I assume you are all familiar with the Incompleteness Theorems.

• First Incompleteness Theorem: This theorem states that in any consistent formal system that is sufficiently powerful to express the basic arithmetic of natural numbers, there will always be statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system.
• Second Incompleteness Theorem: This theorem extends the first by stating that if such a system is consistent, it cannot prove its own consistency.

So, logic has limits and logic cannot be used to prove itself.

Add to this that logic and reason are nothing more than out-of-the-box intuitions within our conscious first-person subjective experience, and it seems that we have no "reason" not to value our intuitions at least as much as we value logic, reason, and their downstream implications. Meaning, there's nothing illogical about deferring to our intuitions - we have no choice but to since that's how we bootstrap the whole reasoning process to begin with. Ergo, we are primarily intuitive beings. I imagine most of you will understand the broader implications re: God, truth, numinous, spirituality, etc.

He single-handedly led the attack that drove the Minyans out of Thebes. In gratitude, Creon, king of Thebes offered his eldest daughter, Megara, to the hero.

Hercules and Megara got married and had three strong sons. The family lived happily together

The 12 Labours of Hercules Hercules was a real strong man, with really big goals. Here are his labours:

The Lion – First, Hercules was sent to the hills of Nemea to kill a lion that was terrorizing the people. Hercules skinned the lion and wore the pelt as a cloak for the rest of his life. The Hydra – Hercules traveled to the city of Lerna to slay the nine-headed poisonous, snake-like creature called Hydra who lived underwater, guarding the entrance to the Underworld. The Hind – Hercules had to capture the Cerynitian deer with the golden antlers who was sacred to the goddess Artemis. The Board – Hercules was sent to Mount Erymanthus to capture a terrifying, man-eating wild boar. The Stables – Hercules had to clean all the sh*t out of King Augeas gigantic stables in one day. While this may sound simple, this was actually a huge (and smelly) task. The Birds – Hercules traveled to the town of Stymphalos and drove out the huge flock of carnivorous birds. The Bull -Hercules journeyed to Crete to capture a rampaging bull that had impregnated the wife of the king. (The queen later gave birth to the Minotaur, a creature with a man’s body and a bull’s head.) The Horses – Hercules was sent to capture the four man-eating horses of the Thracian king Diomedes. The Belt – Hercules was sent to steal an armored belt that belonged to the Amazon queen, Hippolyte. The Cattle – Hercules travelled nearly to Africa to steal the cattle of the three-headed, six-legged monster, Geryon. The Apples – King Eurystheus sent Hercules to steal a set of golden apples (Hera’s wedding gift to Zeus). The Three-Headed Dog – The final challenge led Hercules to Hades, where he had to kidnap Cerberus, the vicious three-headed dog that guarded the gates to the underworld.

Mark J, Joshua. (July 23, 2014). The Life of Hercules in Myth & Legend. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/733/the-life-of-hercules-in-myth--legend/ Pattanaik, Devdutt. (Accessed on June 9, 2018).The Infidelities of Zeus. Retrieved from http://devdutt.com/articles/world-mythology/the-infidelities-of-zeus.html Staff, History.com. (2011). Hercules. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/hercules Staff, Perseus Project. (September 2, 2008).The Life and Times of Hercules. Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html

From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.

The sources outside of Christianity are: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Marco Valerio Marziale (Martial).
Brother of Jesus, James the Just, former skeptical, converted after seing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Eusebius of Caesarea.
Paul of Tarsus, former persecutor of Christians, converted after seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: his evangelic missions, his letters, Council of Jerusalem. Both died for him, amongst many other eyewitnesses, in an historical era where Christians were persecuted from the Romans and lying about the rise from the dead of Jesus would not give any benefit, but on the contrary, ensure you certain death.
Testimonies of Christian persecutions: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Dio Cassius.

What is your opinion about this? Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.

Thank you!

If you read these threads you would be lead to believe that being raised in a religious house is opresive or bad. That an atheist child would do better with atheist parents than religious parents who might not like their athiest stance.

It is common that the claims here don't match observable reality but instead tell a story that confirm the bias of the group. Operating as an echo chamber thar doesn't look into or challange the ideas presented if the majority like them. Regardless of accuracy.

I like to always look at real data. Statistically children of religious people take their life or try to, less often. Regardless of the kids opinion. An atheist child is more likely to commit suicide with athiest parents than religious parents.

