This is a very simple question. Logically this seems obvious. Athiesm is a construct of pure logic which comes off as illogical. Now agnosticism has an open mind. If someone does not know an answer then to correctly perform any research one must keep all doors open to find the right answer. When reasearch is done in a way that already knows answer it becomes similar to the medical industry of today. Corrupt and ruthless. You can twist words how you want, but this point is as obvious as noticing you got punched in the face. My perspective personally (although not relevant to the topic is Occult knowledge from all religions and science/sacred geometry/ metaphysics) should not be attacked here. I listed it because I don't want to called a ridiculous christian/nihilist if people get to the emotional crybaby department. Boohoo we have to ban him. Yeah reddit is full of people trigger happy with it. Bring it on. You already got owned athiest. Stay on the most direct topic. Show me your evidence of no god. Forget about everything else. Where is your scientific data of no god. Don't be like those bible thumpers and point to illogical garbage. We have not even started and it's checkmate.

So something has been bothering me for a while now and it's not an argument for or against any form of religion. So here it is:

How did our ancestors know the universe came from nothing? If you look at a lot of creation myths, quite a few start from a void. Whether it's Gaia and ouranos emerging from chaos, or the Hebrew god saying "let there be light". Our ancestors used religion to explain the world around them. Sure some stories are out of order and my honest opinion the Bible is the closest to the big bang. But what the actual heck is this phenomenon?

Update: I'm not sure im.being very eloquent t rn with it being almost 1 am, but the basis of what I'm trying to say is this: for people who don't know what happened and who needed to use their imagination to make things make sense. Religions like the ancient Greek helenestic pantheon is actually quite close to the order of things forming on earth if we leave out the sun and moon. " chaos (nothing/void/space) Gaia and ouranos forming at the same time (earth and sky). Waters and land. The creativity there is mind boggeling and quiet accurate for a people who believed that the sun was a chariot in the sky pulled by a team of horses guided by a dude who plays a harp.

Preamble

A few weeks ago, I asked r/atheism members for arguments that support atheism. There were many responses. Some insensible, some interesting. I’m still reading through them and hope to highlight some of the more well-thought out responses. Today, I’ll highlight one of those. Is this response widely held?

Definition

x is a withhold-belief-atheist (WBA) if and only if x chooses to withhold belief from g (where g = “god exists”)

This raises a question for this kind of atheist:

Why do you withhold belief from g?   Irrational vs Rational WBAs

Two responses may follow:

(a) Provide no reason (b) Provide a reason

The WBA who opts for (a) can be considered an irrationalist because they choose not to provide a reason for their position.

The WBA who opts for (b) can be considered a rationalist because they choose to provide a reason for their position.

The irrationalist is not of interest because we are interested in rational atheism   Rational WBAs

What reason can the rationalist WBA give?

One possibility can be represented in the form of the following argument:

1. If there is no evidence for g, then withhold belief that g
2. There is no evidence for g
3. Withhold belief that g

We abstract the following principle the rationalist abides by

If there is no evidence for a proposition, p, then withhold belief that p

The first premise is just an instance of the principle   Summation  

1. A type of atheist: withhold belief atheist
2. Two types: irrationalist vs rationalist
3. Rationalists give reasons for withholding belief g
4. Reason for withholding belief g: there is no evidence for g
5. Promising but still problematic

I’m going to go straight to the point.

God is beyond duality and non-duality too, therefore it’s at His will whether He wants to act within the parameters of dualistic logic or not.

God doesn’t allow or not allow evil for that matter. So, therefore, it is beyond our comprehension. His purpose or plan for us in whether or not he ultimately chooses to intervene is incomprehensible because we’re made finite.

However, because we’re made in the image of God, we’re called to have a conscience which is directly the objective grounds of morality of God. Intervening with incomprehensible intentions does not necessarily amount to God’s morality inscrutable.

God would make such a reality because it’s a test for humans to grow and connect to Him.

Premise 1: God is non-dualistic, meaning He transcends dualities like good and evil, mind and body, and other opposites.

Premise 2: The human experience is bound by dualistic categories like good and evil, suffering and flourishing.

Premise 3: God’s interaction with creation is beyond human comprehension, and He may intervene in the world in ways that are inscrutable to us.

Premise 4: Evil is not something God allows or disallows, but rather, it is a perception tied to the finite nature of our experience.

Premise 5: Humans are made in the image of God, and thus, we possess a conscience that reflects God’s objective morality, even if we cannot fully grasp His ultimate purpose.

Conclusion: The reality of evil, suffering, and moral struggle serves as a test for humans to grow spiritually and connect with God, even though the full purpose of this process remains beyond our understanding.

