this can happen everywhere, but I wish every country and every city would engage in a discussion after something like this happened. I think France is on the right path.

I've got 2 that always come to mind.

The first is a very serious one from Sir David Attenborough

​"When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species in all its detail, I always think: 'When you're specializing in mammals, you look at the hummingbird, or the orchid, or something like that, and you say, "How wonderful!"'

​But I think of a little child in East Africa who's got a worm burrowing through his eyeball, a worm that cannot live in any other way than by burrowing through a child's eye and making that child blind. And I ask myself: 'Is the God that created that child, and the worm, a compassionate God that cares about us individual human beings?' I don't find that compatible at all."

The second is somewhat tongue in check by Billy Butcher in The Boys, though it is very entertaining and will certainly piss of most devoted Christians.

​"If there is a God, He's a chaotic, cruel, dynamic, psychopathic c***. He gives children cancer, He sends tsunamis to wipe out entire villages, and He created Homelander. So either He doesn't exist, or He's a massive prick."

Any other good ones.

Animals don’t have free thinking skills like humans. All they know is to follow their daily routines for survival, whether that is searching for plants to eat or hunting other animals, as well as having sex for reproduction, taking care of their offspring, and eventually getting old and dying.

They have no way of comprehending any of the ideas that we have created, and they never question their own existence because they aren’t able to think that far. The idea of a creator God is completely foreign to them.

We are just highly evolved apes who created these superstitious stories since we began thinking too much.
In some ways the mind of an animal is more peaceful since they aren’t worrying about stuff like that.

Religious people often claim that atheists are just full of arrogance and pride and believe they are better than everyone else for simply rejecting the religions. This claim is absolutely absurd when you consider what views we actually have.

There are 4200 religions in the world, and most people of any religion have the confidence to say that 4199 of them are false and manmade, and that theirs is the only correct one and they have the definite answer to everything, even when the evidence still isn’t any better than the others. They also treat people who don’t follow their religion as inferior and say you deserve to go to Hell for it, while retconning their texts and shifting the goal posts when new evidence that contradicts it comes up. This is the real arrogance.

Atheists are being consistent and simply apply the same logic to one more religion than everyone else and say all 4200 of them are false because there isn’t enough evidence, or there is conflicting evidence. We don’t claim to have all the answers, just that we are still finding them as more scientific discoveries are made. We also believe everyone is equal and that nobody should go to Hell.

The idea that we are the ones who believe we are superior is insane.

I used to be so devoted to my religion (Mormonism) for most of my life: early morning seminary, BYU, mission, church callings,..... I genuinely believed my faith was the truth and that everything else was false. But the biggest thing was that I trusted my church leaders. I trusted that they were telling me the truth about the Church, its history, its origins, and its past.

Finding out the real history on the internet was honestly a mindfuck. It made me realize that the religion and the leaders I had devoted so much of my life to and had been so faithful to were not what I thought they were at all. Learning about Joseph Smith, how he claimed to speak for God, the lies and manipulation, the pursuit of power, and his relationships and marriages with so many women, including teenage girls, completely shattered the way I saw the Church.

I grew up with my family taking me to church, especially for Easter but as I got older, I stopped going to be honest. I’m not sure if I’m a atheist or not. I never dug that deep into it but my main question is when people say you should fear God it confuses me because why should we fear someone who created us? At this point in my life, I just believe in a higher power I can honestly say I don’t believe in any religion, but I just heard it today that you should fear God and I don’t understand. Why should we fear someone who created us? Why should we fear that?

Recently, I made a post on r/AskAChristian where I asked them how someone can know if they are a "true" Christian or not, because almost all Christians seem to agree that almost all Christians are not really Christians. We all know how much infighting there is between Christian denominations and even between different churches within the same denomination. Anyone can say, "Well, I'm the true Christian around here because I do what Jesus said. Those other Christians over there might CLAIM they're doing what Jesus said, but they're not. Only I am." Anyone can say that regardless of what they're doing. So, there must be some additional, secret set of criteria that makes someone a "true" Christian rather than a garden variety Christian, because just being a garden variety Christian isn't good enough, and those are no better than vomitous heathen scum like you and me.

The Christians who responded to my post failed gloriously.

The most-upvoted answer was (paraphrased here), "Why the fuck does this sub allow AI bots to ask Christians questions? Because only an AI bot would be stupid enough to ask Christians questions on a sub dedicated to asking Christians questions. Why the fuck should I lower myself to answering questions on a sub where people ask Christians questions? Someone ban this fucking AI bot."