Atheist talk as though religious people are unable to think clearly. Yet they outperform at nearly everything. Including raising an atheist child.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2695329

A conscious act or cause of the universe, somehow interconnected with the whole universe and every being within it, is discovered. This entity/act/cause observes us as we create myths about what we think it is, invent answers about it, and devise ways to find it.

However, its only known purpose is to observe—watching us grow, experiment, and explore. We have no idea what it truly is, nor do we fully understand how (or if) it affects us as individuals.

If such a being or cause were proven to exist, would it change how you live your life? Would you feel curious or interested in this entity and its purpose?"

I am sure you guys have heard of the phenomena that overthinking leads to insanity.As a muslim i agree overthinking will make Islam seem nonsensical just like overthinking 2×2=4,you believe this without any proof because it is common sense.Atheists continue with their hyperskepticism and it just feels like they want to be right and not that they actually want to be on the right path.Even the truth,when decomposed can only decompose to an extent,for example rational people acknowledge 2×2=4 and irrational demand proof which is unjustifiable as it is a basic concept that cannot be explained.So believing in Islam is just like that because we do not come from nothing and infinite regression can't cause anything.Demanding proof to show how an infinite regression cannot cause something is ironic because that is the point, infinite regression causing something is a contradictory statement.So i request all atheists to ditch the mental gymnastics and accept that sometimes things just simply make sense,just like 2×2 being equal to 4.Thank you for reading.

As a Christian, I believe in eternal life in heaven after death. This brings me all the joy and peace I need to deal with the lows of life. Before I got saved (I was an atheist until the age of 40) I used to struggle with the idea of dying. There were moments I felt there was no real meaning to my life. Sure, I had a great career and a loving family, but the idea of simply vanishing when I died was a terrifying notion.

How do you cope with this? Do you believe as I did, that everything goes dark at the moment of death? That it will be as if you never existed? Do you fear death or does is there something that brings you peace?

Below is a cluttered connection of criticisms I made of one Dr. Neil Shenvi, who tried to vindicate Christianity with quantum mechanics. This guy's been plaguing me since late February so here's some type of therapeutic "vent" criticism.

https://secondwaveatheism.blogspot.com/2024/04/creationist-alleges-religion-and.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PxBDqMKf09SgDnNVCGQzxoqixptMgWwUBaNshhcdahc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pBdoPTQhPYsbeEzLM3ZFSvvrO_atuO1EMKlydh2WhQo/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1loITPgTJyQXzUjLZ07kYx9K9kvPXRzgS9oifoj2Jugg/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NdOQO8dWXmucQBC_nDuouB02zVe5XTPQ8VV_b_7I480/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jH9suNiaWFUrIJ9K6r1bQ704KjgU5yxXe1Ay0SdFlk4/edit?usp=sharing Look for the highlighted stuff.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67017287-aaf8-8012-86c0-072766e903b1

https://chatgpt.com/share/670172d7-d500-8012-9bd1-4ae26c4a196f

https://chatgpt.com/share/670172e6-9974-8012-9494-878402f93a6e

https://chatgpt.com/share/67016dce-5640-8012-a544-4d6c9158b972

https://chatgpt.com/share/670173ee-b024-8012-8b97-9324a8a54287

Some miscellaneous criticisms I have of the guy is that he thinks weird stuff demonstrated to happen in quantum circumstances means he can carte blanche assert his own religion without the same rigor and make us all subservient to it, even telling us to abandon our own reasoning.

Another inconsistency is that in one article he says Quantum Mechanics can break human reasoning but in another turns around and says the multiverse is bad because there'd be a universe made of cheese.

Additionally, he'll wave his own degree around like it vindicates everything he says, then criticize solutions his colleagues come up with and reach beyond his own field to criticize evolution as insufficient of explaining the human mind.

And to clarify one point, I display that he tries to use what he admits to be rare quirks to "explain" Jesus habitually performing miracles, without any reason why Jesus could commit miracles while other religions couldn't. This seems like rarity could explain Jesus doing things others couldn't, but not only does this still rely on habitual and repetitive occurrence of something happening because he stretched the definition of plausible to allow it, but he provides no ontological reason why Christianity specifically is vindicated but other religions aren't, no reason why another religion is good by his arguments.