This might be a bit of an unconventional debate as I’m an atheist and also a naturalist. Though I agree with the New Atheists on their critiques of religion, I do think that the New Atheist movement is a failure, and that we have to move beyond it if we wish to live in a society free from dogma. Im sure there may be some atheists in here who agree with me, but I am curious about the perspectives of atheists who disagree with me.

Popular culture is currently a cesspool of dogmatism, nihilism, and consumerism. If we wish to live in a world where humans can truly flourish, we must build new naturalistic cultures that can outcompete those cultures that cause harm in our society. New Atheism is perceived by most people as negative, unattractive, and even fundamentalist. Though this community has done a stellar job in exposing the harms of dogmatism (which I personally applaud), most New Atheists are still cultural Protestants: many still celebrate Christmas and Easter; much of the movement is overwhelmingly focused on belief and on God, and much of it cultivates an "us vs. them" mentality. Some scholars of religion have even gone as far as to label the New Atheists as a Protestant sect. Not only does this movement not escape the shallow cultural confines of Christianity, but it's also likely to only ever exist in the margins of society. This is because of its negativity, and the fact that it doesn't have anything to offer that's aesthetically or existentially satisfying. Most people leaving traditional religion today are becoming "Spiritual But Not Religious" instead of Atheist, demonstrating further that Atheist culture just isn’t attractive in its current form. We can't ignore this fact if we truly want a society free from dogma. New Atheism just isn't enough—l'd add, even an obstacle towards creating a society where humans can truly flourish.

This brings me to my final point: who says atheists have to be cultural Christians? Why not build new and attractive cultures that rely on scientific research on culture to maximize human flourishing better than Christian culture has? Why not celebrate our Sun and our Earth instead of God by celebrating the solstices and equinoxes instead of Christian holidays? Why not create symbols, art, and practices that make rational and scientific values more salient in society, so that they can better outcompete dogmatic values? Why not celebrate the story of human evolution through art, music, and other festivities? Rationalism cannot change society by being bland.

Iam a theist, so that means by default i have a belief in afterlife, consequence of my actions in the here after and a Greater purpose of Life other than living comfortably here in this life. So just like that do all atheists who dont believe in God because of "rationality" also dont believe in an afterlife and other stuff usually come with belief in God?

For example, buddhists are somewhat of an atheist in a sense that they dont believe in a creater God that can help but they do believe in afterlife, reincarnation, guidance from gods/devas and stuff. So is there any person who calls himself an atheist who believes in all these afterlife and stuff but just reject a "god"?

Usually whenever i see some one call themselves an atheist, they are mostly materalistic atheists who not only deny/lack belief in God but also their own "soul". They mostly dont recognise anything other than material world and believe after death our body will decay and its our end. This Non belief in afterlife arise because they dont believe in an eternal soul or dont see any part of them as seperate from the body and mind.

People who dont believe in God/gods can justify it by saying God is not necessarily an answer but by denying afterlife they are literally making this life a purposeless one. if There is no afterlife then would be perfectly fine to tell people suffering and living a hard life to shoot themselves because its the most "rational" thing to do.

No afterlife/eternal sleep is better than suffering every single day because of things they cant control(Economic condition, wars, famine etc)

So My questions are

1. DO you personally believe in Afterlife ?

2. If yes then as per your understanding, Give reasons Why a suffering person should continue to live as per your rational thinking? (if you think unaliving is actually better you can also say that)

3. What percent of atheist do you think are both atheist and dont believe in afterlife?

if you are an atheist but believe in After life then just let me know in the comments just to see how many of them are there.

Refined Framework of Existence: A Fractal-Vibrational System

Core Concept: Existence as a Fractal-Vibrational System

Existence operates through an interplay of fractal structures, vibrational energy, and entropy, driving growth, coherence, and evolution. This framework integrates scientific evidence, philosophical insights, and observable phenomena to explain the dynamic nature of reality. 1. Fractals: Provide the structural framework, repeating patterns across scales to optimize energy and resources. 2. Vibrational Energy: Dynamic forces expressed as oscillations (e.g., sound waves, quantum vibrations) shape and interact with fractals. 3. Entropy and Resonance: Entropy introduces disorder and growth potential, while resonance aligns systems, reducing inefficiencies and creating coherence.

This document synthesizes the core principles, supporting evidence, and practical applications of this framework.

Core Principles and Supporting Evidence

1. Fractals as Universal Structures

   • What They Are: Fractals are self-similar patterns that repeat across scales, seen in natural systems like tree branches, river networks, and human lungs. • Mechanisms: • Blood vessels and lung structures approximate fractal patterns, optimizing resource distribution and minimizing energy use.

