Atheist philosopher and YouTuber Alex O’Connor recently sat down with Rainn Wilson to debate whether materialism alone can fully explain consciousness, love, and near-death experiences. As someone who usually argues against religious or supernatural claims, Alex is still willing to admit that there are unresolved mysteries.

Some of the big questions they wrestled with:

• Is love just neurons firing, or is there something deeper to it?
• Do near-death experiences (NDEs) have purely natural explanations, or do they challenge materialism?
• Does materialism provide a complete answer to consciousness, or does something non-physical play a role?

Alex remains an atheist, but he acknowledges that these questions aren’t easy to dismiss. He recently participated in Jubilee’s viral 1 Atheist vs. 25 Christians debate, where he was confronted with faith-based arguments head-on.

So, for those who debate atheists—what’s the strongest argument that materialism fails to explain consciousness?

i think i figured out my personal difference between agnostic vs atheist.

i’m agnostic personally in that i can’t / don’t know if any super natural entity exists nor do i really care. i’m spell bound by the here-and-now beauty of the earth and nature but i don’t have to label it, and i practice kindness because it’s the right thing to do.

i’m atheist when people of religion try to force their way of practicing those same things on me under the presumption that their interpretation of what to do and why to do it is the only way.

Anselm is infamous for his ontological argument. But i'm sure we can all agree it is not a sound argument, others have come up to make formulations that attempt to be plausible or defensible though they don't interest me at all. Howevever, Anselm makes other arguments for God in his book in line with the (neo)platonist tradition, of which the one he makes in chapter 4 interests me the most. It is basically a contingency argument.

The argument starts with a dichotomy, he says that everything that exist exist either through something or through nothing. He goes onto reject the latter which i think most people here would agree with. He makes another fairly uncontroversial statement that everything that exist exist through either a single thing or multiple. He concludes that it must be a single thing through which everything exist because if it was multiple things then either these things exits through themselves or through each other. Latter is irrational to assert for it entails circle of causes. If these things exist through themselves and they are self-existing through a single supreme essence or quiddity which they participate in. Now,this is where Anselm starts to make contentious claims since he adheres to kind of an extreme realist account of universals where he considers common natures such as the supreme nature to be mind independent things that have an independent existence which is obviously controversial but if you accept it then the rest follows.

In formal structure:

A1: Universals have mind independent existence

P1: Everything that exist exists through either something or nothing

P2: Nothing comes from nothing

P3: Hence, everything that exist exists through something.

P4: If everything exist through something all things exist exist either through a single thing or several things.

P5: Hence, everything exist through either a single or several things.

P6: If everything exist either through several things or through a single thing then they all exist through a single universal or common nature.

P7: If such a nature exists then God exists

C: God exists

In discussions of God’s existence, a popular notion among many self-described atheists is the so-called “lack of belief” stance—sometimes termed “lacktheism.” On its face, it appears unobjectionable: one simply lacks belief in God without necessarily affirming the proposition that no gods exist. However, from a philosophical standpoint, this formulation proves problematic. Having spent considerable time examining religious belief in academic settings, I have noticed that virtually every atheist philosopher in those circles not only rejects the existence of gods but also actively affirms the proposition “There are no gods.” This robust stance is not arbitrary; it reflects a basic requirement for coherent philosophical positions.

Two Contradictory Propositions

Any well-formed position on God’s existence must address two contradictory propositions:

1.	There are gods.
2.	There are no gods.

Because these propositions cannot both be true, any coherent perspective must take a stance on each. Traditional theism affirms the first and rejects the second. Philosophical atheism rejects the first and affirms the second. Agnosticism suspends judgment on both, holding that the evidence is insufficient to affirm or deny God’s existence. The notion of “lacktheism,” by contrast, attempts to avoid this framework by focusing on a psychological state—lacking belief—rather than a philosophical position. Yet when pressed on these two propositions, the “lack of belief” approach can only collapse into one of three possibilities:

1.	Suspend judgment on both propositions (agnosticism).

2.	Reject both propositions (logically incoherent, because contradictory propositions cannot both be false).


3.	Reject the first proposition and affirm the second (philosophical atheism).

Thus, merely lacking belief cannot be a complete stance on its own; it either reverts to agnosticism, lapses into incoherence, or is effectively the same as philosophical atheism.

Psychological States vs. Philosophical Positions

The crux of the issue lies in conflating a psychological state (lacking belief) with a philosophical stance requiring justification. Philosophy concerns itself with justifying positions rather than merely describing mental states. A theist must offer reasons for believing in the existence of gods, an atheist must offer reasons for rejecting that belief, and an agnostic must justify the decision to suspend judgment. Simply declaring “I lack belief” without supporting argumentation avoids the core of philosophical inquiry.

This confusion is apparent with positions like agnostic theism or agnostic deism, which purport to combine belief in a deity with suspending judgment regarding God’s existence. The result is a muddled view: how can one believe while simultaneously not holding a stance on whether that belief is correct? The same tension arises with “lack of belief” atheism if it tries to insist it is neither agnosticism nor a claim that gods do not exist. Lacking belief while refusing to acknowledge any judgment against the proposition “There are gods” dissolves into equivocation.

The Problem of Certainty

One common objection to taking a robust atheist or theist stance is the issue of certainty: “I’m not absolutely sure, so I simply lack belief.” However, philosophy does not demand absolute certainty for a position to be defensible. Instead, it requires justified reasons and arguments proportionate to the claim being made. A robust atheist view can hold that “there are no gods” with a high degree of confidence based on available evidence and reasoning, without claiming infallible certainty. Similarly, a theist might argue that the evidence favors God’s existence, without claiming it is proven beyond all possible doubt.

This is why the “lack of belief” stance does not suffice as a unique philosophical position. Merely avoiding a claim of 100% certainty does not exempt one from offering any justification. Whether one leans toward theism, atheism, or agnosticism, some explanation is required as to why the evidence points—or fails to point—in one direction or another. Appealing to uncertainty alone fails to establish a clear stance; it simply underscores that most philosophical positions accept degrees of confidence rather than absolute proof.

Burden of Proof and Epistemic Responsibility

Some lacktheists argue they bear no burden of proof because they make no “positive claim.” However, in philosophy, the line between “positive” and “negative” claims does not negate the need for justification. If someone lacks belief in the proposition “There are gods,” they implicitly regard that proposition as unjustified. Likewise, someone who suspends judgment altogether must provide reasons for thinking neither side is sufficiently supported by the evidence. Any epistemic stance—belief, disbelief, or suspension—entails a responsibility to offer justification. Appeals to “burden of proof” may work in casual conversation, but they fail to address the deeper philosophical obligation to defend one’s perspective.

Furthermore, labels like “agnostic atheist” can compound the confusion. Disbelief in gods implies a judgment against the claim “There are gods,” whereas agnosticism withholds judgment on whether that claim is true or false. Trying to merge these stances creates conceptual dissonance, amounting to a claim that one simultaneously rejects the belief in gods while not holding that gods do not exist. It is akin to someone insisting they “lack belief in ghosts” while also claiming no stance against the proposition “ghosts exist”—muddying the epistemic waters rather than clarifying them.

Illustrative Examples of Conflated Positions

To see how easily confusion arises, consider someone describing themselves as:

•	Agnostic Theist: “I believe in God but do not hold a stance on whether God exists.”

•	Agnostic Deist: “I believe a deity created the universe but I’m not taking a position on whether such a being exists.”

•	Agnostic Atheist: “I do not believe in gods, yet I’m not asserting that gods do not exist.”

All three blur the line between belief and suspension of judgment, or between non-belief and rejecting the existence of gods. Each mixes different epistemic attitudes in ways that fail to address the contradictory propositions at the heart of the debate. Calling them “agnostic” might express some level of uncertainty, but it cannot substitute for a reasoned position regarding God’s existence.

The Need for a Robust Position

The robust definition of atheism—that there are no gods—provides a clear, coherent stance capable of meeting philosophical standards. It affirms one proposition (“There are no gods”) while denying its contradictory (“There are gods”). In doing so, it distinctly separates itself from both theistic and agnostic positions. Crucially, this stance need not claim infallible certainty; rather, it posits that the reasons supporting “there are no gods” outweigh those for “there are gods,” and it offers justifications accordingly.

By contrast, defining atheism solely as lacking belief obscures the essential philosophical duty to engage with contradictory propositions. Clinging to “lack of belief” can devolve into statements about personal mental states rather than reasoned arguments about reality. For those who genuinely reject the existence of gods, a more robust atheism provides both intellectual honesty and the philosophical rigor that discussions of God’s existence demand. It clarifies why one takes the position “there are no gods” without conflating this stance with claims of absolute certainty or appeals to mere disbelief. Philosophy thrives on clarity, coherence, and justification—and the debate on God’s existence should be no exception.

Edit//

(I will try to address comments as my busy schedule allows but I actually work in a philosophy department so I’m going to prioritize comments with the most upvotes )

I have a friend and neighbor who just lost their 9 year old in a house fire. It was her shit ex’s house and he and the older son got out, but the youngest didn’t. I don’t even want to get into the details bc the whole situation is so fucked, painful, and complicated.