I am concerned that I might've misconstrued or missed an argument he made, so I was wondering if anyone wanted to go down a rabbit hole and find other faults I might've missed, if anyone has the time. Anyone atheists who use quantum mechanics as an argument would be appreciated.

One of the things western Christians will often hear from Atheists (particually politically liberal atheists who seem, at least so far as l can tell, to make up the standing majority of the atheist community) is that Christianity advovtes left-wing values and policies or even that "Jesus was a Socialist" and as such Christians should on the basis of their religion support left-wing policies and political parties.

On the other hand however many western Christians will also hear from Atheists (sometimes amazingly enough from the SAME atheist) that Christianity is a racist, fascistic, homophobic, genocidal, imperialist ideology founded on the ethics of bronze age slave socieites and is responsible for the affirmation and persistance of class heirachies in the west and (at the least) a large number of the imperialist wars/genocides throughout western history.

So l guess my question would be which do you think is true??

Either Christianity lS a progressive ideology (and thus Christians would be morally obligated to support progressive / left-wing causes) or it is not a Christian's disagreement with any given progressive or left-wing cause/party cannot be held as instance of hypocracy/contradiction on the part of the conservative christian.

Now some of you may respond to this dichotomy reasonably by saying something along the lines of"lts complicated/nuanced" pointing to differences between the old and new testatment, Jesus teachings on various specific issues ect and that's fine. BUT if it lS "complicated"/"nuanced" would not this complexity/nuance also cut against declarative absolutist statements like "Christianity advocates progressivism" or "Jesus was a Socialist" rendering them over simplifications ???

Will be curious to read your thoughts bellow!

Looking to pass time at work by having a friendly discussion/debate on religion. My position is I am a gnostic atheist which claims to "know" that god doesn't exist. I argue for naturalism and determinism as explanations for how we exist and got to this moment in time.

My noble cause in life: To believe in the most truths and the least amount of lies as possible in life. I want to only believe in what is true in reality. There is no benefit to believing in a lie or using old outdated information to form your worldview.

My position is that we have enough knowledge today to say objectively whether a god exists or not. The gaps are shrinking and there is simply no more room for god to exist. In the past the arguments were stronger, but as we learned it becomes less possible and as time goes on it becomes more and more of a possibility fallacy to believe in god. Science will continue to shrink the gaps in the believe of god.

For me its important to pick apart what is true and untrue in a religion. The organization and the people in it are real, but supernatural claims, god claims, soul claims, and after-life claims are false.

Some facts I would include in my worldview: universe is 14 billion years old, Earth is 4.5 billions years old. Life began randomly and evolved on Earth. Life began 3 billion years ago on Earth. Humans evolved 300K years ago and at one point there were 8 other ancient mankind species and some of them co-existed beside us. Now its just us: homosapiens.

I believe using a lot of the facts of today does disprove religious claims; especially religions that have conflicting data in their creation stories. The creation stories in any religion are the "proof" and the set of facts you have to adhere to if that is how you "know" god. I.E if you take the Garden of Eden as a literal story then evolution disproves that story as possible.

If you are agnostic I'll try to push you towards gnostic atheism. For everyone I usually will ask at some point when does naturalism end and your supernatural begin?

My argument is that if I can get from modern day (now) back to the big bang with naturalism then that proves my theory that god does not exist. I hope your argument is that god exists in reality, because if it doesn't then why assume its anything more than your imagination or a fictional character we created?

Greetings all.

This is a response to the discussion found here.

The PoE is an old argument against a specific version of god. That god possesses the tri-omnis of potency, knowledge, and presence along with being perfectly good. My summation is extremely brief and does gloss over the details that we could nitpick about such as omnipotency really describes the fully scope of the tri-omnis, omniscience in itself creates problems for theism, or how there are significant and necessary details that should be discussed depending on how robust of an examination we want to make. I strongly suggest checking this link out if you want to get a more complete picture.

This is unambiguously the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible if that isn't clear.

What I've noticed, and the reason for me adding to this topic, is that the subject of good and evil are important aspects of the PoE. I would argue that it is entirely dependent on these elements.

Definitions are important here and in the linked discussion, this was what I noticed most. OP did not define those terms and it wasn't really explored to any significant degree in the following conversations. So, without any more wandering exposition:

What is Evil?