(Source: West et al., “A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology,” Science, 1997) • Tree branching and leaf venation reflect fractal geometry shaped by auxins and vascular traces. (Source: Runions et al., “Modeling Biological Patterns Using L-systems,” BMC Bioinformatics, 2005) • Integration: Fractals provide the blueprint for structural efficiency, describing observed patterns rather than the biochemical mechanisms driving them.

2. Vibrational Energy as Dynamic Force

   • What It Is: Vibrational energy refers to oscillations or frequencies in physical systems, including sound waves, quantum fields, and biological rhythms. • Empirical Evidence: • Cymatics: Sound vibrations create fractal-like patterns in materials like sand and water.

(Source: Jenny, “Cymatics: A Study of Wave Phenomena and Vibration,” 2001) • Quantum Oscillations: Subatomic particles exhibit vibrational behavior, influencing molecular stability and interactions. (Source: Feynman et al., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1964) • Biophysics: Brainwaves (measured in hertz) correlate with mental states, while heart rhythms synchronize with emotional coherence. (Source: McCraty et al., “Heart Rhythm Coherence—An Emerging Area of Research,” Frontiers in Public Health, 2015) • Integration: Vibrational energy interacts with fractals, shaping dynamic processes like growth, adaptation, and communication.

3. Entropy as Catalyst

   • What It Is: Entropy measures unavailable energy in thermodynamics and reflects disorder within systems. • Dual Role: • Challenge: Entropy introduces inefficiencies, creating misalignment or decay. • Opportunity: It catalyzes growth by prompting systems to adapt and refine. • Empirical Evidence: • Thermodynamics: Entropy governs energy flow, such as in heat engines or metabolic processes.

(Source: Atkins, “The Second Law,” Scientific American, 1991) • Biological Evolution: Random mutations (entropy) generate diversity, fueling adaptation through natural selection. (Source: Kimura, “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution,” 1983) • Integration: Entropy ensures systems evolve, balancing order and randomness through cycles of challenge and refinement.

4. Resonance Aligns and Refines

   • What It Is: Resonance occurs when a system’s natural frequency aligns with external vibrations, amplifying effects. • Dual Impact: • Constructive: Enhances coherence and reduces inefficiencies (e.g., resonance in musical instruments). • Destructive: Can destabilize systems if misaligned (e.g., bridge collapse due to resonant frequency). • Empirical Evidence: • Structural Resonance: Glass shattering at high pitch demonstrates the amplification of vibrational energy.

(Source: Rossing, “The Science of Sound,” 2001) • Biological Coherence: Brainwave entrainment through binaural beats enhances mental focus or relaxation. (Source: Lane et al., “Binaural Auditory Beats Affect Vigilance Performance and Mood,” Physiology & Behavior, 1998) • Integration: Resonance optimizes energy flow in specific contexts, reducing entropy when alignment is achieved.

5. Cycles and Recursion Govern Growth

   • What They Are: Natural systems operate in cycles (e.g., carbon cycle, water cycle) or recursive processes (e.g., fractal scaling in ecosystems). • Empirical Evidence: • Biological Cycles: The Krebs cycle (cellular respiration) demonstrates the cyclic transformation of energy within living cells.

(Source: Stryer, “Biochemistry,” 1995) • Thermodynamic Cycles: Engines operate based on cyclic energy transformations. (Source: Carnot, “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire,” 1824) • Integration: Cycles and recursion ensure renewal, refinement, and scalability in systems across scales.

6. Interconnectedness in Systems

   • What It Is: Systems are interconnected, with changes in one component rippling outward to affect the whole. • Empirical Evidence: • Ecology: Keystone species demonstrate the ripple effects of interconnectedness within ecosystems.

(Source: Paine, “Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity,” The American Naturalist, 1966) • Systems Thinking: Economic and ecological models demonstrate how interdependence governs stability and collapse. (Source: Meadows, “Thinking in Systems,” 2008) • Integration: Interconnectedness explains how local actions scale globally, influencing the coherence of larger systems.

Purpose of Existence

1.	To Evolve Through Alignment:
•	Challenges (entropy) reveal misalignment, while growth occurs by realigning with fractal patterns and resonant frequencies.
2.	To Sustain Interconnectedness:
•	Individual systems contribute to the collective, maintaining balance and coherence.
3.	To Explore and Refine Potential:
•	Randomness and disorder introduce variability, enabling innovation and adaptation.

How the Framework Works

1.	Fractals Provide Structure: Fractals define the shape and scalability of systems, organizing complexity into manageable patterns.
2.	Vibrational Energy Drives Dynamics: Vibrations create motion and interaction, ensuring systems remain adaptive and responsive.
3.	Resonance and Entropy Guide Growth: Resonance amplifies alignment and reduces inefficiencies, while entropy challenges systems to evolve.
4.	Interconnectedness Amplifies Impact: Local alignment contributes to global coherence, fostering a balanced and adaptive system.