I’m an atheist and ex Christian. In fact, the service was in my childhood church so I’m familiar with it all. However, I really struggled listening to the sermon. How can you diminish this boys life and what happened to “god works in mysterious ways…”? It was disgusting. I was shaking angry. Everyone there is religious and so happy the boy “loved Jesus” so he wasn’t, you know, just burning in hell. I feigned my way through, but it added this level of surreal I had not experienced before. This was also just a really intense event.

Has anyone dealt with this? I was such the odd man out.

This is a direct repost of something i posted about half a year or so ago. Normally I wouldn't do that, but because of some of the nonsense claims of a few recent posters, It seemed quite topical.

I have written a few of these general responses to theist arguments before, combining my work as a historian with my love of skepticism and logical argumentation. I am something of an expert in the former, not at all in the latter, so I may, and probably have, made many mistakes. If I made any, and I probably did, please feel free to point them out. Always looking to improve.

I am aware, by the way, that in this forum I am largely 'preaching to the converted' to ironically borrow a saying. But it is meant to serve as useful information for future arguments.

This issue has come up a LOT here recently, and it is a series of assertions based on the premise that people would not have died for something they knew was a lie. The ‘response’ here is not to take the obvious avenue of attack on this argument, that people risk and sacrifice their lives for a falsehood all the time, to the point where it is common to the point of ubiquity. I give you the January 9th 2021 insurrection in the US: most of those people were just self deluding and gullible, and believed a lie, but they were being fed and ‘informed’ by people who actively knew it was a lie, and did it anyways.

But while that’s a very effective line of attack, that’s not where I am going today. Instead, I’d like to discuss the apostles, and what we know about what they knew and what happened to them.

“All the Disciples died under torture without recanting their beliefs!”

Did they really?

Firstly, we know next to NOTHING about the twelve disciples, or twelve apostles as they are variously known. We don’t even know their names. The Bible lists fifteen different people as among the twelve. Some conventions have grown to try and parse or ‘solve’ those contradictions among the gospels, others are just quietly ignored.

One of the ‘solved’ ones is the Matthew / Levi problem. Christian tradition is that these are the same person, as opposed to just being a mistake in the gospels, based around the gospels calling one person in the same general situation Matthew in some gospels, and Levi in others. So according to apologist logic this CANNOT possibly be a mistake, ergo they must be the same person. Maybe one was a Greek name and one was a Hebrew name, though there is no actual evidence to support that.

Less easily solved is the Jude/ Lebbaeus/ Thaddeus/ Judas problem. Christian tradition somewhat embarrassingly pretends these are all the same person, even though again, there is little actual basis for this claim. It is just an assertion made to try and avoid admitting there are inconsistencies between the gospels.

At this point its worth pointing out that there are some names which are specifically identified as being the same in the Bible, for example ‘Simon, known as Peter’. There it is clear this is two names for the same person. This may be real, or it may be that the gospels were just trying to ‘solve’ problems of the oral traditions they were copying by identifying similar tales by two different people as just two names for the same person. We can’t really know. But certainly no such thing exists for these others, just ‘tradition’ which tried shoehorn these names together to try and erase possible contradictions.

It is also worth mentioning before we continue, that most of these contradictions and changes come in the Gospel of John, who only mentions eight of the disciples and lists different ones, or in the Acts of the apostles.

Next is the Nathaniel problem. The Gospel of John identifies a hitherto unknown one of the twelve called Nathaniel. Some Christians claim this is another name for Bartholomew, who is never mentioned in John, but that doesn’t fly as John gives him very different qualities and details from Bartholomew: Nathaniel is an expert in Judaic Law, for example. The most common Christian academic rebuttal is that John was WRONG (a real problem for biblical literalists) and Nathaniel was a follower of Jesus but not one of the twelve.

Next is the Simon Peter problem. The most important of the disciples was Simon, who was known as Peter. That’s fine. But there is another of the twelve also called Simon, who the Bible claims was ALSO known as Peter. Many historians believe this whole thing is a perversion caused by oral history problems before the gospels were ever transcribed, and that the two Simons, known as Peter, are the same person but to whom very different stories have been attributed. But the bible keeps the two Simons, known as Peters, as two different people. So the second Simon, known as Peter was given a cognomen, to distinguish him from the first Simon known as Peter: Simon the Zealot. Except he was given another cognomen as well in different gospels, Simon the Cannenite. This was never done in the Hebrew world, cognomen were unique for a reason to avoid confusion in a community where names were frequently re-used, so why the second Simon known as peter has two different cognomens in different Gospels is a real problem. The gospel of John, by the way, solves this problem by NEVER mentioning the second Simon known as Peter at all.

Then finally, there is Matthias. Never heard of him have you? He never appears in any of the four gospels, but in the acts of the apostles he is listed as the one of the twelve chosen to replace Judas Iscariot following his death by one of the two entirely contradictory ways the bible says Judas died.

Ok, so that’s the twelve, or thirteen, or fourteen, or fifteen or possibly sixteen disciples. Considering we cant even get their names straight, its not looking good for people who use them as ‘historical’ evidence.

So, what do we know about them and their fates?

Effectively, nothing. Even the Bible does not speak to their fates, they come entirely from Christian tradition, usually written about be third and fourth century Christian writers, (and sometimes much later) and many of those tales are wildly contradictory.

The ONLY one we have multiple sources for their fate, is the first Simon known as Peter. Two separate writers speak about his martyrdom in Rome probably in the Christian persecutions that followed the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. The story of him being crucified upside down come from the apocrypha, the ‘acts of Peter’ which even the Church acknowledges as a centuries-later forgery. Peter is an interesting case, and we will get back to him later. But it is plausible that he was in fact killed by the Romans in the Nero persecutions. But if that’s the case, he would never likely have been asked to ’recant his faith’, nor would it have mattered to the Romans if he did. So claims he ‘never recanted’ are pure make-believe.

The rest of the disciples we know nothing about, no contemporary writings about their lives or deaths at all, and the stories of their martyrdom are lurid and downright silly, especially given the scope of their apparent ‘travels’.

Andrew was supposedly crucified on an X shaped cross in Greece. No evidence at all to support that, only Christian ‘tradition’ composed centuries later. No evidence of if he was even asked to recant, let alone did not do so.

John supposedly died of old age. So not relevant to the assertion.

Philip was supposedly crucified in Turkey. No evidence at all to support that, only Christian ‘tradition’ composed centuries later. No evidence of if he was even asked to recant, let alone did not do so.

Bartholemew was beheaded, or possibly flayed alive, or both, in Armenia. No evidence at all to support that, only Christian ‘tradition’ composed centuries later. No evidence of if he was even asked to recant, let alone did not do so.

Matthew / Levi: No ancient tradition all about him. Nothing. Medieval tradition has him maybe martyred somewhere in Persia or Africa.

Thomas Didymus: supposedly stabbed to death in India. No evidence at all to support that, only Christian ‘tradition’ composed centuries later. No evidence of if he was even asked to recant, let alone did not do so.

Thaddeus, Jude, Judas, Lebbaeus: No ancient tradition all about him. Nothing. Medieval tradition has him maybe martyred somewhere in Persia or Syria.

The other Simon, known as Peter, the Zealot or the Cannenite. No ancient tradition all about him. Nothing. Medieval tradition believes he was probably martyred, somewhere.

Matthias: Never mentioned again, forgotten even by Christian tradition. Same with Nathaniel.

So apart from the fact that apparently these disciples all became exceptional world travellers, dying coincidentally in the areas of distant and foreign major churches who tried to claim their fame (and frequently fake relics) for their own self-aggrandisement, we literally know nothing about their supposed deaths, except for Peter and possibly John. Let alone that they ‘never recanted under torment’.

Another aside: there is some awful projection from Christians here, because the whole ‘recanting under torment’ is a very Christian tradition. The romans wouldn’t generally have cared to even ask their criminals to ‘recant’ nor in general would it have helped their victims if they did. Most of the Christians we know were martyred were never asked: Jesus himself was condemned as a rebel, as were many others.

Ok, so last step: we have established the Bible is incredibly contradictory and inconsistent about who the Disciples were, and we know next to nothing about their deaths.

What evidence do we have that any of the disciples existed at all, outside the Bible?

Almost none. Apart from Peter and John, there is NO contemporary historical evidence or even mention of any of them, no sign any of them actually even existed outside the pages of a book assembled out of oral tradition.

But wait, we know Saul of Tarsus, known as Paul existed right? Yes, Paul almost certainly existed (and, another aside, is in my opinion one of the worlds great conmen).

Great, so Paul never met Jesus of course, but he would certainly have met the disciples. So that’s evidence! Right?

Well, sadly, that’s where it gets worse for theists. Yes, Paul WOULD likely have met at least some of the disciples. So how many of the disciples does Paul mention or allude to or even name in his writings?