Evil, as it is used in the PoE is simply needless suffering. Use of the word evil can impart agency on the act, which isn't necessary when it comes to needless suffering. Should the tri-omni god of the PoE, who is perfectly good, be faced with the prospect of needless suffering existing, that entity should, as reason follows it, commit to reducing and eliminating needless suffering.

By removing all of the connotations associated with the word "evil", we see the PoE in the light I believe it was intended to be cast in; a deity with the power to stop needless suffering but in its contradiction, cannot for reasons that theism has yet, in my opinion, to sufficiently address.

While this definition does not provide a description of what good is, it doesn't need to within the PoE. What we can say, with conviction, is that a deity that possesses any iteration of perfection of morality, goodness, or compassion (as often stated by theists of the Christian dogma), it stands to reason that this being would view needless suffering as being, well, needless, and would do what they could (which is a lot) to stop it from occurring. With this understanding, we can place "good" or "goodness" within the confines of this intersection in a Venn diagram. It isn't fully defined, but we have enough that it is not an amorphous fog where the semantics disrupt the discussion.

What is a Theist to do?

This is the other part of the linked discussion that needs to have some light thrown on it.

Alvin Plantinga's free will defense addresses only one aspect of needless suffering - that which is experienced and created by human existence. It does not address the needless suffering of animals, nor does it solve for cataclysmic events like tsunamis, earthquakes, plagues, floods, etc. If you dive into his works deeper, his solutions for natural disasters are demons. No, really, that's a hypothetical he floated.

The other defense I've seen wielded against the deductive PoE is that god works in mysterious ways. That acts that allow needless suffering to persist are necessary so that a greater good (being the reduction of needless suffering of an equal or greater degree) can transpire in the future. While this is a somewhat compelling defense, it is basically appealing to faith as a solution for why needless suffering exists.

In my opinion, the free will defense fails on two fronts. It doesn't address natural evil sufficiently (for the reasons stated above), and it ignores a key facet of god's omnipotence; the ability to create beings with true free will that do not choose to commit evil acts. I mean, omnipotence isn't omnipotence if you can't do things that are doable.

That leaves theists with a sticky proposition. They can become atheists (not likely), create convoluted theodices (see Plantinga's refutation of the PoE, among others), or bite the bullet. What do I mean by that? Well, Calvinists do have a solution for the PoE, which is yes, evil exists, and yes, it's all god's fault, except we deserve it. All the suffering belongs to us because we suck.

My view of the deductive PoE is that it successfully creates a problem that theists have yet to address. Creating a being that possesses herculean power becomes more and more difficult to reconcile with reality in equal degree to how extreme those powers are. Omnipotence, being pretty much the most extreme degree you can go presents a deity that is so powerful that there is no limit to what they should be capable of. Defending why needless suffering exists or even positing that it must exist because we exist is the most extreme case of victim blaming, by the victim, that you could ask for.

Basically the butterfly effect states that small chances in actions can lead to very different outcomes even if the vaitables are very small(ex the 3 body problem or the 2 pendulum problem).

Now the thing is that in a way,that would be applied to any interaction of god with the universe. Basically, his creation of the universe,his desgin for everything in the universe create certain outcomes that may be different if he designed anything different or if he added anything or didn't add anything

Along with that,the butterfly effect would be applied every time he interacts with the universe,or in our case,with humans as him not interacting in certain cases would result in different outcomes for humanity in the future

This would also be applied in the concept of individualism applied to souls as that means that God chooses your birth circumstances from the place and time,to literally your genetic code and family,along with envoierment, just by choosing the baby in which your soul will be placed

Taking all that into consideration, along the fact that God is all knowing, meaning he knows everything that will happen and can happen,based on said interactions in our world,it's rather hard to see how god even with one interaction in our universe could actually allow us to really have free will due to the butterfly effect and his omniscience

Lately, I have been watching the Dan Mcclellan (a scholar of the bible) videos and they are definitely awesome because they contain objective information and analysis explained in a very straightforward way. His videos definitely contain a lot of evidence that debunk in many ways the basis of the modern Christianity but now I wonder if someone has made the effort to compile all of this information in a single source.

0.5% of living organisms suffer psychologically and 99.5% don't. Even the 0.5 of the living organisms don't suffer psychologically from birth till death, their lives are a mixture from happiness + suffering and usually happiness > suffering and they are also supported by stress-induced analgesia system that is activated during predation etc ...