Applications of the Framework

1.	Personal Growth:
•	Mindfulness: Align mental and emotional states with coherent rhythms through practices like meditation or sound therapy.
•	Adaptation: View challenges as entropy-driven opportunities for growth.
2.	Collective Harmony:
•	Collaboration: Engage in shared practices (e.g., group meditation, collaborative problem-solving) to amplify collective coherence.
•	Ripple Effects: Recognize how individual alignment impacts larger systems.
3.	Innovation and Sustainability:
•	Technology: Use fractal and vibrational principles to optimize design, efficiency, and resilience in engineering and architecture.
•	Ecology: Apply interconnectedness to foster sustainable resource management.

Conclusion

This framework integrates fractal structures, vibrational dynamics, and entropy’s dual role to explain the interplay of order, randomness, and growth. Empirical evidence supports the idea that: • Fractals provide the structural foundation. • Vibrational energy drives dynamic processes. • Entropy challenges systems to grow and refine. • Resonance aligns and optimizes energy flow.

By aligning with these principles, individuals and systems can foster coherence, navigate challenges, and contribute to the collective evolution of existence.

My answer to the "good person" argument comes from C.S. Lewis.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Edit: I walked in this sub and got my tail kicked. Thank y'all for challenging my faith. I have enjoyed the discussions. I didn't expect the amount of replies I got, and I'll try and sift through them a few at a time. If this has taught me one thing, it's that I'm as prepared as I thought I was. For me, this shows that I need to find more sources, read more Scripture, and consult people wiser than me. Thank y'all.

I'm stupid at science and astronomy. So i'm not gonna pretend.

1. How was the first "similar ancester" born? Or the first species born from?
2. If the big bang was a lie, a galaxy wouldn't exist. If it was true, where did it come from, nothingness?
3. Why are we alive on earth? Why is it not the moon so we all died?
4. Until now there's no proof to be found of any other inhabited planet or any other livings.
5. The world is perfect. Because if it wasn't you wouldn't be sitting here now. The solar system is perfect. The ecosystem is perfect, the animal food chain is perfect, your anatomy is perfect. How? All by chance from the big bang? An explosion cannot create a perfectly designed cycle.

Please base your arguments on logic and not fantasy (your personal insults).

Your science wouldn't make sense without god. Science has to be created. Who did?

I mean, not about the short-term here and now, but about the ultimate fate of the universe and the very plot (outcome) of existence itself as a whole.

Is it possible to be an atheist and deeply believe that things, as a whole, will ultimately get better? For example, that everything is heading towards some kind of higher purpose?

Or must atheism imply an inherently absurdist and nihilistic perspective in the face of totality? In the sense that there is no greater hope.

Note: I'm not talking about finding personal meaning in what you do, or being happy, feeling well, enjoying life, nor anything like that. I'm talking about the grand cosmic scheme.

My main question: Have you lost people over religious arguments? Including politics, sports, etc. And how can I ask for forgiveness?

Longer essay:

I believe there's a positive correlation between intelligence and non religious people. (I will owe you a bunch of evidence and citations here, forgive me in advance.) So I genuinely enjoy talking to atheists, agnostics, etc. Although collectivist labels don't really say much about someone. Using your bald example: What do bald people have in common? Apart from not having hair.

The stereotype is that atheist enjoy science, read a lot, and can hold a good sci-fi conversation. I also feel the more radical atheists were religious as some point. Which, paradoxically, makes them sound and behave as militant atheists. I'm thinking of you, anti-theists...

However, I find many contradictions in your beliefs and behavior. For example, why would an intelligent being waste time debating religion? If religion is absurd or stupid, then debating stupidity is meta-stupidity. To what extent are you harming yourself with unhealthy, burdensome ideas?

Then you have anti-theists, which I understand and agree partially with some of their ideas. But is anti-theism a disorganized religion? Why proselytize about science and the universe like a Jehovah's Witness? Does this bring joy and harmony to your life? What is the purpose?

Moreover, are atheists fully immune from memetic parasites? Do you live a fully coherent life? No one can live 100% logically. Chewing gum is irrational, so is tobacco or porn. If you truly believe you are born and then die forever. And your mind ceases to exist. Then an atheist is also "wasting her time." What is the difference between spending your Sunday at a cosplay convention instead of going to a church, mosque, etc?

By contrast, religion tends to be imposed and cannot be questioned. It is rooted in fear and oppression. While cosplayers don't believe in apostasy or monopolize morality. Yet life is a waste of time.

I believe Nietzsche and other philosophers offer a solution to the "life is waste of time" argument. But that in itself is an ideology. And not everyone is satisfied by an atheistic life. Because it feels meaningless, without purpose or direction. Which religions tend to provide comfort. Albeit flawed and full of mental gymnastics. (The opium of the masses.)

