Every time I've tried to choose a religion and follow it, I then have to choose which subgroup, then which sub-subgroup... which book, then which translation... so I lose my original commitment. This last time, having backed off again, I'm wondering if a god would be involved in all this chaos. It sounds like just people stuff to me. Squabble, squabble. "That's heresy!" "YOU won't listen to the TRUTH!"

The sense that there's a protector, probably a creator, something "out there" that's magnificent and powerful, persists.

Maybe He/ She/ It/ They just want/s me to quit worrying about it and go live the life I was given.

So, the more i think about it, the more i realize i have a problem with organized religion and people who follow scripture.(tbh the existence of scripture isnt something im fond of because it can bring so much bad stuff with it but not like its not a part of history so can't say much against it) because those are rhw aspects of religion that cause problems. beleiving in a tri omni god might b difficult to prove and not something i agree with, but its certainly not problematic. But i dont have any sort of dislike for people who just happen to identify with a religion, but still make there own morals and life choices, people just slapping a random label that doesnt fir there beleifs isnt rlly a huge problem yk? but it makes me wonder why they do that, why are people so insistent on using the wrong words to describe there beleifs? (i am neurodivergent, i suspect this might b some sort of social curtisy that i missed maybe? like a family thing?)

So I know most theist people on this Reddit don’t believe in a specific religion and neither do I but I am wondering do you pray if you truly think there is a god out there and if you do why?

I truly believe that a God exist as well as the Devil

I don't believe in the after life and of going to Heaven and Hell.

I believe Heaven and Hell are concepts of Memory for a person. That if they do good that memory goes to Heaven and if they sin that memory goes to Hell.

I believe that if you act in accordance with God, where an action goes to Heaven, then if you pray then God can listen to you and find ways to help you.

I believe that Satan tries to temp you to sin and it begins with a temptation where Satan can hint you to sin. He tries to make you act and have that memory go to Hell.

I believe that being Good or morals are innate in all human beings, which gives evidence for God.

I believe living with accordance with God means doing the following: Love Compassion Empathy Honesty Hard Work/Work Ethic Helping Others/Unselfish Courage/Bravery Self Control/Discipline Living towards a higher self/Living towards your potential that God gives you.

Living with Devil, would be to the polar opposite of the above, while also highlighting: Hedonism, doing things for selfish pleasure Living against your upmost potential

Good - God Evil - Devil

I personally don't like too much organized religion and dogma, and cults. I do enjoy that day the Bible has passages and I believe it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

What does it mean when you believe religion makes sense as , if all religions was to come together and teach each other there religions that not just for religion but for the world we would learn more together ? Like idk I make just be talking bare I’m fried af rn but I’m hoping someone gets where I’m coming from

For a long time theists have insisted that atheists must also prove their claim(s) and they're right about this- if not in the way they expect. Atheists are heavily reliant on what is called the burden of proof but is known as extrospection in the disciplines of psychology and philosophy. Extrospection is about the observer looking outward in the hope of discovering the absolute truth (our shared reality). The theist will often try to reverse the flow of this investigation so that the ordinary claim(s) would have as much need to prove as the extraordinary claim(s). This makes no sense at all. If any reversal is to occur this exists in the proposal of an opposite kind of investigation: this time focused on introspection/looking inward. Theists do participate in introspection and extrospection too. They are thus much more thorough and science compliant than the atheists they typically encounter on social sites- who tackle none. I should also mention that only one of the three atheistic beliefs also attempts both investigations. Anyhow, all beliefs have equal onus to prove within introspection as no penalties are assigned, and this is what theists were striving for all along.

A couple of years ago, I changed my mind on the question of God after philosophical investigation into the existence of God. I now have dedicated part of my youtube channel to providing arguments for the existence of God. I believe theism is underrated and can be the solution to the many mistakes atheists make and the confusion religions create. It is an underrated system of thought, and I hope to try to make videos on it. You can check them out in my channel and my "metaphysics" playlist. I would appreciate a community of theists in my channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AvSvYbtEM

I'm not a theist. I'm an atheist and yet this is so. My opinion of the atheist community took quite a blow when they objected to the introduction of additional knowledge about atheism consistent with university courses dating way back to the mid twentieth century. This they assumed was a planned attack on atheism- without even knowing what was about to be said. They followed this up with a permanent ban from atheism and then a temporary ban from Reddit. I now regard that community unworthy of knowledge sharing. They can wallow in paranoid ignorance for all I care. Would any of you like to know some of the findings?