99% of the bacterial species aren't harmful, just 1%, and we have antibiotics for them.

5% of children are born with genetic defects, 95% aren't.

The moments of happy stable earth since the appearance of conscious life >>>> the moments of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, ....

Why the fundamental laws of this universe weren't different so that it can result in more and more and more suffering??

Why not 70% of living organisms that suffer psychologically and only 30% don't?

Why not 50% of children born with genetic defects and 50% without??

Why stress-induced analgesia instead of sensing the highest amount of pain without suppression??

Why not 30% of harmful bacterial species and 70% not causing harm?

Probabilistically, if naturalism is true and there is no caring force behind existence, then we should expect a much more terrible universe, but if there is a caring force behind existence we would expect at least a universe in which good > than evil even slightly, the universe is indeed dominated by good, the amount of good far exceeds the amount of evil as demonstrated above, so the existence of a caring force behind existence is much more probable, theism is still much more probable than atheism.

Note: it is enough to show that a caring force behind existence exists to refute atheism/naturalism, even if this force doesn't have omni-attributes.

The cosmological argument essentially is that the universe is highly tuned and for whatever reason it couldn't just formed that way through it's own nature, and for other reasons the multiverse is impossible so there's no way for our loss to be one iteration of a generative formula, for reasons like probability.

A deity isn't really suggested from this set of conditions. They say intention is important but intention is secondary to ability, so what's necessary truly is something that has the nature to produce the world.

For comparison, look at the way stars form and burst. I don't know if they have uniform patterns of burst direction when they do burst or if they're like snowflakes, but they do burst. Perhaps a "star" burst and the world came from that.

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.

This is more of a parody of the pascal wager, but I hope it can provoke thoughts for certain theists.

Consider, a trans person experiences dysphoria from their body mismatching their sense of self, or soul if you will. If Jesus exists and a trans person rejects Jesus, they go to hell as any other person and suffer for eternity. If a trans person accepts Jesus, they suffer dysphoria on earth, then when they die, they are re-embodied in a mismatched body again in heaven, and suffer dysphoria for eternity. However, if there is no god, a trans person's suffering is finite as they can transition on earth freely, then when they die there is no more suffering. Therefore, it is better for a trans person to be atheist.

I have a question for atheists. You claim that religions, gods, or metaphysical concepts do not exist, and you believe such things are as real as a fairy tale. Here’s my question: What makes you so certain that we’re not living in a fairy tale? Think about it—you were born as person X, doing job Y, with emotions and thoughts. You exist in the Solar System within the Milky Way galaxy, on a planet called Earth. Doesn't this sound even more fascinating than a fairy tale? None of these things had to exist. The universe could have not existed; you could have not existed, and so on.

Additionally, I’d like to ask about your belief in nothingness after death—the idea that you will return to what you were before birth. If there was nothing before you were born, what happened for you to come into existence? And what gives you the confidence that there is no same or different process after death?

First of all let me state that I have respect for the healthy skepticism of an agnostic or atheist, because there's a lot of things that do not make sense in the world. Even as a Christian theist, I struggle with certain aspects of what I believe, because it definitely does not adhere to logic and reason, or what makes sense to me on a logical level subjectively.

That being said, my question is "How can something come from nothing?" This idea of The Big Bang creating everything doesn't make sense- it certainly does not explain the complexities of the universe. The idea of Spontaneous Generation doesn't make sense- In order for something to exist, there had to be something that made that thing, even bacteria from a basic molecular or atomic level.

But let's focus on our Solar System in the Milky Way. I will dispense with theology.

But look at planet Earth. We are the 3rd planet from our Sun, and we are perfectly positioned far away enough from the Sun so that we don't burn to a crisp (The average temperature on Mercury is 333°F - 800°F, with little to no oxygen, and a thin atmosphere that does not protect it against asteroids. Venus's average temperature is 867°F, is mostly carbon dioxide, has crushing pressure that no human would survive, and rains sulfuric acid), but close enough that we don't freeze to death (Looking at you gas giants and Mars).

Our planet is on a perfect orbit that ensures that we don't freeze to death or burn to death, and that we have seasons.

We have the perfect ratio of breathable air- 76% Nitrogen, 23% Oxygen, and trace gases. The rest of the atmosphere is on different planets in our system is mostly carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane, and too much nitrogen- Non-survivable conditions.