Almost all of the other answers were the same vague, empty, worthless trash that I explicitly said wasn't good enough in the body of my question: "Just follow Jesus" and "You shall know them by their fruits." Well, no, apparently not, because you Christians are the ones who can't agree amongst your fucking selves as to what "following Jesus" even means in the first place, or on whose fruits are good enough. Although, if you ask me, all their fruits are rotting durian slathered in bear shit. And the fact that Christians can't explain what a Christian is, is pretty ironic, considering they're the ones who are constantly asking people who don't agree with their fascist politics to explain what a woman is, like the good little Steven Crowder Borg ass-slaves they are.

TL;DR: fuck Elon Musk

I do not believe in ghosts in a paranormal way. I think those things are things that your mind make. I don't know why the mind do it, but it do it.

I believe there is no God, but if there is a God, it simply does not care about me or humanity in general.

Me personally I grew up in a very reglious home,And for a while I believed whatever nonsense came out of any preachers mouth.

Then around the age 10 and onwards after my grandma died,I began questioning the existence of God and if he really was real.

It wouldn't be until after being church hurt, dealing with bigotry, dealing with the lies and fake promises that at the age of 19(my current age) I became a atheist.

So how did you become a atheist?

After going to my grandmas church technically for the second time in my life I realized that shit is a cult like why in the hell would I be a Christian let alone follow the Abrahamic beliefs systems the church gave off the movie the sacrament from Tubi but without the killing also I read the bible for the first time in my life it’s such bullshit just a bunch of claims I was reading about geniuses about how God created man and it kept getting weirder and weirder and then the preacher was like I was baptized through the blood of Jesus Christ and that gave off red flags in my mind and just culty in general but I only went to spend time with my grandmother since she has cancer unfortunately but my happiness is within occultism the Abrahamic beliefs leave you in bliss and doesn’t let you question anything plus it’s meant to control you nah I’m good i will always be the adversary

one of the weirdest things i've noticed is how obsessed some christians are with distancing themselves from "crazy religious people."

they'll mock anti-vaxxers, laugh at faith healers, proudly say they're "pro-science," and act intellectually superior to people who reject medicine. the irony is that they are usually criticizing other christians/religious people...

but what makes it even more dishonest is how selective their respect for science really is.

they trust doctors, antibiotics, vaccines, anesthesia, epidurals and surgery because science is suddenly reliable when their own life is on the line. yet the moment biology, cosmology, physics, geology, or astronomy contradict a literal reading of the bible, science becomes "just a theory," or it's magically explained away with "miracles."

science doesn't support virgin births. it doesn't conclude the earth is 6,000 years old. it doesn't point to adam and eve as the origin of humanity. it explains evolution and the expansion of the universe through the big bang based on evidence.

and honestly being "pro-science" is such a ridiculous label. it's like saying you're pro-math. science isn't a belief system or a political team.

if you're convinced your god can heal anything, why is your first instinct to trust hospitals instead of prayer? and saying "god works through doctors" is just a post-hoc justification not something you can actually demonstrate.

at least openly anti-science christians are consistent. they're wrong and ignorant, but consistent. pretending to champion science while rejecting it whenever it threatens your religious beliefs is just intellectual dishonesty and makes you look even more dumb than the "crazy people" you mock so much.

Tl;dr - Religious beliefs are perfectly logical and rational but only because they are based on objectively false premises (detracting hugely from their objective truthfulness). Rational != truthful. Religion v. Atheism is not an equal debate. Old Testament stories are verifiably, entirely made up. Even if religious people accept that their religious texts are flawed, they fail to understand that the concept of God/a god is subject to exactly the same flaws. Sorry this is veryyyyy long lmao. Originally written with a religious audience in mind.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Dr. John R. Franke, at the 65th ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) Annual Meeting and during a major session titled "5 Views on Biblical Inerrancy", stated: "By [biblical] inerrancy, I mean... [biblical] inerrancy is simply a way of stating... that the texts don't contradict each other, but neither do they cohere." Does that "cohere" to you?

I'm not going to change your mind, because religions are belief systems that, once internalised, demand absolute belief or else (eternal punishment for the believer). In this sense religious people have a metaphorical gun to the back of their head, which renders this topic impossible to discuss objectively. It is perfectly rational and logical from both sides, unless either party displays symptoms of psychosis (e.g. self-contradictory thought patterns/arguments, as exemplified in the opening quotation). Yet, from an objective standpoint religious premises are fundamentally flawed whilst atheist/agnostic premises reflect reality much more acutely.