I find this objections to the Kalam in r/Atheism and I want to know if is a solid one or fail. The comment is the next:

The argument is flawed from the beginning. Here are some highlights:

Special Pleading

A commonly-raised objection to this argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.

Effect without cause

Most philosophers believe that every effect has a cause, but David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.

Multiple causes

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism.

Radioactive decay

Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible — according to our current understanding of physics — to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is stochastic and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. An objection to this counterexample is that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited and there may be an underlying but presently unknown cause. However, if the causal status of radioactive decay is unknown then the truth of the premise that 'everything has a cause' is indeterminate rather than false. In either case, the first cause argument is rendered ineffective. Another objection is that only the timing of decay events do not appear to have a cause, whereas a spontaneous decay is the release of energy previously stored, so that the storage event was the cause.

Virtual particles

Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation. The release of such radiation comes in the form of gamma rays, which we now know from experiment are simply a very energetic form of light at the extreme end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Consequently, as long as there has been vacuum, there has been light, even if it's not the light that our eyes are equipped to see. What this means is that long before God is ever purported to have said "Let there be light!", the universe was already filled with light, and God is rendered quite the Johnny-come-lately. Furthermore, this phenomenon is subject to the same objection as radioactive decay.

Fallacy of composition

The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.

Equivocation error

There is an equivocation error lurking in the two premises of the Kalām version of the argument. They both mention something "coming into existence". The syllogism is only valid if both occurrences of that clause refer to the exact same notion.

In the first premise, all the things ("everything") that we observe coming into existence forms by some sort of transformation of matter or energy, or a change of some state or process. So this is the notion of "coming into existence" in the first premise.

In the second premise there is no matter or energy to be transformed or reshaped into the universe. (We are probably speaking of something coming from nothing.)

The two notions of "coming into existence" are thus not identical and therefore the syllogism is invalid.

I responded to an r/atheism Post that claimed that Christianity was the single biggest opponent to all forms of Progress that has happened in Society. I took each claim of the OP and produced counter argument with historical data. I didn't bring up any additional point. Many atheists have responded to my comments as well. Yet, the Moderators banned me permanently and their reason was "Gish Gallop", even though the number of arguments I made were simply replies to the OP and so were of the same number. If the Moderators were consistent in the claim that I'm "Gish Galloping", they would have banned the OP as well- since we both had equal number of arguements, that too of the same topic. But they haven't.

So, it seems like they are simply using their subreddit to silence dissent. I cannot even reply to those who argued against me here because of this ban. They claim to detest Theocracies for silencing Dissenting voices, but here they are: the Mods of r/atheism behaving like the Theocrats of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Am I the only one who experienced this?

Hello folks if r/Theism! As some of you may or may not have noticed, I'm the sole mod of this sub.

I requested it last year because it was dead, and now there seems to be more activity. I have since realized that I am not qualified to be a mod with my schedule or anything about my life, so I need someone else to take responsibility of this sub. Apply in the replies if you truly would like to be a mod for this sub. I'll list some things that may qualify/disqualify you from becoming a mod, or things that you should be aware of before running this sub:

1. This sub is for the general idea of Theism, not just Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any specific religion. If you plan on changing the purpose of this this sub to fit your beliefs, then you don't qualify. You can still talk about your religion here, but keep in mind that this sub is for discussion on all of them.

2. If you are an atheist, then you won't qualify. I know some atheists on this platform wouldn't hesitate to delete or ruin this sub if they got their hands on it, so I won't allow any atheists to become mods even if they say that they truly want to be here for meaningful discussion.

3. You have some extra favor if you're already a mod of a decently sized sub.

Edit: I've found what I was looking for and locked the comments. Thanks everyone!

Let us converse this topic shall we

Pretend only science is real.

We are a chemical reaction.

We are incandescent oxygen fire.

A nacre gleam on the outer shell of a molten nickel gravity core.

We are the shine of the sun's radiation burning into the earth. A conscious Aroura Boriealis that looks at its own colors with mystery.

We are a dream of consciousness trying to wake up.

We already know we are part of something great. We know that no molecule can be a stable form forever, but no atom is ever lost. Ever changing finite form and immortal material.

We even know what happens when you try to split the atomic.

The only jealous power I have ever been subject to is Gravity.

We know our planet orbits the sun, and we know our sun is dragging us along at 448,000 mph (720,000 km/h). 200km/s. Two hundred kilometers a second.

There is no stillness.

