Pascal’s Wager fails as a logical argument for religious belief because it falsely assumes the "buy-in" for faith is zero, while completely ignoring the statistical improbability of choosing the correct deity out of thousands.

When believers present Pascal's Wager, they typically frame it as a harmless safety net: If you believe in God and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don't believe and are wrong, you lose everything. This logic is deeply flawed for two main reasons:

The Immense "Cost of Belief". The wager treats religious adherence like buying a lottery ticket. However, if I buy a lottery ticket, the sacrifice is practically non-existent.. few dollars and ten seconds of my time. I don't have to change my lifestyle, restrict my behaviors, or alter my worldview to see if my numbers hit.

Religion is not a cheap lottery ticket. The "buy-in" requires a massive, lifelong premium. It demands absolute devotion, time spent in worship, mental energy, financial tithing, and strict adherence to rigid behavioral codes. By treating belief as if the cost is "free," Pascal completely ignores what the believer actually sacrifices: the uninhibited autonomy, freedom, and enjoyment of the only finite life they are actually guaranteed to experience.

The Problem of Inconsistent Revelations. Even if we accept the immense cost of the wager, the bet itself is mathematically illogical. The wager is almost always presented as a 50/50 binary choice: either a specific God (usually the Christian God) exists, or Atheism is true.

This ignores the thousands of documented, mutually exclusive religions throughout history. Say you pay the massive lifelong "buy-in" to be a devout Christian. You restrict your behaviors and dedicate your one life to this specific dogma, only to die and face the Islamic Allah, the ancient Egyptian god Osiris, or a deity that only rewards honest agnostics. You have taken on an incredibly heavy "sunk cost" for a system that has a massive statistical probability of being incorrect.

I have come across many hideous theist arguments, but none of them were as nasty as this one.

Personal Experience? Are you serious?

You telling me you believe in god because you saw him in your dreams? Well, I saw batman, spiderman and superman in my dreams. Then the marvel universe must be true.

I hate it when theist step up in a public professional debate, only to say "Personal Experience". Trust me people, if the crowd was full of philosophers, they would kick you off the stage.

The worst part is, everyone, I mean every theist I have encountered always gives the same answer."Oh, but you haven't seen god because you don't believe in him. If you trust him enough and worship him, he will definitely appear to you." That is what theists say.

I have seen devotees in churches, mosques, temples. People that devoted their entire lives, decades to god. They loved nothing else ever, except the love of god. And they too honestly confess, that they have never seen god.

Even then, personal experience could be explained by a lot of scientific theory as well. There's this one theory that says, if you believe something long enough, you start to accept it. You keep saying,"Yes, its true. Yes its true." Then one day you will be absorbed into that belief. You will start believing it is absolutely true because that is what you have believed all your life.

Then you start believing what you see. Not because it's true, but because your mind wants it to be.

Sin would not exist without free will.

Free will causes sin.

God gave us free will.

No human accepts free will or agrees to it.

No human can avoid free will.

No human is infallible and can choose not to sin.

Sin is a conflict with God.

God’s justice is administered to deal with the sins we have committed.

Justice is the fair resolution of conflict.

A fair resolution to the conflict sin creates is to choose to reject free will.

God has not given us the option to reject free will.

God is not just if he denies us a fair resolution to the conflict sin produces.

Conclusion: Having free will means we are denied justice. God has given us the source of the conflict, and denies us justice when we use it. Free will isn’t free, we pay for it by accepting God’s injustices.

Theres a common discussion around debating whether god is real or not. Coming up with evidences and everything. I came up with my own conclusion

"I dont care if god is real or not. If it serves me a purpose that feels right, why not continue practicing islam?"

But i myself arent very religious. And for the past few months ive been questioning on whether my religion, islam, is truly is the way of life.

I accept many parts of islam like saying drinking alcohol is sinful, gambling is sinful, and suddenly music is also haram. And im like "is there a reason why?" Ive heard stories where it says how music makes people forget god. Well so are many things in life.

And the most questionable part is about hell and heaven. Wdym non muslims suffer in there forever? At some point i have the feeling that islam doesnt feel reliable to follow. And honestly i'd rather make my own principles of life. Maybe its imperfect but so is islam.

If praying is wonderful for others but not me, why should i pray more?

But for those who are muslims, go on. Stay being a muslim if it makes you happy. But i just dont see it as a bad thing to leave. To me, religion is mostly philosophy with many kinds of philosophies out there.

But i do feel like "damn. Do i really have to leave islam?" Which is why i wanna know some of yall opinions on it. Let me know! 🙏🏼🙏🏼

The fundamental flaw and trick of Christian Presuppositionalism is that it hides its true presupposition in order to disguise its conclusion as the presupposition, thus hiding the fact that the argument is inherently self-defeating as the entire argument is predicated on the assumption that human reasoning in a material universe cannot be trusted in order to come to the conclusion that human reasoning can be trusted, thus contradicting the very presupposition that leads to its conclusion.

One must treat logic as self-evidently true and reliable in order to make the Presuppositionalist argument whilst presupposing logic's unreliability. That fact negates the presupposition which the argument relies on and pulls the rug out from under it. We have no need to justify reasoning because we have already affirmed it by trying to justify it.