Only one. Peter.

None of the others ever get mentioned or even suggested to by Paul at all. Almost as if they didn’t exist.

There is at least reasonable circumstantial evidence to acknowledge Peter existed: he is one of the most talked about in the Bible, with details of his life that are consistent in all four gospels, and we have at least circumstantial evidence for his life and death, if nothing direct. But If he recanted, or didn’t, under torment, we have no idea. And it would not have helped him if he did.

Other than Peter (and possibly John), it would be reasonable to conclude none of the others existed at all, or (more likely) that Jesus probably had a few dozen early followers, back when he was another wandering rabbi, an apocalyptic preacher speaking about the world soon coming to an end. Confused stories about his various followers were conflated, exaggerated, invented, and badly ascribed through oral tradition, and finally compiled a couple centuries later into the hodgepodge mess called the Bible. And then even crazier fairy tales grew up around these supposed world-travelling disciples and their supposedly gruesome deaths across the world, hundreds or even a Thousand years after the fact.

But the claim that ‘They all died without recanting’ is utter nonsense.

Every false religion throughout history follows the exact same pattern—a charismatic leader who gains power, wealth, women, and absolute control over his followers. Let’s break it down:

Most shocking! (Wow I'm surprised no one is bothered by this or have mentioned it! I'm getting a feeling these people don't care about kids, just wanna hate Jesus)

✡️ (Jewish) Pedophilia and Marriage to 3-Year-Old Girls Sanhedrin 55b: "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as she is over three years old." Yebamoth 60b: "A girl who is three years old may be betrothed through intercourse." Scamming and Lying to Non-Jews is Allowed

Now let's begin!

1. Joseph Smith (Mormonism)

Claimed to receive golden plates from an angel, which conveniently disappeared.

Married over 30 women, including teenagers and other men’s wives.

Declared himself King of Nauvoo with his own private militia (the Nauvoo Legion).

Ran for U.S. President to gain political power.

His prophecies failed constantly—he predicted Jesus would return before 1891. Spoiler: didn’t happen.

2. L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)

Literally said, "If you want to get rich, start a religion."

Created a pyramid scheme religion, forcing followers to pay thousands to learn made-up sci-fi nonsense.

Avoided taxes by calling it a "church" and lived on a yacht, surrounded by brainwashed slaves.

Controlled followers through blackmail (auditing sessions stored in secret files).

3. Muhammad (Islam)

Claimed divine revelation but conveniently received "new verses" whenever he needed power or sex.

Took over 20 wives, including Aisha, who was 6 when he married her.

Demanded absolute obedience, killing those who disagreed (like the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe).

Amassed vast wealth through war and plundering.

Messed up his prophecy multiple times—for example, said the world would end within a century. Didn’t happen.

4. Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses)

Sold "miracle wheat" at inflated prices, claiming it was divinely blessed.

Predicted the end of the world in 1914—oops, still here.

When it didn’t happen, Jehovah’s Witnesses rewrote their teachings multiple times.

5. Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church)

Claimed to be the new Messiah, but mainly used his cult to arrange marriages and gain power.

Made billions by scamming followers into buying his products and running businesses.

6. Jim Jones (Peoples Temple)

Built a cult of personality, controlled every aspect of his followers’ lives.

Stole millions from them while preaching "equality."

Forced his followers into mass suicide—but not before he got rich.

7. David Koresh (Branch Davidians)

Declared himself the Messiah to sleep with any woman in his cult, including minors.

Stockpiled weapons and money while his followers lived in poverty.

8. Judaism: Corruption, Blasphemy, and Disturbing Teachings in the Talmud

While the Old Testament contains real revelations from God, the Jewish religious leaders twisted their faith into a system of power, corruption, and control. They ignored their own prophecies, rejected their own Messiah, and created man-made traditions (Talmud) filled with disturbing ideas.

A. Jewish Leaders Exploited Their Own People

The Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious elite of Jesus’ time, were not holy men—they were corrupt, power-hungry frauds who:

Controlled the Temple’s money-changing scam – They forced people to exchange their money at outrageous rates, turning worship into a business.

Ran a fake justice system – They had Jesus executed on false charges and even bribed the Roman guards to lie about the resurrection.

Abused their authority – They placed burdensome laws on people while they themselves lived in wealth and comfort.

Even today, rabbis hold extreme power in certain Jewish communities, shielding each other from crimes—including financial fraud, abuse, and other scandals.

B. The Talmud: A Book of Twisted Teachings

The Talmud is the Jewish book of traditions, but unlike the Old Testament, it is not inspired by God—it is a collection of human traditions full of disturbing and corrupt ideas. Some of the worst include:

Blasphemy against Jesus – The Talmud claims Jesus was:

Born of a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a) A sorcerer who led Israel astray (Sanhedrin 43a) Boiling in excrement for eternity in hell (Gittin 57a)

Pedophilia and Marriage to 3-Year-Old Girls

Sanhedrin 55b: "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as she is over three years old." Yebamoth 60b: "A girl who is three years old may be betrothed through intercourse." Scamming and Lying to Non-Jews is Allowed

Baba Kamma 113a: "Jews may use lies to circumvent a Gentile."

Sanhedrin 57a: "Jews are not bound to keep their promises to Gentiles." Non-Jews Are Considered Subhuman Yebamoth 98a: "All Gentile children are animals." Baba Mezia 114b: "Only Jews are fully human. Non-Jews are like donkeys."

These aren’t misunderstandings—they are direct quotes from Jewish religious texts that rabbis still study today.

C. Jewish Leaders Rejected Their Own Messiah to Keep Power

Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies from the Jewish Scriptures, yet the religious elite rejected Him. Why?

If they accepted Jesus, they would lose their authority over the people.

They twisted their own Scriptures to avoid admitting they were wrong.

Even today, rabbis ban Jews from reading Isaiah 53 because it so clearly describes Jesus as the suffering Messiah.

The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time chose power over truth—and modern Judaism is built on that same rejection.

The Bottom Line

Every other religion—Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and Judaism—has leaders who benefited from power, wealth, and control. They rewrote their teachings to justify their corruption and kept their followers blind.

Jesus, however, gained nothing—He was betrayed, tortured, and crucified. His disciples followed Him **not for power, but because they

Now Compare That to Christianity

The apostles were tortured and killed for their message.

They gained no power, no wealth, no comfort—only suffering and brutal deaths.

They could have easily denied their faith to live, but not one of them recanted.

Christianity spread despite persecution, not through force or deception.

Every fake religion has one thing in common—the founder benefits while the followers suffer. Meanwhile, Christianity’s founders chose suffering and death rather than deny what they saw. That’s the difference between a scam and the truth.

Gooners (just kidding) often claim the New Testament is nothing more than an invented myth. But when you examine the historical, social, and political reality of the 1st century, the idea that a group of fishermen, tax collectors, and a former Pharisee fabricated an entirely new religion and then willingly died for a lie collapses under its own weight.

1. The Timeline Problem: Myths Take Centuries, Not Decades

A common atheist argument is that the New Testament was written long after Jesus, meaning it was distorted or completely invented. But history doesn’t support that.

Paul’s letters (50-60 AD) quote even earlier Christian creeds (30-40 AD). This is within a decade of Jesus’ death.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 records a creed that predates Paul, listing multiple eyewitnesses (including over 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus).

The Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses—if they were lying, people could have called them out.

Compare this to Alexander the Great, whose first real biography was written 300 years after his death—yet no one questions his existence. So, why do atheists demand immediate, contemporary writings for Jesus but accept far less evidence for other historical figures?

2. The Witness Problem: Liars Make Bad Martyrs

Here’s where the "they made it up" theory gets ridiculous. The apostles didn’t just claim Jesus rose from the dead—they suffered and died for it. Peter was crucified upside down. James (Jesus' brother) was stoned and clubbed to death. Paul was beheaded in Rome. Thomas was speared to death in India.

If they knew they were lying, why didn’t even one of them crack under torture? People will die for things they believe to be true, but they won’t die for something they know is false.

And no, they didn’t just "die because they were religious." Jews and Romans already had their religions. There was no incentive to create a new one, especially one that got you executed.

3. The Manuscript Problem: Too Many Copies to Fake It

The New Testament has an insane amount of historical documentation. We have over 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Iliad by Homer (one of the most well-preserved ancient texts) only has 1,800. If someone tried to change or fake the story, the differences would be obvious. Instead, the message remains consistent.

If you reject the authenticity of the New Testament, you’d have to reject nearly all of ancient history using the same standard.

4. The Persecution Problem: Christianity Should Have Died Instantly

Think about this—Christianity should not have survived. The Romans brutally hunted down and killed early Christians. Jewish authorities had every reason to crush this "blasphemous" movement. Yet, within 300 years, Rome itself converted to Christianity. How does a tiny, persecuted cult with no political power, no army, and no money overthrow an empire if it's based on a lie?

5. The Archaeology Problem: Real Places, Real People

The New Testament describes specific people, locations, and events that history has confirmed:

Pontius Pilate – Confirmed by the Pilate Stone (found in 1961).