Sometimes I see religious people outdoors pushing their faith: Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witness... Is it worth debating them? Or should we see them with compassion? They are pawns of a political machine who is profiting of their free labor. While the religious elite is in a palace surrounded by art and gold. And is this elite also enslaved in their own prison?

Furthermore, as I've aged, I am seeing religion and society with mature eyes. I am concluding that some people need to repeat like sheep what others say. And that "if we don't control what the masses believe, then someone else will." Religion is political propaganda of the governing elites. Influenced by geography and local society. Therefore, trying to question or void this faith, will open the door for an external elite to impose their ideology.

When I've shared some of these beliefs with religious friends, they've called me a Marxist or a lunatic. As some crazy conspiracy theorist who worries about the fluoride in the water. (I write conspiracy fiction. Which has also led me to all this research about politics and religion.)

You all know that it is easier to fool someone than to explain that they've been fooled. So why spend time on all this? In fact, why not profit from madness? To the anti-theists, have you considered that L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith are/were smarter than you? Wouldn't you rather collect the tithe and have several wives instead of spending your weekend teaching science to less evolved Homo Sapiens? (While it is unethical to cheat and scam people, it seems that some will behave as sheep no matter what. So why not own them yourself?)

Finally, I've gone into a spiraling debate with people who respected me, liked me, and even loved me. I've shared some of the ideas above. And we ended up fighting in some cases. To the point that they may not want to see me again. And all because of stupid imaginary myths and non falsifiable theories. Has anyone here experienced this? And don't you regret losing people over words and ideas?

TLDR: I offended a friend's sister because we debated at a family dinner. I owe her an apology and flowers. Can someone who's gone through this help me think of what to say and offer her to amend my actions?

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.

What exactly is the difference between "God" and Power? Atheists do not call the Universe "God" but it checks many boxes.

[X] Immortal

[X] Unassailable

[X] Omniscient

[X] Boundless

When we speak of "nature" in the abstract, of "how things just are", are we not talking of God?

What exactly disqualifies the Universe from being "God" in the atheist view.

In recent discussions the lack of accord in "what is existence?" Is the point of disagreement where theist and atheist like myself collide.

Solipsism aside, maths and languages are tools that help us to represent reality.

Numbers and concepts are categories (abstractions) with added characteristics and labels, but all rooted and extrapolated from objects in reality.

In this issue I differ with German Idealism, giving that I can't find an example of structures that precede all experience.

Simplifying, and this are a few questions mostly for idealists:

1. Are there any examples of structures that precede to all experience?

2. What are the basis to consider thinking concepts (like numbers) other than complex representations of reality?

3. Why should we (all) consider the existence of this brain-sub-products in the same "category-of-existence" as anything else that can be objectively measured?

Edit for typos.

Just so you know in the sense of order i refer to. Order is regulation and commands. So basically order is any form of structure.

The claim:

"Morality is subjective and not objective"

My response:

"There can be no reason without order and the idea of order cannot exist without disorder and vice-versa. So this brings to question, how can one consider anything to be reasonable if there is not supposed to be any specified order to how morality is supposed to work? If morality has no order then that would make it unreasonable, and yet, you defend the idea that it is reasonable despite claiming it has no order."

Reason is an old English word that comes from the Latin word "ratio," meaning "calculation, reckoning, or understanding." This Latin word itself can be traced back to the Proto-Indo-European root reǵ-, which means "to be straight, to rule."

To the word straight: There are many ways to perceive straight but the main point of the word is that which is set on moving in a single direction or in an orderly way.

This is 1 of the ways i connect reason with order.

To the word rule: c. 1200, "principle or maxim governing conduct, formula to which conduct must be conformed" from Old French riule, Norman reule "rule, custom, (religious) order" (in Modern French partially re-Latinized as règle), from Vulgar Latin *regula, from Latin regula "straight stick, bar, ruler;" figuratively "a pattern, a model," related to regere "to rule, straighten, guide" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule").

This is another way to connect reason to order.

Judaism holds the belief that an entire nation beheld god at mount Sinai, and that tradition got passed down in the generations, and because you can't lie to an entire nation about something their parents (ancestors) were a part of, it must mean that the revelation at mount Sinai did happen. how do you refute that?

No one seems capable of articulating the personal threshold at which the quality and quantity of evidence becomes sufficient to persuade anyone to believe one thing or another.

With no standard as to when or how much or what kind of evidence is sufficient for persuasion, how do we know that evidence has anything to do at all with what we believe?

Edit. Few minutes after post. No answers to the question. People are cataloging evidence and or superimposing a subjective quality onto the evidence (eg the evidence is laughable).