The average temperature in outer space is -455°F. We would turn into ice sculptures in outer space.

When you look at the extreme conditions of outer space, and the inhabitable conditions about our space, and then you look at Earth, and recognize the extraordinary and pretty much miraculous habitable living conditions on Earth, how can one logically make the intelligent argument that there is no intelligent design and that everything occurred due to a "Big Bang" and spontaneous generation?

Also look at how varied and dynamic Earth's wildlife is and the different biomes that exist on Earth. Everywhere else in our Solar System is either a desolate deserts with uninhabitable conditions, or gas giants that are absolutely freezing with no surface area and violent storms at their surface. Why is Earth so different?

You know what's also mind-blowing? If you live to 80, your heart will a beat 2.85 - 3 Billion times. Isn't that crazy?

There are so many things that point to intelligent design.

What's a good rebuttal against this?

This post is in response to people who claim there is no evidence of God.

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

Part 1 - What is evidence?

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true. Evidence does not need to constitute proof itself. It doesn't not need to be completely reliable to be evidence. An alternative explanation for the evidence does not necessarily render it non-evidence. Only if those listed problems are in extreme is it rendered non-evidence (for example, if we know the proposition is false for other reasons, the source is completely unreliable, the alternative explanation is clearly preferred, etc.)

For example, let's say Ace claims Zed was seen fleeing a crime scene. This is a very traditional example of evidence. Yet, not everyone fleeing crime scene is necessarily guilty, eye witnesses can be wrong, and there could be other reasons to flee a crime scene. Evidence doesn't have to be proof, it doesn't have to be perfectly reliable, and it can potentially have other explanations and still be evidence.

Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

I see theists make this argument a lot and it's never made a lot of sense to me. They say that if the gospels all got every detail the same, it would point to them colluding and make it seem more likely the stories were all made up. But that doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that stories that get significantly important details correct make them more likely to be true. One of the things that's always stuck out to me is that only one of the gospels mentions that the dead rose from their graves and walked around Jerusalem. This seems like a HUGE event that would even overshadow the resurrection of Jesus, yet only one gospel writer bothers to mention it. This, to me, makes it seem entirely more fictional.

Secular humanist here.

Debates between atheism and theism are a waste of time.

Theism, independent of Christianity or Islam or an actual religion is a red herring.

The intention of the apologists is to distract and deceive.

Abrahamic religion is indefensible logically, scientifically or morally.

“Theism” however, allows the religious to battle in easier terrain.

The cosmological argument and other apologetics don’t rely on religious texts. They exist in a theoretical zone where definitions change and there is no firm evidence to refute or defend.

But the scripture prohibiting wearing two types of fabric as well as many other archaic and immoral writings is there in black and white,… and clearly really stupid.

So that’s why the debate should not be theism vs atheism but secularism vs theocracy.

Wanted to keep it short and sweet, even at the risk of being glib

Cheers

She is, i met her, no heaven or hell either, it's just a different dimension we can't understand yet, and what looked like "god" was a source to all electric life . . . that being said she appeared to be atheist, which makes satanists her "chosen" people or whatever, revelations is not the final book of the christian bible, the satanic bible is,

cheers

The below is based on my anecdotal experiences interacting with this sub. Many atheists will say that atheists are not a monolith. And yet, the vast majority of interactions on this sub re:

• Metaphysics
• Morality
• Science
• Consciousness
• Qualia/Subjectivity
• Hot-button social issues

highlight that most atheists (at least on this sub) have essentially the same position on every issue.

Most atheists here:

• Are metaphysical materialists/naturalists (if they're even able or willing to consider their own metaphysical positions).
• Are moral relativists who see morality as evolved social/behavioral dynamics with no transcendent source.
• Are committed to scientific methodology as the only (or best) means for discerning truth.
• Are adamant that consciousness is emergent from brain activity and nothing more.
• Are either uninterested in qualia or dismissive of qualia as merely emergent from brain activity and see external reality as self-evidently existent.
• Are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-vaccine, pro-CO2 reduction regulations, Democrats, etc.

So, allowing for a few exceptions, at what point are we justified in considering this community (at least of this sub, if not atheism more broadly) as constituting a monolith and beholden to or captured by an ideology?