Caiaphas (High Priest) – His tomb was discovered in 1990.

James, Brother of Jesus – The James Ossuary (2002) confirms his historical existence.

Nazareth’s existence in the 1st century was once doubted but is now confirmed by archaeology.

If the New Testament were fake, why does archaeology keep proving it right?

6. The Jewish Context Problem: They Had No Reason to Make It Up

If you were a 1st-century Jew, what would you never do?

Invent a Messiah who was crucified. Claim God became a man. Change Jewish laws and worship practices. The idea of a crucified Messiah was offensive to both Jews and Romans. If you were making up a fake religion, why choose a message that no one wanted?

The Jews expected a political warrior king, not a crucified teacher. The Romans saw crucifixion as the ultimate shame—not the kind of hero story you'd fabricate.

Yet Christianity spread like wildfire. Why? Because people witnessed something so undeniable that they abandoned their cultural expectations.

7. The Resurrection Problem: No One Stole the Body

Atheists often say, "Maybe the disciples stole Jesus’ body and lied about it." But this theory falls apart when you look at the facts: The tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers, professional executioners who would face the death penalty if they failed their duty.

The stone covering the tomb weighed up to 2 tons—not something 11 scared disciples could move quietly. No body was ever produced. The Jewish and Roman authorities had every incentive to crush Christianity early by parading Jesus' body through the streets. But they didn’t—because they couldn’t.

8. The Cult Leader Problem: The Apostles Had Nothing to Gain

If Christianity was just another fabricated religion, it should look like every other self-serving movement in history. But when you compare it to other religious leaders and cult founders, the difference is night and day.

Muhammad gained political power, military control, wealth, and wives through Islam. Joseph Smith (Mormonism) claimed divine revelation to marry multiple women and gain influence. Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses) built a movement that financially benefited him. L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) openly said, “If you want to get rich, start a religion.”

Now compare that to the apostles:

They gained no wealth, power, or comfort—only suffering, persecution, and violent deaths. Instead of wives and riches, they got imprisonment, beatings, and execution. If they knew they were lying, why didn’t even one of them take advantage of it like every cult leader in history? The apostles didn’t act like cult leaders because they weren’t. They had no earthly incentive to spread Christianity unless it was true.

The Bottom Line: The New Testament Is one of the Most Historically Supported Ancient Document in Existence

To say the New Testament was fabricated is to believe that:

1. A bunch of uneducated fishermen and tax collectors outsmarted the Roman Empire.

2. They then allowed themselves to be tortured and executed without one of them breaking down and admitting it was all fake.

3. They somehow managed to write and spread the most influential book in history, despite persecution, imprisonment, and execution.

4. The Roman Empire, instead of eradicating Christianity, somehow converted to it within a few centuries.

5. Modern archaeology just happens to keep confirming details from the Bible that skeptics once mocked.

Or just happened to be coincidences?

Even in the Talmud, it means Jesus but in a negative light, boiling in excrement in hell so now I can see why they killing all these Palestinians

Most professional historians, Christian, secular, and even skeptical agree that Jesus was a real historical figure. Ancient sources outside the Bible, such as Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, the Talmud, and Mara Bar-Serapion, reference Jesus or early Christians. Yet, some atheists still claim Jesus never existed.

This is interesting because history has shown that some things skeptics once denied have turned out to be true, such as:

Pontius Pilate’s existence (confirmed by the Pilate Stone).

The Hittites (once thought to be a biblical myth but later confirmed by archaeology).

Nazareth's existence in the 1st century (now supported by archaeological findings).

King David (The Tel Dan Stele) dating to the 9th century BC, contains the phrase "House of David," indicating a dynastic lineage.

So why do some atheists reject the scholarly consensus on Jesus’ existence? Is it an issue of evidence, or is it motivated by something else?

Several historical records outside the Bible reference Jesus:

Tacitus: A Roman historian who, in his Annals (c. 116 AD), mentions "Christus" (Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Josephus: A first-century Jewish historian who refers to Jesus in his work Antiquities of the Jews, mentioning James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."

Pliny the Younger: A Roman governor who, in a letter to Emperor Trajan (c. 112 AD), describes early Christians worshiping Christ as a deity.

Suetonius (c. 120 AD) – A Roman historian who, in The Twelve Caesars, mentions that Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome due to disturbances caused by Christ

Mara Bar-Serapion (late 1st to 3rd century AD) – A Stoic philosopher who wrote a letter to his son, mentioning the execution of a "wise king" of the Jews

The Babylonian Talmud (compiled between 3rd–5th century AD, but referencing earlier traditions) – Mentions "Yeshu" (Jesus), describing his execution on the eve of Passover and attributing his death to accusations of sorcery and leading Israel astray, and boiling in excrement in hell

Emperor Julian the Apostate (4th century AD) – Though a staunch opponent of Christianity, Julian acknowledged Jesus as a real person who founded the Christian movement, calling him a "Galilean" and criticizing his followers.

Phlegon of Tralles (2nd century AD) – A Greek historian who wrote that during the reign of Tiberius (the time of Jesus' crucifixion), there was an unusual darkness and an earthquake, events also mentioned in the Gospels.

Bonus Round:

How Could the Bible Be a Made-Up Lie When Writing It Meant Certain Death?

The Old Testament was written over a thousand years by different authors, yet it maintains a consistent narrative pointing to Jesus. How could a massive, multi-generational conspiracy fabricate something so complex?

The New Testament was written when Christians were being hunted, tortured, and executed by both Jews and Romans. Why would anyone risk death to spread a known lie?

If the disciples and early Christians just made it up, why didn’t a single one break under pressure and admit it was fake?

If they were just deluded, why would people invent a lie that guaranteed their suffering and execution rather than power or wealth?

PS. If the Evidence for Jesus is crap, Then So is Ancient History

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) has no contemporary accounts of his life. The earliest sources were written 300+ years later, yet no one doubts he existed.

Julius Caesar's biography (by Suetonius) was written 100+ years after his death, yet no one calls it "shitty evidence."

If you reject Jesus' existence based on this standard, you have to throw out nearly all ancient history.

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.

I get the notion that theists believe without a god policing, threatening, and torturing us for eternity, we should be free to act like sociopaths - but there's something sinister here.

Theists appear to be saying that they'd love to do all of these things, but the threat of violence and pain stops them. Also, they see atheists living good lives so this instantly disproves the argument. Why does this stupidity continue?

It's my first post in reddit so forgive me if there was any mistake

I saw a video talks about Ibn sina philosophy which was (to me) very rational philosophy about the existence of God, so I wanted to disguess this philosophy with you

Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna. He was a prominent Islamic philosopher and his arguments for God's existence are rooted in metaphysics.

Avicenna distinguished between contingent beings (things that could exist or not exist) and necessary beings, he argues that everything exists is either necessary or contingent

Contingent things can't exist without a cause leading to an infinite regress unless there's a necessary being that exists by itself, which is God

The chain of contingent beings can't go on infinitely, so there must be a first cause. That's the necessary being, which is self-sufficient and the source of all existence. This being is simple, without parts, and is pure actuality with no potentiallity which is God.

So what do you think about this philosophy and wither it's true or false? And why?

I recommend watching this philosophy in YouTube for more details

Note: stay polite and rational in the comment section

The Is-Ought problem is normally formulated that what the world is isn't always how it ought to be. It can be formulated that "ought" is unrelated to is, and is therefore existing solely as a hypothetical. This can be further reached by pointing out that it's an anthropocentric hypothetical, predicated on the accumulated common desires of humanity in the face of the preexisting universe.

An anthropomorphic God, especially one with human traits or concern with humanity, would just be an extension of this ought problem. And given how, if the arguments for theism hold any weight, at most they require "something" as per iestism, and the fact that the "strongest" evidence I've seen (claims of catholic miracles or quantum mechanics requiring some spirituality) are indirect, as most something like quintessence is necessary, and easier to defend since it's a force like the world that supercedes us and lacks the anthropocentrism that is ultimately unnecessary (what's truly important is that the thing has the capability of doing the stuff theists believe necessary, not really human features like intent or intelligence that are additional and not really supported outside of "common sense" myopia, biases, and other faults of the human mind).

As to why it would work this way, "vindicating" religious miracles? Not sure, but if we have to assume things like a soul, or some of the more mystical ideas about quantum mechanics, perhaps it's more similar to the people who walk in the woods stepping on branches and making a loud noise that breaks the silence, than it is to some large figure who just happens to look like us, the monkeys that sit around all day thinking observation means control over something.

Hello everyone,

I come from a vehemently religious household and they are starting to suspect that I am not a firm believer (I identify as an Agnostic Atheist). Unfortunately, nobody in the family except my Uncle even believes in Evolution. My lack of praying, alongside other things, came up in conversation during a family reunion two days ago and he decided to give me a lecture. It was not based on morality or sin, or the usual topics I was expecting.