Edit 2: author assumes an Aristotelian tripartite analysis of knowledge.

Edit 3: people are refusing to answer the question in the OP. I won’t respond to these comments.

Edit 4 a little over an hour after posting: very odd how people don’t like this question. But they seem unable to tell me why. They avoid the question like the plague.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

Counterarguments.

A. The universe is a curved space with no beginning and no end. (Hawking)

B. (And counterargument to A.) the universe has no beginning because it continuously expands and contracts (Neil Turok)

Response to counterarguments. There is no physical evidence or replicable experiment results to believe either mutually exclusive theory is the truth.

Consequently, there’s is no reason to believe either A or B. If we restrict our belief to those things we know are true, then we should accept the general theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and cosmic inflation, and the implication that the universe began to exist.

Counterargument C:

“Everything” is a social construct based on our perception. Essentially, the nature of the universe only exists because humanity exists to perceive it and give it a name.

Response to C. If the nature of reality/the universe is subjective, then no theory of communication could exist. Our ability to communicate effectively suggests that reality/the universe has some days objective nature outside of our own existence such that we have a common experience of reality that we can communicate to each other. If the universe were purely subjective to our perceptions, our subjective experience would be so uncommon that language would never have anything in common for language to exist.

Edit: big bang theory, cosmic inflation, and cosmic background radiation have physical evidence that suggest the universe had a beginning.

Edit 2. People are arguing that the Kalam only refers to the “current” universe. Response: you can’t assert a priori to the Kalam that any other universe exists or existed outside of the only one we know exists.

Edit 3. So far, responses in comments are only trying to bolster the counterarguments I refute in the OP… or they assert that alternative theories are more believable despite a lack of evidence.

Edit 4. I will only answer unique response at this point 25 mins after posting. So far I’ve only read comments reasserting the counterarguments already mentioned in the OP. Or commentators only refer to theories for which no evidence exists. Commentators reject the idea that the Big Bang does not mark a point in time where we know the universe existed and when we don’t know it existed, but don’t offer any explanation as to why we should abandon theories we have evidence for and why we should accept theories for which no evidence exists.

1. whatever has a point N, and no points N' lower than N has a cause
2. the Universe has a point N, and no points N' lower than N
3. therefore, the Universe has a cause

Given science would need an assumption of a reason for a beginning in the first place, what would make sense lf this better than immaterial laws? Creative, pervasive? Sounds like a God?

Edit: I should mention this was a feedback post. It was written when I was somewhat moody. It was good to see such responses.

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.

According to pew research center 80% of Americans view Polgamy (the practice of having more then one marital partner) as immoral far beyond the number who think homosexuality is immoral (25%). lt occured to me after learning this that given how large a percentage this is there are probably a fair amount of atheists who hold this view.

For those who do l'm curious; what is your reasoning?

l get people who are religious having moral opposition to Polgamy on those grounds but for your average "live and let life" generally socially liberal atheist who is fine with homosexuality, premarital sex ect what is the reason you find Polygamy to be immoral??

(Questionly only applies to those atheists who do of course, but if anyone wants to give what their thoughts on the matter in any way feel free!)

Not long ago I saw a comment from someone who claimed that the chronology of the creation of the elements in the Quran corresponded with the one we know today.

The comment said that if we divide 2 (time of creation of the Earth according to the Quran) by 6 (time of creation of the universe according to the Quran) we get 0.33, which is true.

Now if we divide 4.534 (age of Earth according to science) by 13.7(age of the universe) we also get 0.33.

What do you think?

So i have this question as an Atheist, who grew up in a Christian evangelical church, got baptised, believed and is still exposed to church and bible everysingle day although i am atheist today after some questioning and lack of evidence.

I often seem this argument being used as to prove God's existence: complexity. The fact the chances of "me" existing are so low, that if gravity decided to shift an inch none of us would exist now and that in the middle of an infinite, huge and scary universe we are still lucky to be living inside the only known planet to be able to carry complex life.

And that's why "we all are born with an innate purpose given and already decided by god" to fulfill his kingdom on earth.

That makes no sense to me, at all, but i can't find a way to "refute" this argument in a good way, given the fact that probability is really something interesting to consider within this matter.

How would you refute this claim with an explanation as to why? Or if you agree with it being an argument that could prove God's existence or lack thereof, why?

There are some people in this subreddit that say religion causes nothing but harm and that science can explain all natural phenomenon anyway so religion should be outright banned. First off, that's wrong and I don't know why many comments like that get upvoted while the ones that call it out are downvoted to oblivion.

Religion is a part of the process of globalization, and globalization is a part of the process of religions. Religions provide viewpoints that create a new life (flourishing), and at the heart of it is the divine. They carry ideals of human flourishing. Religions are not a problem; instead, they are a necessary part of the solution. They play a key role in human flourishing.