You can believe what you want, we are all free to do so and in fact this is a basic human right, but it is critical to understand that not all beliefs are equivalent to the truth. They are simply beliefs, some reflect reality and some do not. But I would personally prefer for people to believe in things that allow for nuance, scrutiny and critical discussion. In fact I don't believe that beliefs can or should be considered to be reflective of reality if they do not allow for legitimate criticism and rigorous scrutiny. Which is why I am not religious. To me there is a minimal difference between religions and cults.

Rigorous archaeological evidence suggests that there was never an exodus from Egypt because there was never even a significant "Israelite" population in Egypt to begin with during the time period stated in the Bible (archaeological evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there were never any early "Israelite" settlements at all in Egypt).

Also, and more importantly, archaeological evidence implies that the two populations described as "Israelites" and "Canaanites" in the Bible were not two distinct groups but actually part of the same population, enjoying a shared culture and living side by side with no clear cultural, linguistic (Hebrew was a shared language of the "Canaanites" and "Israelites"), or geographical distinction between the two. That is to say "Israelites" ARE "Canaanites" and vice versa. The correct term to use for this population is simply "Canaanite" as opposed to "Israelite", as the term "Israelite" roughly translates to "individual who worships the Canaanite god El". As a result this essentially renders the term "Israelite" redundant... (see next paragraph)

Ancient Canaanite literature found within the remnants of early Canaanite settlements shows that the main god of the Canaanite pantheon was referred to as "El". "El" is one of the names used in the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament to refer to God, with the name "Israel" translating roughly into the phrase "El rules". Thus, historical analysis suggests that stories characterising "Israelites" as righteous and Canaanites as evil are simply fictional stories comptemporary to this time period.

The most important New Testament stories as I understand them focus mainly on the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus is a Greek (Koine Greek) name (the New Testament was written in Greek as you are likely aware). The idea of an specifically ETERNAL punishment (hell) was introduced via Greek culture. Before this early Jews believed in a mass burning (a single event) on Judgement Day as opposed to eternal suffering.

This idea of eternal suffering is what eventually gave rise to the mass proliferation of Abrahamic faith and modern-day missionary culture because self-evidently eternal suffering as a punishment is infinitely more frightening than simply being burned to death once.

Another word for ideas is "memes" a term deriving from the field of memetics that treats ideas or memes as having survival pressures in a similar fashion to genes. Hopefully you recognise evolution and natural selection as the very robust theory that it indeed is unless you are a Creationist or something adjacent. Essentially the meme of eternal suffering is what gave birth to Christianity and the wider Abrahamic faiths as we know them today.

Again notice that I am treating religion not as a truth, but an idea/belief/meme that lacks objective evidence. Also notice that I am able to treat the theory of natural selection as essentially the truth because it is a rigorous scientific idea that emerged due to the criticism and scrutiny of previously outdated beliefs, based on objective observations and quantitative measurements accumulated over decades in support of what used to be simply the unevidenced theories of the few.

This ability and in fact requirement to criticise and innovate within scientific fields using objective, quantitative analysis--as apparatus and analysis techniques continue to become more precise and capable--in order to bring scientific ideas close enough to the truth to be useful/more useful (sometimes leading to revolutionary "paradigm shifts") is what is fundamentally missing from religion for it to be viable as something that we can consider to be truthful.

In fact when objective scrutiny is applied to religious ideology, it falls flat, unlike scientific facts. I am able to use the word "fact" here because the core of the scientific method assumes initial theories (derived from subjective observation) to be untrue unless rigorously, objectively, and quantitatively proven. Religion is fundamentally missing the processes that imbue logical theories with a verifiably close proxmity to objective truth. Thus religion cannot be viewed as an objective fact, but perhaps simply a useful theory implemented by many.

This can be described as being similar to the "serotonin theory" of happiness/wellbeing, where early studies found evidence that supplementing serotonin was likely beneficial for mental wellbeing. Decades on, more recent meta-analyses of both historical and contemporary research revealed that the evidence we once thought was relatively strong is in fact much weaker. Yet, supplementing serotonin via SSRIs (a class of anti-depressants) is still a common treatment for depression as psychiatry still employs the "serotonin theory" as a guide. It is still a (mostly) effective medical treatment that we have evidence for, even if said evidence is objectively weaker than once thought.

This process exemplifies the constant double-checking of scientific ideas that does not and cannot happen within religion, since religion does not rely on objective studies but instead a (perfectly logical) rationale derived from (objectively flawed) religious premises. Science is not perfect and is always improving, but it is very good at helping us get closer to certain truths. In this sense, religion is orders of magnitudes weaker and less effective at helping us get closer to certain truths. An idea or belief system being logical and rational does not at all indicate its proximity to objective truth.