Instead, he focused solely on the "Fine-Tuning Argument", one of the arguments for Intelligent Design. I had heard of it before, but I just didn't know enough and didn't want to respond in case I said something stupid. It was probably one of the most embarrassing events of my life, as it was complete silence whilst he ridiculed me for pretending to be "so scientific" when I was blind, egotistical, and simply willing to reject the fact that is God - as I watched family smile in my peripheral vision. When I tried directing him to the experts, who unsurprisingly did not think that this was the most reasonable explanation, he got mad and said that I don't understand what they are talking about myself, and therefore I cannot just take their for word it and use that as any sort of argument. I completely agree with that as I'm pretty sure that's just a standard appeal-to-authority fallacy. Now, in a couple of days, we are all getting together at one of my cousins' house (although I'm not sure how many people are coming, just that he is).

Therefore, I have spent the last two days constructing a "research paper" (linked at the end) to show him that I do (sort of) know what they're talking about. I found it helpful to write what I learnt down and it was really fun writing it as if it was a "book" although I wasn't expecting to show anyone. It's not a script at all, but does touch on most topics and I tried my best to make it readable (there's some typical high school math in the middle, sorry!) But it's pretty long and I don't expect anybody to make it to the end.

I decided to come here because I'm sure plenty of you have been in similar situations before, trying to convince people that you're not possessed by the devil through logic and reason, and might like to help a kid out (or maybe to just have a read).

What I would really appreciate if someone can point out areas of knowledge/understanding that I am lacking on, or some (harsh) critiques of my writing/writing material Any general tips on how to navigate this situation would also be really helpful, and honestly anything (positive, hopefully) you want to say would be welcome. I'll update everyone on how it goes, God-willing!

If you wish to have a read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dwmEzoOeWtCS2frlj6Drs5n-QflPFlx-7fXi9vG2Xnc/edit?usp=sharing

edit: edit: I wouldn't dare saying a lot of things that are on the document to my family, I said it wasn't a script but I'm aware I didn't make it clear at all. Those unnecessary things I decided to write down thinking that if someone were to read it, they would find the thought interesting. 

As the title says...I've read some pretty terrible threads from theists on here, but I am pretty new to this sub. I am a former Christian but you could say I deconstructed and based on history, logic, etc. However, I am just wondering if anyone has come here and presented at least a good argument for theism or Christianity that actually seemed somewhat scholarly? I just would expect more you know...or that even attempts to actually answer or respond directly to questions you folks have asked.

Edit: Thank you everyone for all of the responses I am kinda of overwhelmed at the number of responses in such a short period. It will take me a while to get through these. I did read about 20 so far, and it seems pretty clear that the religious camp and atheist camps definitely come at the God question with vastly different expectations of what is acceptable evidence. I am certainly drawn to this groups brutal honesty and direct logic. Very refreshing!

These psychotic religious fuckheads are responsible for the death of an 8 year old girl and they only got charged with manslaughter?

The fuck is the supreme court judge is doing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTcut2fRB1s

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/29/elizabeth-struhs-death-trial-manslaughter-charges-the-saints-australia-religious-sect-jason-brendan-stevens-ntwnfb

On 8 January, Jason told police his faith was stronger than ever.

“I am fully at peace at heart. I don’t feel sorry, I feel happy 
because now she’s at peace and so am I … she’s not 
dependent on me for her life now. **I’m not trapped by diabetes 
as well.**”

He says "it's what she wanted"... i'd be interested to see the evidence of that.

More like she trusted him completely and fully to do the right thing, and he betrayed it in the worst possible way, apparently out of self interest. 🤬

I know a little about the prison system in my country, child abusers generally get the shit kicked out of them inside...

Hopefully these scumbags are no exception.

I posted here because i think her story needs to make it into as many peoples attention sphere's as possible.

In the context of atheism she is a martyr for the cause, please don't let her death be for nothing. Use it to slap some theists and their nonsense around.

I need a drink. 🍺

I don’t study philosophy so I was hoping to get some good constructive feedback about my own understanding of cosmology as well as some arguments I’ve heard in response.

Essentially, I’m just trying to clarify attributes that I would argue are necessary to a first cause:

1. That it’s uncaused

By definition a first cause must have no other causes.

2. It’s existence explains the universe

Considering that the universe exists the first cause would necessarily explain it in some manner. Be this by causing something that causes the universe, by causing the universe, or by itself being the universe.

3. Existing Outside of Space and Time

The notion here is that space and time exist within the universe/ form part of the universe. So the first cause must exist outside of these dimensions.

4. The first cause must be eternal:

If the first cause exists outside of time I don’t quite see how it could ever change. Considering that the notion of before and after require the motion of time then I think change would be impossible unless we added time as a dimension. (I’m curious to hear other opinions on this)

Discussion——— I’ll outline some attributes I’m personally curious to discuss and hear from everyone about.

—The first cause must be conscious/ have a will: This is one I’ve been discussing recently with theists (for obvious reasons). The main argument I hear is that a first cause that does not have a will could not initiate the creation of the universe. Now, my issue there is that I think it could simply be such a way that it is continually creating. I’m not quite sure I see the need for the first cause to exist in a state in which it is not creating prior to existing in a state in which it is creating.

Considering I imagine this first cause to exist outside of time I’m also under the impression that it would be indistinguishable whether it created once, or was in a state that it created indefinitely.

I have been told though that you can’t assign this notion of “in a state of creating” or “creating” as attributes in discussion. So I’m curious what the general approach to this is or whether I’m completely off base here.

I also don’t personally see how a first cause with a will or mind could change between states if there is no time. Somebody refuted this recently by evoking “metaphysical change”… and I’m not quite sure what to respond to that notion tbh

—The first cause must be omnipotent: I don’t see how omnipotence would be necessary as long as it has the ability to create the universe. Assuming any more I feel would need justification of some sort.

—The first cause cannot have components: I’m torn here, people generally argue that this makes the cause dependant in some way? But if the cause is the whole, that would include its components. So unless it came into existence sequentially, which would need justification, I don’t see a contradiction

When we examine the Shroud of Turin, my friends... we're faced with an undeniable puzzle. The cloth bears an image that has defied scientific explanation for decades. I invite you to join me, dear friends, in exploring what we know, what we don't know, and what the evidence suggests.

The most striking feature of the Shroud is its image - a negative impression of a man that reveals more detail when photographed than when viewed directly. This image exists only on the surface of the cloth's fibers, penetrating just 200-500 nanometers deep - about 1/100th the thickness of a human hair.

Modern scientists can't replicate it. The closest attempt required a UV laser burst of 34,000 billion watts - more power than every nuclear plant on Earth combined. Even then, they could only reproduce a small portion of the image's characteristics.

No pigments, paints, or dyes exist on the cloth. The image itself is a subtle degradation of the linen fiber, as if it was scorched by an intense but incredibly precise burst of energy that affected only the outermost surface.

The bloodstains on the cloth are real human blood, type AB. More intriguing is that microscopic analysis shows the blood was present before the image formed. The image appears around the bloodstains, never underneath them - a sequence that would be nearly impossible to forge.

The blood contains high levels of creatinine and ferritin, indicating severe trauma and acute kidney failure. These markers match what we'd expect from someone who endured crucifixion. The blood flow patterns match wound patterns described in historical accounts of Roman crucifixion.

The infamous 1988 carbon dating that placed the Shroud in the medieval period has been seriously challenged. The sample came from a corner of the cloth that microscopic analysis reveals was repaired with newer material. More recent dating methods tell a different story:

• X-ray diffraction dating suggests a first-century origin
• FTIR spectroscopy indicates approximately 300 BC (± 400 years)
• Raman spectroscopy points to 60 AD (± 400 years)
• Mechanical testing suggests 400 AD (± 400 years)

When combined, these methods converge around 53 AD (± 230 years) with 95% confidence.

Pollen grains embedded in the fibers come from plants specific to ancient Jerusalem. Limestone dust found on the cloth matches the unique chemical signature of Jerusalem tomb rock. The weave pattern matches first-century textile techniques.

Medieval Forgery Theory: The forger would have needed to:

• Create a photographic negative centuries before photography
• Apply blood first, then create an image around it
• Understand anatomical details unknown until modern times
• Work with precision at microscopic scales
• Leave no trace of artistic materials
• Succeed whereas no modern day artist or scientist has.

Contact Print Theory: This fails to explain:

• The image's superficiality
• Lack of smearing
• 3D encoded information
• Images where no contact occurred
• Vertical collimation of the image

The probability of all these features occurring by chance is approximately 1 in 10^23. For perspective, that's like randomly selecting a specific atom from a thousand Earths.

The evidence suggests this cloth:

1. Originated in first-century Jerusalem
2. Wrapped a crucified human male
3. Recorded his image through an unknown mechanism
4. Contains features we still can't replicate
5. Bears blood applied before image formation
6. Shows forensically accurate trauma evidence

The simplest explanation - requiring the fewest assumptions - is that this is exactly what it appears to be: the burial cloth of a crucified man from first-century Jerusalem whose image was somehow recorded on the fabric through a process that can't be naturally explained.

