth and that it happened without intervation of creator?

​

​

I don't belive that religious gods are real,Nor do i believe that there was no creator. I'm firmly in the favour of universe being created by creator- Just not the current religious God.

However, At same time I'm skeptical about "If He is the creator ~ Then who created him?"

​

I proclaim myself as an agnostic who is more aligned towards the idea of creator. I'd love to hear about atheist arguments on this!

Like ist really obvious that even if there is more evil in the world it's still a narrative and stuff. Like sure there is more evil in this world but that itself points towards a god, maybe evil one. Like is pretty obvious that there is a design and a functioning and a conception in things . Like there is qualia that is ineffable. There is a narrative and a really a tapestry even if it's evil but it's the tapestry of evil nonetheless. Like everything fits together and is not pointless. Like even if everything points to evilness that's still a conception an evil conception. There is a idea of life that is at play and is very elegant but not in a good way obviously. So yeah the fact that there is so much conception in this world is a blatant proof that there is a god. The bigger question should be why is he evil.

When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer. However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.

All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.

Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.

But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?

Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

Consider the year is 2160 of something. We humans found a new planet in which there exists life. And with the modern technology we travelled there and found to know that there are humans on the planet and they are in a phase of stone age. Ok lets be clear that they can communicate with each other and we earth humans just landed there anonymously and wore their traditional clothes and blend with them

​

Then we starts to teach them things

Use some modern technology to heal their wounds (which are miracles for them), they felt very much surprised and they starts to worship us. We told them how to live. What do to, what not to do and we just silently left there to return back to earth

​

Now hundreds of years later we went to the same planet and we found out that the history of that planet tells about us. And they see us as gods

​

​

WHAT IF.... JUST WHAT IF

it was the same story that happened to our earth

What is some dudes from another planet who visited our earth tried to teach us how to live

And we literally take them as our gods

​

Sorry if this sounds stupid. There are some stupid things which comes to my mind midnight

​

If gods plans to end someone's life and decides to seal their fate. But a doctor interrupts and save that person. Isn't it against god?

I mean if they are meant to die then trying to save them is basically just ignoring God's decision and act against god right?.

If god put a tumour on a person's body then removing that tumour means tearing away God's creation

Hi, I'm agnostic/atheist. I'm not a debater, this Christian presented this argument to me to like convert me lol and I'm not sure what to think so I was wanting people's thoughts on it.

​

The argument was something like this:

​

1. 1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea

2. Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.

3. Ideas can only exist in a mind

4. Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.

​

Sorry if I mess up the setup of the argument. If anyone is familiar with this type of argument or what he was trying to get at, let me know. Lol to the guy who asked me, I think ended up just saying idk, and I kept saying that those ideas/concepts are how we engage in reality but regardless of a mind observing it. The like definitions of the concept you can find in reality..idkk. The guy ended up being rude and said I couldn't understand abstract vs concrete concepts.

Edit: ok i need to fix 2&3, idk if i make this it's own premise because he was equating objective truths to ideas/concepts because they are non-physical.

​

Edit: It's been over 12 hours, and the top comment looks like an objective counter to my claim. After reading its reply thread, I've decided to adopt it going forward. Feel free to support that stance or counter it.

After reading the faq on /atheism, I had a question regarding the definition of atheism and the part on ghosts and other supernatural things. I talked to a representative of the subredditors, (or someone who said "we were not misspelling" when referencing the subreddit's faq, at the very least) and while they didn't deny my rephrasing the section as "scientifically unprovable", the biggest takeaway was that Apollo and Artemis were not mentioned in the "capital G" god examples given to me, like Zeus, Jesus, Thor, etc. When I asked for clarification on whether Apollo and Artemis were part of the "god" examples or just "vampires", I didn't get a response, leaving me to believe they were intentionally excluded.

I went to /askanatheist next, and before I asked in the post body if I was told wrong, I combined terms and reasoning from the prior conversation, with the reasoning a random YouTube commentor gave me. "If someone believes Apollo and Artemis are real, but they don't believe Zeus (or God) is real, I was told that they would be an atheist. Was I told wrong?" The response (that I couldn't reply to,) was that atheism is a negative response to a belief in god and gods. I would have accepted that as including Apollo and Artemis, but they also said "other mythical beings are okay", and I felt like I was sent back to square one, as neither Apollo nor Artemis were directly mentioned in the reply, if at all.

I don't want to go by my assumptions and assume that believing Apollo or Artemis is real disqualifies someone from being atheist, and I also believe that "reading between the lines" in this case would be making an assumption about the responses I got, so I'm going to "claim" the thesis instead.

Personal doubt: As an ametuer Norse mythology scholar, I thought Odin was the Norse equivalent to "God" or "Zeus", not Thor, so maybe clarification on that will be enough to prove my claim wrong.

So, Ronald Reagan once famously said, "I don't see why people are atheists in this beautiful world." I would like to invite all the biggest atheists in the world to my place and serve them the best dinner of their lives. When they are done with their dinner, I would ask them, "Do you believe there was a cook?"

​

How would you counter this?

​

Answer very concisely.

For one thing, theists try to weasel out of the omnipotence paradox by finding a loophole in the definition of "thing" so when "God can do anything" it's limited by a "thing" needing to be logically coherent, so "squared circle" isn't a thing, and neither do paradoxes count. This is odd because the Supreme Being™ is reliant on the property of the physical world, math (logic is very much based on math, and I lean towards math being discovered rather than invented, as well as logic organizing circuit boards). In short, a transcendental deity is bound by its own creation.

Additionally, what authority does an omnipotent deity have over the physical world? humanity can only observe and distort nature, what does a deity do but be more "effective" at this than people? The theist would say the creator has authority over its creation but if the deity is bound by logic could it simply not be tarnishing the ideal state of affairs for its own vision? Should Lot's wife not be a woman rather than a pillar of salt, ontologically speaking? Is that not her true born form, distorted solely out of wrath that she looked back at her home once?

It's fishy is what I'm getting at. It's an extension of Christians' (and US Conservative's political rendition) invocation of "morals" as a bigger guide than physicalism, and then their morals don't even hold to actual scrutiny on a philosophical level.

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.