Its a Scientific proof, but it sounds very Zen.

At no point has anything on earth ever been still. If our bodies are made of atoms, then those electrons are ever orbiting protons and neutrons, and we are made of countless orbits falling through space. As we would describe our plant, solar system, and galaxy. All made of infinite motion.

You are traveling at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. Being pulled in multiple directions. Orbit of the Earth, the sun, the milky way. We are already a part of something greater that we don't understand.

There is a question Science can't answer:

Where we are being taken, by on orbit of questionable consent?

We can't even ask the sun where it's taking us, but you think we know the motivations of a being who refuses to give evidence because worshipping him in absence of proof is the only way to prove you aren't lying about believing in him? Does your God eat paradoxes?

Fuck MY life. I want to know if the Earth really is gonna crash into Andromeda before the sun dies of natural causes.

I think that's a more important thing to focus on than the fairy tale opinions of a Canaanite Pantheon God of Israel. I care as much about what the Bible has to say as I do the opinions of the Easter bunny.

I don't hate people who were raised with the tooth fairy being true until it wasn't, yet are still hanging on to the one piece of their childhood their creators called the source of all goodness.

I just pity them.

But I still have reason to resent them trying to call me broken and evil. And it took me a long while to stop hating them because they hated me.

Many atheists are filled with resentment and negativity because they have been told they are bad people for not accepting the version of truth that their tribe subscribes to.

But that's not why atheism feels negative.

Atheism is not a thing. It's not a principal. Not a claim that God is a lie.

But It IS negative. It's the negative response to the claim that any God, be he Hebrew, Zoastrian, Hindu, or Zeus, with no evidence, is the truth of reality.

Ask a Christian if he fears the wrath of Zeus or Odin, and the answer would be the same for an atheist, just include YHWH.

No claim to special knowledge, just rejection of the faith based claims of others. Where faith is defined as belief without evidence.

If a druid worshiping the Horned God told a Christian that the proof the Horned God was real was because people worshipped him because he never showed himself, would that cause the Christian to convert?

To be an atheist is to hold a negative stance.

That's the origin of the resentful flavor many are tasting in atheism.

"I don't know." Is one of the most honest things you can say. And there is nothing wrong with it because we seem to be built as sensory processors. The quest for discovery is what we are "fine tuned" for. We find beauty in the hunt for answers.

We might even discover we are just the mechanism of the sensory organs of our planet. Given hopefully as much importance as a mitochondria.

The problem shouldn't be with not knowing. Not knowing is a glorious adventure for understanding.

The problems come when someone says they have all the answers, and you need to be quiet and not question.

Do you know that fire is unique to us? That thing we know as fire only exists with us, on the surface of our planet.

The sun is not fire. It a nuclear reaction. It's the changing of hydrogen.

Our fire is the changing of oxygen.

We have never seen that anywhere else in the universe. And then there is us. We, who literally radiate warmth and light in spectrums we can't even see as we burn in oxygen fire. We have never seen anything as complex and full of potential as the luminescent lichen on rock that all life on earth appears to be.

All of that yearning glory.

And you know people who are worried about tickling their own genitals while taking a bath.

I posed the question to r/atheism in regards to aristotle’s theory of motion and its application to prove the existence of god. Whilst i think this application is plausible I have a few confusions about it, and was wondering if anyone can help clear things up. Btw I am someone who is actively willing to be a believer. on the premise that we accept Aristotle's theory of motion, we can come to the conclusion of an unmoved mover (god), my understanding is that this unmoved mover, actualised the universe's potential to exist, but this would imply that there was a universe with unactualised potential to exist prior to the actualisation, and that universe's potential to exist was then actualised by god, if that make's sense, does this not imply that this unactualised potential universe existed independent of the unmoved mover, which in a way goes against an all powerful god, as something existed independently of it. If we say that the unactualised potential universe or components of the universe did not exist, then that would imply that the unmoved mover actualised the potential of "nothing" to become the universe, which implies that something can indeed be created out nothing, which seems problematic. Have i got the wrong idea? If so then please clear things up for me🙏🏽 Or maybe is there a different subreddit better suited for this query?

A lot of he pre-existing arguments I have seen don't seem that convincing and even though I would like to believe them, my brain instantly comes up with reasons why they're wrong. At this point, I am just following blind faith and I don't want it to continue that way. So can someone please provide me with a proof that is strong of why God exists?

I've been consuming a lot of islamic content recently. It made me rethink my position. I used to be an atheist, but now my beliefs have changed a bit. I somewhat understand the creator argument of infinite regression. But I still have doubts.