The meme of the scientific method spread due to its practical utlity and trustworthiness, without the added fear of eternal punishment. Both of these characteristics have made the memes of religion and science extremely successful. Only one is successful solely because of its objective and logical utility, with the other having had much longer to proliferate and its proliferation aided by the uniquely terrifying (and entirely unfounded) fear of eternal punishment.

In this way science is a successful meme because it is simply a useful tool, whilst religion is successful because largely because it self-incentivised its growth (to "save" others) whilst at the same time providing solace for the hungry, poor, and illiterate before we figured the basics of our world out. Religion is very successful for modern imperialist endeavours for the same reasons, not because it is the truth but because it is very emotive and transforms earthly suffering into something temporary for its believers.

For specific verses, see John 20, Matthew 28, Luke 24 and Mark 16. Actually read them. Actually compare them. Don't lie to yourself or use doublethink to explain it away.

Some Christians will say that the Bible is a human attempt to understand God and by virtue of this is fundamentally flawed or exaggerated (especially the Old Testament) whilst failing to understand that the very concepts of God and other deities are subject to the exact same flaws. The concepts of deities were useful to help us "understand" the world in an emotive fashion since we lacked the tools to do so with any level of truthfulness, which science provides today. Note that scientific fields attempt to minimise human subjectivity in order to derive something as close to the truth as possible, but religions ignore the glaring impact of human subjectivity on the origins of the idea of God or a god.

Not knowing is scary, but it is a fact of life that at this point in time we simply have no understanding of the origin of the universe, and in fact modern physicists suggest there is evidence that the universe did not have a specific point in time at which it started to exist and that it is infinite with respect to time, which of course is irrational. Yet our innate (religious or not) understanding of logic, rationale, and physical/scientific reasoning stop being relevant before the point of the big bang by virtue of having to apply a currently incomprehensible logical/scientific framework to this time period.

If God was the energy source of the big bang, within what physical space did He reside in before the start of the universe as we know it? What processes allowed Him to exist and provided Him with His immense power? We don't know. Ascribing everything to a deity/deities offers a satisfyingly rational outlook, but is once again only rational because this is based on a fundamentally flawed (and a fundamentally human, not objective) premise, which detracts from its truthfulness. The premise, no matter how logical the rationale that follows is, is what ultimately enables us to decide how truthful the resulting conclusions are.

Apologies if this offends you, I am simply sharing my personal views and things that I have learnt. I implore you to check out the work of Dr. Ronald S. Hendel (Norma and Sam Dabby Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies at the University of California, Berkeley) for more information on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament if this interests you. Also check out Susan Blackmore’s The Meme Machine to learn more about memes and their relation to the proliferation of Abrahamic religion.

P.S. You may or may not not have noticed that I in fact LOVE the phrase "in fact" as I used it about a billion times throughout this argument, lol. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to debate religion because I get to flex my research/debate skills. I hope this helps. XOXO, Gossip Girl

P.P.S. For reasons mentioned, I believe religions are equivalent to massive cults. I don't support cults, flat earthers, misogyny/racism/climate change deniers, etc. and so in the same fashion I don't support religion, simply because it is not an accurate reflection of reality.

The religion v. atheism debate is not an equal debate because religion does not hold water, but atheism/agnosticism/mainstream satanism does (search it up, mainstream satanism DOES NOT worship Satan and is essentially a specific type of atheism that promotes the separation of church and state). To me "respecting religion" is like saying that we should respect that certain people believe the earth is flat. Or maybe even worse than that because the dominant religion of a country/culture tends to act as a vessel for cruelty and mistreatment of certain vulnerable groups both within and outside of said religious community.

That said we can still derive value from religious literature and the story of Jesus Christ etc. as these texts have had quite a significant influence on human culture, legal systems, and "morals" as we know them today due to both the widespread propogation of Abrahamic faiths and the historical (and contemporary) lack of separation between church and state. Particularly from a eurocentric worldview. However it is very important to recognise that these texts are largely fictional and based on the made-up concept of an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving deity. It's possible to appreciate and analyse religious texts as a perhaps academic pursuit, or out of curiosity, whilst keeping fully grounded in reality.

P.P.P.S. As a final note, I propose that as a society we look towards indigenous belief systems for guidance. Specifically those that urge us to revere and respect earthly things: our communities, our planet, our animals, ourselves. Balance, harmony, care and love for the things that we can see with our eyes and touch with our fingertips. Heaven and hell exist here, in this life, the only one that we get. I hope you found this to be an intriguing read.

I have many reasons for not believing in God. I have been an atheist for a good decade and a half, myself not being more than 2.5 decades old. I have had struggled with multiple questions since my childhood and for a few, such as the following, I have came up with my own conclusions and explanations, which for very obvious reasons must have been discussed before me.