---

Thank you all for the objections. I have taken them all into account.

I have tried to comment to the best of my ability and although I've been a disingenuous jerk throughout the majority of this thread, I genuinely want what's best for all of you.

And that is to embrace the reality that Jesus Christ was a man who suffered, died, and Resurrected. All of which are undeniable via. the Shroud of Turin.

I'm sure more good objections will formulate, I'll take them into account myself, as we all should. But so far, my claim has not been disproven. It takes more faith to believe that Jesus Christ was not Resurrected from the dead than to say he was, as per the Shroud of Turin and marginal other facets of reasoning.

Hi all, I am currently reading through Stephen C. Meyer’s book Return of the God Hypothesis. In the book he is arguing that we have reason to believe that the universe and life were created and guided by a creator. He does this based on the low probabilities of the laws of the universe being so finely tuned, of DNA self organizing, and of natural selection producing new functional proteins.

I was wondering if anyone knew of a good book that would offer some counterpoints on these topics? I’d like to explore both sides of the coin but don’t know a good place to start.

Every once in a while, I come across something that stops me in my tracks. Recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: the theory of evolution has something in common with the flat Earth theory. At first, the comparison seems absurd as they deal with completely different subjects. But when you dig into it, both theories share a critical flaw: they contradict what we actually observe in the real world.

Let me explain what I mean by this.

We’ve all heard about flat Earthers, right? They believe the Earth is a flat plane, not a sphere. Their argument? The ground looks flat to the human eye, and water appears to sit level. It’s based on how things seem in everyday life.

But here’s the problem: as soon as we dig a little deeper, that “flat Earth” idea falls apart. For example, at high altitudes, you can see the curvature of the horizon. During lunar eclipses, Earth’s shadow on the Moon is round. Ships disappear hull-first over the horizon, and satellites (which we rely on for GPS and weather forecasts) operate based on Earth being a sphere. The evidence that Earth is round is overwhelming and observable.

So, how do flat Earthers deal with this? They ignore or dismiss it. They hold onto their belief despite everything pointing to the opposite.

Now, about evolution…

At first glance, you wouldn’t think evolution has anything in common with the flat Earth theory. After all, evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community. But here’s the kicker: just like flat Earth theory, evolution contradicts direct observation.

Let’s break it down. The theory of evolution claims that life evolved from simple, single-celled organisms into the incredibly complex forms we see today. Mutations randomly change DNA, and natural selection filters out the harmful changes, keeping the beneficial ones. Over time, this process is supposed to have created major innovations in biology, such as new organs, organ systems, and entirely new body plans.

Examples of these big leaps are the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred approximately 541 million years ago and lasted around 13 to 25 million years. Or land mammals turning into fully aquatic whales in roughly 15 million years.

Now, if mutations and natural selection really had the power to create new organs, organ systems, and entirely new body plans that quickly, we should see at least some evidence of that happening today in populations of species that are still around.

What we actually observe?

Here’s where the comparison to flat Earth theory comes in: we don’t observe what evolution claims we should.

Let’s start with humans. The hominin lineage has been reproductively isolated for 5 to 7 million years. In all that time, countless mutations have occurred. Natural selection has acted on those mutations. But has any population of humans started evolving new organs or body plans? No. Sure, we see occasional anomalies, like webbed fingers, but these never stick around or become fixed traits in a population. No group of humans is transitioning into an aquatic species or developing some entirely new functional anatomy.

The same is true for countless other populations. Crocodiles have existed for over 200 million years, yet their populations are all the same - there are no even traces of new organs, new body plans emerging in some populations. Coelacanths have been around for 350 million years and haven’t transitioned toward anything new. Nautiluses? Over 500 million years old, and also nothing. Whatever population of whatever existing species we chose, we observe nothing.

Even though some species have been around for unimaginably long periods of time, we don’t see any evidence of their populations evolving something absent in their other populations. This is a direct contradiction of what evolution predicts. If mutations and natural selection really could drive major innovations in short periods of time, we should see some sign of it happening in living populations. But we don’t.

So here’s the parallel: the flat Earth theory ignores evidence that the Earth is round, and the theory of evolution ignores evidence that mutations and natural selection lack the creative power to drive biological innovation. Both theories ask us to accept claims that fly in the face of what we can actually observe.

Flat Earthers dismiss the curvature of the horizon, the round shadow during eclipses, and everything else that proves Earth is a sphere. Evolutionists dismiss the fact that no population within literally every existing species shows any signs of evolving new organs, organ systems, or body plans, even after hundreds of millions of years in some cases.

Once I saw this parallel, I couldn’t unsee it. Both the flat Earth theory and the theory of evolution share a fundamental flaw: they contradict reality. The flat Earth theory asks us to believe the Earth is flat when all the evidence shows it’s a sphere. The theory of evolution asks us to believe that mutations and natural selection can create new forms of life, even though we see no evidence of that happening in any living species.

In the end, both theories are examples of how easy it is to ignore reality when you’re clinging to an idea. And that’s why, surprisingly enough, the theory of evolution really is a lot like the flat Earth theory.

Could the emergence of Islam, uniting the Arab people around a faith that also believes in Abraham but claims Ishmael, not Isaac, is the true son of the promise, be seen as prophetic proof for Judaism and Christianity? In Genesis 16:12, God promises that Ishmael would be “a man against all his brothers,” and a great nation would arise from him. This prophecy didn’t fully manifest until Islam, which unified the Arabs under a single monotheistic faith. While Judaism and Christianity see Islam’s claim about Ishmael as a distortion of the promise made to Isaac, the rise of Islam and the ongoing conflict between Arabs and Israelis might still be seen as fulfilling the prophecy of a great nation from Ishmael in constant conflict with others, especially Isaac’s descendants.

Additionally, the dispute over the location of the Third Temple, where the Dome of the Rock currently stands, could be seen as further proof that the Jewish-Christian narrative is correct. For Jews, the construction of the Third Temple is essential for the arrival of the Messiah, and for Christians, it is tied to the prevention of the Antichrist’s reign. This ongoing struggle over the sacred space in Jerusalem could be viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy, supporting the idea that God’s plan is unfolding as predicted in scripture.

Could these events—Islam’s rise, the persistent conflict between Isaac’s and Ishmael’s descendants, and the dispute over the Temple site—be seen as signs confirming the validity of the Jewish and Christian faiths, ultimately proving that God exists and His divine plan is coming to fruition, especially in an eschatological context?

What are the chances of a random person finding the Torah or the Bible and deciding to change the correct part of it in order to fulfill a prophecy from the Bible, both from a Jewish and Christian perspective, as well as an eschatological-Christian point of view, without intending to? Why not just claim to be from Isaac too and left this prophecy unfulfilled?

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.

I want to touch on this claim I've been seeing theist make that is frankly driving me up the wall. The claim is that without (their) god, there is no knowledge or reason.

You are using Aristotelian Logic! From the name Aristotle, a Greek dude. Quality, syllogisms, categories, and fallacies: all cows are mammals. Things either are or they are not. Premise 1 + premise 2 = conclusion. Sound Familiar!

Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, Diogenes, Epicurus, Socrates. Every single thing we think about can be traced back to these guys. Our ideas on morals, the state, mathematics, metaphysics. Hell, even the crap we Satanists pull is just a modernization of Diogenes slapping a chicken on a table saying "behold, a man"

None of our thoughts come from any religion existing in the world today.... If the basis of knowledge is the reason to worship a god than maybe we need to resurrect the Greek gods, the Greeks we're a hell of a lot closer to knowledge anything I've seen.

From what I understand, the logic of eastern philosophy is different; more room for things to be vague. And at some point I'll get around to studying Taoism.

That was a good rant, rip and tear gentlemen.

Not trying to be inflammatory but all my life, I thought atheism was kind of a silly childish way of thinking. When I was a kid I didn't even think it was real, I was actually shocked to find out that there were people out there who didn't believe in God. As I grew older and learned more about the world, I thought atheism made even less and less sense. Now I just put them in the same category as flat earthers who just make a million excuses when presented with evidence that contradicts there view that the earth is flat. I find that atheist do the same thing when they can't explain the spiritual experiences that people have or their inability to explain free will, consciousness and so on.

In a nut shell, most atheist generally deny the existence of anything metaphysical or supernatural. This is generally the foundation upon which their denial or lack of belief about God is based upon. However there are many phenomena that can't be explained from a purely materialist perspective. When that occurs atheists will always come up with a million and one excuses as to why. I feel that atheists try to deal with the problem of the mysteries of the world that seem to lend themselves toward metaphysics, such as consciousness and emotion, by simply saying there is no metaphysics. They pretend they are making intellectual progress by simply closing there eyes and playing a game of pretend. We wouldn't accept or take seriously such a childish and intellectually lazy way of thinking in any other branch of knowledge. But for whatever reason society seems to be ok with this for atheism when it comes to knowledge about God. I guess I'm just curious as to how anyone, in the modern world, can not see atheism as an extremely lazy, close minded and non-scientific way of thinking.