In the global landscape, religion shows that practicing one’s faith is not just a private matter, but a big force that shapes societal norms, values, and interactions on a global scale. In a world we've connected through the internet and advanced technology, understanding and engaging with religious diversity is more important than ever because religious beliefs and practices brought by people who migrate across countries and global media can change the religious landscape of their new homes as well as shape how people see and understand different religions around the world.

• Edit: Here are more responses to comments angrily cursing religion instead of proper debate

Religion has a big role in shaping what people believe is right and wrong. Take the idea of compassion, which is a common theme in many religions. In Christianity, the teaching “Love thy neighbor as thyself” encourages people to be kind and understanding towards others.

In Buddhism, the idea of “Metta” or loving-kindness, encourages people to feel compassion and goodwill towards all beings.Another example is the idea of honesty.

In Islam, the Quran teaches that “God does not guide those who are deceitful and lie” (Surah 2:26), highlighting the importance of being truthful. Similarly, in Hinduism, the idea of “Satya” or truthfulness is one of the five Yamas, which are rules about ethics in Hindu philosophy.

Religious teachings often provide a guide for how people should live their lives. These teachings can influence a person’s understanding of what is right and wrong, shape how they feel towards others, and guide how they act in different situations.

The relationship between ethics and religion is important. Both of these elements help a person understand what is good and what is bad. This understanding is useful when a person needs to make decisions – informed decisions. In addition, knowing about the role of religion in a world where people and cultures are more connected than ever can help a person appreciate the variety of cultures and beliefs that exist. This understanding can lead to a person showing respect for different cultures and beliefs. This respect can make it easier for a person to interact with people from different backgrounds in a peaceful way.

When religious teachings are misinterpreted or misused in ways that harm individuals or society, serious problems can arise. For instance, when people use religious beliefs to justify violence, discrimination, or oppression, it becomes a harmful act, a crime, and an atrocity. Similarly, religious differences can lead to conflicts or divisions that create social unrest. Additionally, when religious authority is exploited for personal or political gain, it can undermine the core ethical values that many religions promote. It's important to recognize that these issues aren't a result of the teachings themselves, but rather how they are interpreted and practiced. That's why fostering understanding, tolerance, and ethical interpretations of religious teachings is essential to prevent such harms.

• Edit: To those who do misinterpret the Quran and making fake information that the text is explicit about its sexism.

The Qur'an affirmed the spiritual equality of men and women. The Qur'an states, “I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; you are equal to one another” (Qur'an 3:195). The Prophet ﷺ stated, “Women are the equal counterparts of men.”

• To those who point out specific lines of texts to fit their anti-theist agenda while ignoring the spirit of religion.

The Bible and Quran is not a standalone collection of random texts; it has overarching themes of justice, mercy, covenant, and redemption. To interpret a single passage in isolation risks misrepresenting these larger narratives.

Reinterpretation, when done responsibly, seeks to illuminate the enduring principles of scripture and apply them meaningfully today. It is not about misrepresenting the Bible’s teachings but rather engaging with them thoughtfully, respecting both their historical context and their moral vision

If reinterpretation goes beyond these boundaries to distort the meaning or avoid uncomfortable truths, then it risks becoming misinterpretation.

Misinterpretation occurs when a text is intentionally or carelessly taken out of context or twisted to fit an agenda.

Ethical interpretation isn’t about bending scripture to fit what’s convenient, but about engaging with it honestly and in ways that make sense today. It involves being upfront about the challenges the text presents, being willing to wrestle with those tough parts, and staying true to its broader moral message. This way, religious teachings can stay relevant and meaningful without causing harm.

In this sense, reinterpretation is not about altering the core message but ensuring its relevance and ethical application in a changing world.

Hello, i am in the middle of a philosophical journey where i explore as a theist the arguments for God's existence. I spent a lot of time reflecting on the contengency argument, and i am now looking for an actual skeptic to tackle that question with me and help me cover areas that i did not know. It will not be done here but on discord. I simply need someone to challenge me beyond what i have been confronted with till now. It will be more of a critical examination than a real debate i do not want any gotcha moments neither any attempt at convincing neither of us to change our minds, just someone to offer pushback and at the end evaluate with me whether my reflexion stand up to scrutiny or not. Thank you in advance

Edit: Sorry as i am very new to reddit, i was unawre of the option to use private chat, so a private discussion via private message here on reddit is also fine with me.