I have many things about many religions to say, but I'll restrict myself to one point at a time.

So, free will vs Omniscience

Say I wake up one day and am granted a one on one connection with God. Say I ask: What would be my state on January 7th 2027 at exactly 19:11? If the response is 'I don't know', we can safely conclude that there is no omniscience.

If God expresses his ability to answer, then it 'could' suggest omniscience.

Now, going back to the question, it encapsulates a lot of things: I'd like to know, say, how much my volume is going to be, no error, in Plank's length cube; what would be my exact thought, down to the colours my thoughts would have; how many strands of hair I would have on my body and so on and so forth. These questions might seem random, but they aren't: if anyone knows my future body volume in Plank's length cubes with no error, they MUST possess access to information of what happens to/of me before that instant, like what I'd have eaten, precisely; if at that instant I'd be inhaling or exhaling and how much volume that'd be, etc. All this to say that an entity capable of responding to my question should have an unbroken chain of information on just about everything relevant to me. Then we can obviously extend the subject of the question from me to anything at all.

This chain of information CAN be broken, meaning that God can know just a snippet of my future without knowing the rest, but that breaks the argument for Omniscience.

Assuming now that the answer is YES, meaning that God can answer all those questions precisely, I bring into question Free will. If I have free will, then my state of being, physical and otherwise, is a function of my own choices, whether it's a set of direct or indirect choices. This means that my bodily volume could be anything, it's possible that I will gain a lot of weight starting from now, till the date and time in question OR I will lose a lot OR there will be no difference. Although finite, the range of possibilities here is mind bogglingly high (especially since I'm interested in knowing my volume in Plank's length cubes).

A probabilistic range of values, say between x Plank's cubes to x + y Plank's cubes is an understandable answer, but that renders the God extremely intelligent, NOT OMNISCIENT.

To sum up:

If the answer is, say N = 10¹⁸³ Plank volume, the outcome is possible Omniscience.

If the answer is, say 'there is a 99.99% possibility that your volume would be 10¹⁸³ Plank volume, then that is a very knowledgeable God, not Omniscient.

Thus the clash. I believe that one of these qualities has to by definition not exist for the other to be true.

(Here, I'm talking specifically about classical divine foreknowledge, knowing that there are other ways to define Free Will)

So I’m getting a big surgery performed next month, by an out-of-state specialist. Part of the recovery requires that I stay nearby for 3 weeks before I head home. My very religious parents live a few hours away from the specialist, so I’ll be staying with them during recovery to save $$ before I can fly home.

Today my parents tell me they think I should fly out to their town first so that their priest can do an “anointing of the sick” praying over me. I said “no I’m not doing that.” The idea gives me the ick, I have no interest whatsoever as I don’t believe in any of that, and am not going to spend an extra day and several hours of driving to appease them. The annoying thing is that I know that if anything goes awry with the results or my recovery, my parents will be judging me that it’s because I didn’t do the anointing and/or I’ve displeased their god by not following their religion. It will be “my fault” in their eyes. I hate how they think other peoples’ misfortunes are a result of personal moral failures.

That’s all, just wanted to vent to people who will understand!

Hi all. I've come seeking help. I was raised in religion but no longer a believer. I currently have a 6 almost 7 year old daughter. My parents are avid church goers and wwant her to attend with them. My daughter has no idea what church is really about. She only sees the charity work that they do and she loves that aspect. I let her go with my parents to these events and she loves it. However, I do not want her mind polluted with religious teachings. Anxiety runs rampant through our family and I have massive religious PTSD. I do not want the fear of hell, demons or other nonsense crowding her young mind. I used chatgpt to help me create a conversation/diaglog and it went "ok" but she still has so many questions about things that are not developmentally appropriate for a child her age. Does anyone know of a video or passage aimed at kids her age, to help explain my hesitations to her in a positive way? Thanks for all the help.

Just had a conversation with my (51m) wife (48f) of 22 years regarding religion in our family.

Best I can explain is that the majority of my family are Republican-voting Christians, all intelligent, we are all in the southeast.

I am one of the ONLY Democrat voting people in our family and I have lost years- long friends in my life to politics and religion. I have lost friendships in the band that I'm in (the singer punched me in the face), and my adult children all (probably) vote Republican. My bio daughter probably doesn't, but she's never voted.

I realized tonight that I have nobody to back me up with my beliefs, and I have to keep explaining over and over why I feel the way I do. I'm getting exhausted from having to explain myself over and over again to the whole family. I am completely tired of trying to explain my position to people that really don't care to listen to me