So often I see theists here blanket assigning that atheists believe there are no Gods. This comment is mostly directed at those theists.

.

Disbelief is not the same as belief in the contrary! From my experience, most atheists here are weak atheists (don't believe in God, but also don't believe there are necessarily no Gods).

Please give us atheists the respect of accepting that we believe what we tell you we believe. I have never seen a theists on this sub get told they believe something they specifically stated they don't believe, so please stop doing that to us!

If you want to address believing there are no God's, just say you're addressing the strong atheists! Then your argument will be directed at people who your criticism might actually apply to, instead of just getting flooding by responses from us weak atheists explaining for the millionth time that you are assigning a position to us that we do not hold. You'd proabably get fewer responses, but they'd lead to so much more productive of discussion!

.

Now, for addressing weak atheists. I may just be speaking for me (so this view is not necessarlly shared by other weak athiests), but this position is not assertion free and does carry a burden of proof. It's just our claim isn't about God's existence, but about justifying belief in God's existence.

I assert, and accept all burden of proof associated with this assertion, that no one on earth has good reason to believe in God. I do admit I may be wrong as I'm unable to interrogate every person, but I feel justified that if there were good reason I can expect I should have found it well before now. This allows me to make my assertion with high confidence. This position is the key position that makes me a weak atheist. If you want to debate weak atheists like me, this is the point to debate.

.

If other weak atheists have a different view, I'd love to hear it! If any theists have a refutation to my actual position, I'd love to hear it!

But please, do not assign what someone else believes to them. It's never a good look.

.

Edit:

When I say "weak" and "strong" atheist, I am intending these as synonymous with "agnostic" and "gnostic" athiest respectively.

Also, when I say no "good" reason to believe in God, my intended meaning is "credible", or "good" with respect to the goal of determining what is true.

My assertion as a weak athiest is not necessarily shared by all weak atheists. In my experience, the majority of atheists on this sub implicity also share the view that thiests do not have good reason for their belief, but it is notnstrictly necessary.

TL;DR:

Lack of evidence alone can’t make you disbelieve; you need some input to shift your belief, and the totality of your life has been nothing but inputs and nothing but evidence.

High-Level Summary

This argument aims to establish that evidence is fundamentally defined by its capacity to influence belief. It contends that genuine disbelief in a proposition must involve belief in its negation, and thus the mere absence of evidence cannot justify such a stance. Consequently, all belief formation (including disbelief) must arise from the addition of something—qualia, experiences, or information—rather than from a vacuum of evidence. Finally, the role of underlying frameworks in shaping what counts as evidence is examined, showing that even what appears as “no evidence” often involves hidden, framework-based evidence.

References for the word evidence:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

My aim with this post is to address evidence and belief philosophically and comprehensively enough that people can reference this post in the future when lack of evidence is mentioned in theology discussion.

Formal Argument

Premise 1: Evidence is that which moves belief.

Explanation: By “moves belief,” we mean that evidence alters the probability we internally assign to a proposition, making it more or less likely to be true to us. Without this capacity to shift a belief state, a piece of information cannot logically serve as evidence.

Defense: Bertrand Russell’s notion that evidence “reveals connections between propositions” supports this. To qualify as evidence, something must change the state of what is believed—if it cannot, it is inert with respect to belief. An observation by itself doesn’t say anything about anything. It just is the case. We call it evidence when it’s functioning to us in a way that moves belief for a proposition we are considering.

Premise 2: Disbelief is logically equivalent to belief in the negation of a proposition.

Explanation: In formal logic, to disbelieve a proposition P is not to remain neutral but to affirm ¬P. Assigning low probability to P inherently raises the probability of ¬P.

Defense: Wittgenstein’s principle, “To reject a statement is to affirm its negation,” aligns with Bayesian reasoning. Within a probabilistic framework, reducing confidence in P increases confidence in ¬P, making disbelief a form of belief in the negation.

Conclusion: Absence of evidence cannot logically move belief or disbelief

Explanation: If disbelief involves belief in ¬P, then evidence for ¬P is required to justify disbelief in P. Mere absence of evidence for P fails to provide that. Absence, lacking any positive informational content, cannot alter prior probabilities. Thus, it cannot function as evidence for ¬P.

Defense: Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction implies that absence cannot simultaneously serve as a positive evidential input. Bayesian models also show that where no new information is introduced, priors remain the same—no belief state shifts.

Corollary 1: All belief (including disbelief) arises from an addition of qualia or informational input.

Explanation: Since moving belief states requires input, and absence provides none, belief shifts must come from adding something (e.g., new observations, logical inferences, or experiences). Without this addition, no rational change in belief can occur.

Logical Support: Any belief alteration demands new input. Since absence adds nothing, no belief (nor disbelief) can logically emerge from it.

Opinion: A truly neutral default position likely does not exist once a proposition is understood.

Explanation: If all belief adjustments require the addition of qualia or information (as established in Corollary 1), then the very act of comprehending a proposition constitutes a form of positive cognitive input. Understanding something is not a passive, “zero-state” event; it provides a minimal yet tangible informational foothold. Consequently, once an idea is grasped, the notion of maintaining a purely neutral, absence-based stance toward it dissolves. Even the bare act of understanding introduces a slight evidential vector that prevents the retention of a completely neutral default position. This asserts a skepticism that the totality of a person's experience can result in no inclination to one side of plausibility for a proposition grasped, although it would be fine to round internal plausibility to 50% colloquially if it is close for a person and they generally have no strong opinion on the plausibility of a claim.

Notes on Implicit Evidence and Frameworks

1. Implicit Evidence in Disbelief (e.g., Atheism):

A well-established naturalistic framework, formed through cumulative experiences and observations, can render theistic claims incompatible with one’s worldview. This incompatibility itself functions as evidence (qualia and reasoning embedded in the framework) against those claims, not mere absence. This incompatibility itself cannot occur until the theory reaches your perception, and thus the theory itself and an incompatibility are information points added at the same time or after cognitive processing. If a person is able to be aware of and articulate the incompatibility itself and or previous pieces of qualia towards the pre-existing framework, they can explain the evidence that resulted in their disbelief. But any assertions of absence of evidence, due to the logical contradiction mentioned, is incoherent and doesn't by itself add anything of value to the conversation regarding why a person doesn't believe something.

Philosophical Support: As Wittgenstein and Susanna Siegel suggest, foundational perceptual and conceptual frameworks justify beliefs indirectly. Such frameworks can provide implicit evidence that undercuts certain propositions, explaining disbelief without appealing to sheer absence of evidence.

2. Hidden Forms of Evidence:

Frameworks built from past experiences (qualia) guide belief responses to new propositions. When a claim is inconsistent with one’s established evidential structure, this inconsistency is itself new information that moves belief toward disbelief.

Example: If one is steeped in reliably evidenced physical explanations, then encountering a “supernatural” claim sparks a conflict. This conflict arises because the claim fails to align with one’s established evidential framework—effectively serving as implicit evidence against it. As an additional note on the word “supernatural", It is considered by many modern philosophers to not be a very useful term, in that anything claimed to exist in reality can simply be asserted to be natural. Thus explaining the framework and evidence that logically and necessarily exists resulting in their disbelief might be frustrating for a person. Yet to hold or defend the position (that is; a position of positive belief in the negation of something by logical necessity), further introspection from them is required.

3. Alternative Definitions of Evidence:

Defining evidence strictly as “observable phenomena” or “experimental results” is simply narrowing the category of what can move belief. This does not undermine the original definition; it merely specifies a certain type of input. The essence remains: evidence is whatever effectively shifts belief.

Defense: Frameworks and empirical methods themselves guide what counts as valid evidence. In all cases, evidence must be capable of belief alteration. Hence, the argument holds regardless of how one chooses to restrict the scope of evidence.

On Philosophical subjective identity:

Some users have an identity associated with their beliefs and would rather feel like their position is fully understood for what it is to them. Some of the identities that would find contention with the notions of belief I put forth could be:

Weak Atheism, Implicit Atheism, Apatheism, Skeptical Atheism, Ignostic Atheism

This self-identification unfortunately does not speak to the logical possibility of the position. While it may seem arbitrary to prefer a Bayesian understanding of belief, or ideas put forth by the philosophers I mentioned rather than others, and also while agreeing on definitions is it imperative part of logic, this position holds weight in that propositional logic is often thought be the case across all possible universes even simply in its variable form or with definitions unspecified.

According to the law of excluded middle, for any proposition , a person must either believe or not believe ; there is no middle ground. Furthermore, by the law of double negatives, if a person does not not believe , it necessarily follows that they do believe. (this is if we treat the word Belief like a variable A or not A)

This exposes a propositional problem for those who attempt to redefine belief as a "lack of belief" or claim a position outside of belief and non-belief. These attempts fail without a Bayesian approach because, under the core laws of logic, belief and non-belief are exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories. Attempts to step outside this binary framework often conflict with the foundational principles of propositional logic.