1. If everything needs a cause, and there must be an uncaused cause at the end of the chain, why exactly does it have to be God? Why can't the uncaused cause be the Big Bang?
2. Let's say there IS a God. Why does he need a messenger as a person to reveal it to all of humanity. I mean if God really wanted, he could have more effiecient means of communicating. For eg., change the positions of the stars in the sky to say something like 'I am God, I exist' or something. Why reveal it to someone person and trust him to spread the message. Pretty inefficient way of delivering a message. I mean even humans can do mass communication way better today no?

The original post got removed from r/islam and I thought it would be appropiate here.

P.S. I don't intend to hurt any feelings. I am genuinely curious. I am sorry if the way of framing the sentences may be rude.

I really wanna argue someone

The title is a bit click baity but I'm just asking a question since I'm new to all this. Due to us now knowing that somethings don't have a cause and are entirely random due to quantum physics can't that logic be applied to the universe. And if that's the case doesn't that pretty much refute theism since we'll the 'evidence' is now stacked on one side. Idk if I'm articulating this properly but I would appreciate if others could give their opinion on this.

Most arguments for god seem to be heavily disputed, a lot for simply being a “God of the gaps” argument (using God as a way to fill in gaps of our knowledge such as consciousness). What is an argument for Gods existence that remains convincing despite arguments against it? Try to keep any responses as communicative as possible.

They are seriously some of the most juvenile, small minded people I’ve encountered on Reddit (which is saying something, considering some of the communities on here).

What do you all think?

The question of "How do you know?" comes up a lot when discussing theism with atheists. I find this question malformed. It is not a matter of knowledge it is a matter of belief. To know something is to be absolutely certain of it. To belief something is to have enough reason to be convinced of something. While we cannot know if gods exist, we can believe that they do.

The reason why people believe is experience. Every other argument is a justification built atop of personal interactions with the gods. It is reasonable to believe in beings that you have experienced. For instance, if I see someone in the distance, I can assume they are exist and I am not hallucinating. This is how we live in our daily lives, trusting our senses. Theists believe that holding the gods to a greater standard is unnecessary.

An atheist will find this unconvincing. This evidence is lacking to anyone without the experience or to someone that doubts their experience. This is perfectly reasonable. But to tell someone to doubt their senses requires a justification.

Most theists are monotheists. What arguments do people have against polytheism from a theistic perspective?

It seems like most theists define god is such a way where there can only be one. This is not an interesting conversation to have. Defining out all the other beings that all other religions have experienced, and calling them god-like or false gods skips all the rigor in explaining why. The argument can just as easily be turned against a monotheist, anyone can claim that their god is simply a false god and they would have equal ability to defend from this accusation.

People will also appeal to Occom's razor, claiming that one deity has the same explanatory power was many, so we should only believe in one. This raises a few questions, the first being which one should we believe in? But that assumes that this argument is true. It seems like monotheism has had to preform major mental gymnastics in order to keep their expletory power. The problem of evil was so significant that theodicy was a term created to describe solutions. There are vast problems with maximum greatness (what does it mean to be maximally great) and omnipotence (as people will often limit god after).

Polytheism seems to hold greater explanatory power to monotheism. And yet it is not considered. So why do people not hold this position?

Just curious cuz I've been thinking about this for a while.

I am agnostic, so there's that.

I wasn't raised under any religions, per se. We follow traditional spiritual practices and ritual, but I never really take it to heart.

So, I know that I don't follow any official established religion.

I however, believe that nothing is random and there's a force purposely choosing how a dice rolled every time. I find comfort in believing that, at least. I don't believe that there's any rationale behind the decision that that force makes, or rather it'd be impossible for us to comprehend the "grand plan", as it was.

I never found myself saying that I'm an atheist because of all that. But if I'm a theist, then I don't know who do I believe in in that case.

So, looking for some answers here, hope you guys can give me something. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr2l6k2_Faw

Hello, everyone I just wanted to say that I have recently created for the first time ever a Christian Deist subreddit!

For those of you who aren’t aware Christian Deism was a school of thought that accepted a deistic deity, and additionally accepted Christian morals, primarily the belief in loving god and loving others. Hence the name Christian deism

While, I understand those here would call themselves theists, I believe you would grow to appreciate the philosophy of Christian Deism,

So if your interested in learning in learning a new perspective, or feel that this community is right for you.. All are welcome!

r/christiandeism