23/11/2024 edit: after considering many comments i think i will also alongside with my privates dialogues post the argument here and you guys if you are willing can help me dissect it and pinpoint blindspots i may have, my favourite medium is still private messaging, that is way less stressing i think, but i will also read comments. With that being said, i would like the goal here to be pushing every premises left and right to every direction logically possible to challenge them as much as possible, that is why i will post some premises first, finish with them then continue with others ( i am still on a journey, so i have not yet formally articulated my point of view into a complete sequence of premises, to avoid putting paragraphs after paragraphs i will take my time doing so, it is my responsibility to be as clear as possible after all). So guys imagine you are all Einstein doing thoughts experiments in his sofa with those premises, everything is permitted as long as you can methodologically show me the flaws, but be carefull though, i do not want alternative views without first an explanation of what is flawed in my view. Also i have class on weekends so i might not respond right away until, monday night. with that being said here is what i have for now have fun with it (respectfully by preference i do not have the stamania to argue like a savage). thanks in advance. Premise 1: Everything in the universe can be classified as either contingent or non-contingent. • Sub-Claim 1a: If something is non-contingent, it must be necessary—it cannot fail to exist. • Sub-Claim 1b: If something is non-contingent but can fail to exist or requires an explanation, it is not truly non-contingent, and this violates the principle of non-contingency. Premise 2: All contingent things in the universe require grounding in something beyond themselves, creating a chain of contingency. • Sub-Claim 2a: This chain of contingency must either:

1. Regress infinitely, or
2. Terminate in one or more non-contingent entities, that is to say necessary entities.

• Sub-Claim 2b: An infinite regress of contingent things cannot itself be necessary and requires explanation. Therefore, all contingent things in the universe must ultimately be grounded in one or more necessary entities. • An infinite chain of contingent things is still made entirely of contingent entities. Adding an infinite number of contingent entities doesn’t make the whole chain necessary. • Without a necessary grounding, the entire chain is left unexplained—it hangs in logical limbo

Here what are your thoughts? what did i miss ? note also i will probably take time to study on my own any new views i will be presented here, so have mercy and be patient with me.

These terms often arise from a place of limited understanding, and their use can create unnecessary divisions between what is perceived as "natural" and "unnatural," or "real" and "fantastical."

Anything that happens in the universe is, by definition, part of the natural order, even if we don't fully understand it yet.

Religions are often open to interpretation, and many acts portrayed as 'divine' could actually be symbolic representations of higher knowledge or advanced technology. It's pointless to dismiss or debunk their gods simply because they don't fit within our limited understanding of the world and call them "magical".

I find these very silly arguments from atheists, since there's lot of easier ways to debunk religions, such as analyzing their historical context.

The standard Christian arguments are ultimately bound to scrutiny in the sense that there isn't a definite Christian theist presence in the world. The boldest claims such as eucharist miracles, shroud of turin, etc. are always touted by Christian sources (news articles, biblical documentaries, etc.) that we just have to assume aren't ignoring any complicating factors. The rest are just the standard philosophical arguments (cosmological and such) that allegedly work, and these only extend to deism, pantheism, etc.

Atheist arguments that might be substandard include Jesus mythicism. The proclamations of Jesus being proven against the mythicists somehow vindicating belief is like saying L. Ron Hubbard being real vindicates Scientology. To elaborate, there's Bart Ehrman's book When Jesus Became God that delves into Jesus being deified over time. Regarding Jesus having powers, there was a comment on this sub a long time ago that went along the lines of "If Jesus was made up, Christianity is a lie. If Jesus was real and people said he performed miracles when he didn't, Christianity is a lie. If Jesus was real and he could perform miracles, Christianity might not be a lie depending on if he wasn't a wizard or a false prophet." And yet another time I remember a post here that said Josephus and Tacitus' accounts were trusted by historical consensus despite meeting the criteria for scripture.

In short, Hitchens' razor lives on (foundationalists tried to criticize this principle by saying a theistic god is a good foundation of everything, even though it makes more ungrounded assumptions than pandeism and foundationalism has its own problems), not just in itself but in the fact the burden of proof frankly speaking heavily favors atheism.

Let us that i am a Physic and 10 times in a row predicted future presidents.

Under examination my physic abilities were put to test:

Test 1: I was shown to be 20% accuracy

However I argue that this is because I don't work under these 'Strange' conditions.

Test 2: 75 % accuracy

Scientists admit they don't understand how I passed and suspect fraud.

Test 3: Longer and more thorough testing

Shown to 50-70% accuracy in making predictions.

From these results: would you accept my physic abilities and if not why not ?

Thanks

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.

It seems like atheists tend to be socially liberal. I would think that, since social conservatism and liberalism are largely determined by personality disposition that there would be a dead-even split between conservative and liberal atheists.

I suspect that, in fact, it is a liberal personality trait to tend towards atheism, not an atheist trait to tend towards liberalism? Unsure! What do you think?