However, an alternative approach would be to use intuitionist logic, which does not follow these core propositional laws. This requires a framework for belief to be constructed in a way where they are not mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

This naturally leads us to a Bayesian understanding of belief, because if we are to say that a spectrum of belief is to be constructed instead of this binary, any constructed spectrum will likely represent a framework fundamentally the same as the Baysian approach of confidence levels which are meant to lend themselves to an internal unspecified form of statistics we can think of as the plausibility of a proposition. While Thomas Bayes mirrors classical probability in his confidence levels, you could attempt to segment this spectrum under a different metric but ultimately you would just be segmenting the same spectrum differently and it would not undermine the reality of what belief is and this argument being put forth.

In addition, the Bayesian confidence level of 50% confidence is necessary to distinguish agnosticism from other non-belief, or else they are the same thing under classic logic. Atheism cannot be anything other than the positive position that something is less than 50% likely to be the case. That is, if we want the word to be different from agnosticism and tell us something new, then it must be so.

On Pragmatism:

There can be cases made about narrowing the scope of evidence towards the definition given within a specific framework like empiricism, because of the tangible accomplishments that science and empiricism have made in their art and method of prediction with high levels of accuracy.

Empiricism deserves praise and credit towards this end, but it does not negate tangible accomplishments of other epistemologies. To the extent that theoretical math and rationalism has predicted future observations, or even to the extent in which intuition or coherency may or may not have brought psychological benefits to individuals such as security, virtue, decisiveness; To belittle other epistemologies instead of simply acknowledging the benefits of empiricism, implies a subjective value system that you are welcome to hold, but does not negate any of the logical necessities put forth by this position.

On Justified True Belief (JTB):

The concept of “justified true belief” is not a settled standard for knowledge. After Gettier’s counterexamples, many epistemologists reject JTB as complete, favoring alternatives like reliabilism, coherentism, or externalism. Since “justification” itself is under debate, this paper doesn’t rely on JTB as a universal criterion. Instead, it focuses on the logical structure of belief adjustment. Those invoking JTB to defend or contest disbelief must recognize they are stepping into deeper philosophical territory where the precise meaning of justification remains an open question.

On Occam’s Razor and Theoretical Frameworks:

Occam’s razor suggests favoring simpler theories with fewer assumptions, often guiding which propositions we consider plausible before we thoroughly test them. While valuable, this principle isn’t an empirical test of truth but rather a heuristic shaped by underlying theoretical commitments. In this sense, Occam’s razor functions like a framework: it influences what we treat as a “baseline” of simplicity and can itself provide a form of internal consistency or coherence that moves belief. Thus, it can serve as a kind of evidential input, reinforcing certain stances over others—not by adding direct empirical data, but by shifting how we judge a theory’s plausibility from within a particular rational vantage point. This again highlights that what might seem like a neutral, assumption-free starting point is actually laden with its own theoretical weight, reinforcing the argument that all shifts in belief (including those guided by principles like Occam’s razor which a person gained knowledge of positively) emerge from adding something—some form of reasoning, principle, or perspective—not mere absence.

On certainty:

After establishing the need for a Bayesian approach to belief it is worth furthering this and addressing certainty and the Baysian paradox of dogmatism:

1. P1: If you are certain of some belief, p , and you are rational, then you must hold p in the face of all evidence. 2. P2: If you must hold p even in the face of contradictory evidence, then you are not rational. 3. Conclusion (C): Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

This example highlights an implication that for rational beings when we say we “know something” we really mean that we are 99% confident in something. This is a common understanding within the empirical domains that contradictory evidence can emerge at any moment and thus they lean towards notating everything as a theory because the future is not certain.

In a theological context, imagine a devout Christian passed away and met the Hindu God Brahman. Imagine that Brahman showed undeniable proof that Jesus was just a normal man and that Christianity was wrong. Would the Christian hold his beliefs still? What about throughout 10,000 reincarnation cycles where the Christian remembers everything at the conclusion of each one? No. That would be insanity. Admirable maybe to have faith that strong, but not rational. Therefore this begs the question, “what do we mean when we say we are 100% certain of something or we know something”? Rational beings must mean a bayesian confidence of 99.99%. If they knew something 100% then they would know that all contradictory evidence is misleading and they should ignore it. Of course this holds for 0% confidence the same, in that this hypothetical Christian could just as easily say he is zero percent confident in Brahman being the true God despite the evidence in front of him.

This further emphasizes that for rational beings we are emphasizing a range >0 and less than 1 when we talk about belief in a proposition. Since birth your experiences have been shaping how compatible each proposition you hear is, and you have only a life of positive evidence points for everything you believe or do not.

On Evidential Absence:

While the argument asserts that the mere absence of evidence cannot move belief, it is important to distinguish between absence of evidence (a true void of input) and evidential absence (the lack of expected evidence, which can itself serve as evidence).

At this point in the post I think it should be clear that your expectations of evidence come from positive inputs as well as the observation of a lack of something still being a positive experience added to the mind. Many well controlled experiments use a lack of observation where expected to update a bayesian confidence. It should be clear these formal experiments and informal instances of experience move belief as described and do not undermine the argument put forth. With evidence as it is defined as that which moves belief, the experience of null observation of expectation certainly can move belief. This evidence and expectation should be articulated if related to theology.

Looking forward to criticism and feedback on these points. I hope to post in the future related to analogical reasoning and category theory! I hope to look at the scientific method and show that all reasoning involves analogical reasoning as we move from the specific to the general and from the general back to the specific. I hope to look in depth with you all if it is ever rational to believe something before scientific deductive verification occurs. But it was important to discuss evidence and belief in detail first. Thanks for reading !

Atheists sometimes ask for evidence of God, but Romans 1:20 explains:

Romans 1:20

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This Scripture (Romans 1:20) explains why atheism is irrational. If you believe you can explain creation without God, then do so. There is no other explanation for all things, and the evidence is that you can give no explanation. "I don't know, but one day we will know" (science of the gaps, hope in materialism) is not an answer.

I've made posts before and replies can sometimes be rude and uncivil. Ive banned some commenters and if I did something unChristlike I apologize, Rude comments are not necessary. I will respond to an actual explanation.

The universe operates under specific physical constants gravity, electromagnetism, and the rate of cosmic expansion. These constants aren’t just arbitrary; they are finely balanced within incredibly narrow margins. For instance if the force of gravity were slightly stronger or weaker, stars wouldn’t form, and without stars, planets and life would be impossible. This precision isn't subjective; it’s measurable and real.

Take DNA, the fundamental blueprint of life. DNA stores vast amounts of information in a highly organized structure, operating with remarkable efficiency to maintain life. Yet, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, systems naturally move toward disorder over time. Despite this, biological systems manage to sustain order, self-repair, and replication with extreme accuracy. This raises a crucial question how does life maintain such complexity against the natural tendency of entropy?

The probability of these constants and conditions aligning by pure chance is astronomically low. So low that to attribute it all to randomness without considering the possibility of design seems inconsistent with the evidence.

If a system functions with precision despite opposing natural forces, does that not suggest intentionality?

Do these observed facts point toward purpose, or are they merely fortunate coincidences?

How likely is it that not just one, but many such coincidences could occur, over billions of years, despite entropy and the universe's inherent tendency toward disorder?

Update: Why is this line of thinking important? Scientific observation of the physical world and even beyond direct observation has advanced to a point where attributing everything to mere chance becomes increasingly untenable. This challenges frameworks like Evolution and other theories grounded in randomness. As the evidence for the universe's amazing precision continues to mount, ideas that hinge solely on chance and coincidence are likely to lose all credibility.

Yes, The existence of God is objectively provable.

It is able to be shown that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that provides the preconditions for all knowledge and reason.

This proof for God is called the transcendental proof of God’s existence. Meaning that without God you can’t prove anything.

Without God there are no morals, no absolutes, no way to explain where life or even existence came from and especially no explanation for the uniformity of nature.

I would like to have a conversation so explain to me what standard you use to judge right and wrong, the origin of life, and why we continue to trust in the uniformity of nature despite knowing the problem of induction (we have no reason to believe that the future will be like the past).

Of course the answers for all of these on my Christian worldview is that God is Good and has given us His law through the Bible as the standard of good and evil as well as the fact that He has written His moral law on all of our hearts (Rom 2: 14–15). God is the uncaused cause, He is the creator of all things (Isa 45:18). Finally I can be confident about the uniformity of nature because God is the one who upholds all things and He tells us through His word that He will not change (Mal 3:6).

These posts seem to come and go, I haven't noticed on in the last couple months (maybe I have just been lucky) but in the last two days there have been at least two, one just now from /u/According-Actuator17 and one yesterday from /u/4EKSTYNKCJA, though I suspect they are all actually from the same person or people posting under alts. What they are arguing for is clearly insane and inhuman. I rarely argue for blanket bans on any topic, but these people add zero credible debate, they are just hateful trolls. The sub and humanity as a whole would be better off if we refuse to platform them. These people make YEC's look like welcome, contributing members of society.