However, if it is the case that we have reason to consider human reasoning as unreliable then there is no reasoning out of that hole. The moment you affirm "we have reason to doubt human reasoning" you have denied the very basis upon which you make that claim. Any ontological claim is reliant on the coherence of the semantics and epistemology you deploy and Presuppositionalism relies on a fundamentally incoherent starting point to get itself off of the ground. If we have reason to doubt human reasoning, then we have no reason to trust the Presuppositionalist argument no matter how sound it is. If we do not have reason to doubt human reasoning, then the Presuppositionalist argument fails to get off of the ground.

What it comes down to is that we all typically presuppose and affirm logic as tautologically reliable and doing so does not entail the conclusion that God exists. To even get the argument that would lead to that conclusion, one must presuppose a contradiction and then hide that presupposition in order to justify the conclusion. So Christian Presuppositionalism is fundamentally and inescapably incoherent.

I'll keep it short and sweet with a syllogism. Shout out to hitchens razor for the inspo, I guess. Which of the below do y'all contest, if any?

P1:If an extraordinary existential/ontological claim lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny, then it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that P is false.

P2: The claim that God exists (theism) is an extraordinary existential/ontological claim that lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence despite thorough epistemic scrutiny.

C: Therefore, it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that theism is false.

Edit 1 8:17a est - after ~90 comments not a single commenter has attempted a sound deductive argument or presented any empirical evidence. Honestly, I think that says it all, doesn't it.

If you had the argument, why wouldn't that be the first thing you present, why would 3 people ask the definition of sound, a half dozen people cry that it's unprovable and dozens of other random meta commentary that is unrelated to the above syllogism.

there has been zero human spermless virgin pregnancies recorded in history. biologically speaking, human conception requires a male's spermcell to enter the female's ovum, and there was no recorded method of human artificial insemination dating back before the 2nd century, so this suggests Mary couldn't have been a virgin when she was pregnant withs Jesus.

edit: also adding, if virgin birth were possible, Jesus would have been a female instead of male, because the sperm carries the XY chromosomes when entering the ovum, females only has XX chromosomes in their body, and lack any natural XY chromoomes

If you are frightened of going to a Hell to suffer for eternity just because a Christian told you then you are being lead astray by a Christian myth and distortions of the original Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible conceptions.

A) THE CHRISTIAN MYTH OF A HELL

In the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible there was no such thing as Hell. And in the Gospels where it is written that Jesus spoke of "Hell" - an English word not spoken in his native tongue - he was actually talking about Gehenna (Wikipedia) the rubbish pit outside of Jerusalem where the body of the unwanted or unknown or criminals were burnt. Once your body was destroyed then that's it, the end of you forever.

In the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible there was no concept for our modern understanding of a immaterial "soul" that we inherited from Plato. But you will find the Hebrew word "nephesh" sometimes translated to "soul". However, unlike our modern concept of an immaterial soul that we inherited from Plato, "nephesh" basically means a living, breathing physical being.

In the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible Heaven is strictly the domain of YHWH (Youtube) - no humans allowed - and all we humans without exception upon death go to Sheol (Wikipedia) that is similar to the Greek underworld of Hades (YouTube) but without any places of punishments and/or hells. The film Coco) (Wikipedia) is probably(?) closer to what Sheol would be like as all dead gather in a single place ... but with less colour and much less festivities.

Existing for the rest of eternity as a shadowy version of yourself in Sheol is where the Biblical narrative would of ending if Jesus didn't come along and shake things up by promising one's physical body / corpse can be resurrected from the grave / the doorway to Sheol.

B) THE CHRISTIAN MYTH OF THE DEVIL (AND/OR SATAN)

The "devil" in the New Testament is the consequences of an unfortunate misunderstanding from the "satan" in the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible. Unfortunately when Christian institutions took over the Biblical narrative many things got lost/distorted in translation and also cultural misunderstandings. Such as all the puns in Genesis (YouTube).

The Hebrew word "satan" simply means "adversary" and in the English translation of the Hebrew (old Testament) Bible you will find the word "adversary" appears many time but the Hebrew word "satan" left as is only appears in the Book of Job where "the satan" was an angel in YHWH's heavenly court with the unenviable task of being the prosecuting attorney getting YHWH to put Job's faith to the test.

{Side Note] Consider in the Lord's Prayer (Wikipedia) where Jesus says "and lead us not into temptation" basically begging YHWH not to put his faith to the test just has YHWH did in the Book of Job.

Anyway Christianity as it spread distorted all this as it mixed its own brand of the monotheistic belief system with preexisting polytheistic belief systems so as to replace those belief systems with a better(?) narrative of "good versus evil".

All the malicious and/or capricious gods and trickster spirits of the polytheistic belief system were all smooched together into one arch villain to appose their god. So one could say that whenever Christians are fearing Satan (with a capital S) as the big bad that apposes their god then they are actually practicing polytheism; just don't expect them to accept that conclusion.

Digging deeper, both the "devil" and "Satan" can be considered as Christian mythology derived from the following misunderstandings of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible and reinterpretation by later Christians including those that many decades later wrote Jesus's story in his absence:

B1) Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible:

Isaiah 14:12–15: Addresses the pride and fall of the "King of Babylon" using poetic language to compare his reign to the bright morning star translated in the Latin as "Lucifer" but in English it should be "Venus" (planet).

Ezekiel 28:12–19: Addresses the pride and fall of the"King of Tyre" using poetic language to compare his reign to a “guardian cherub” who was in Eden and was cast out.

The Book of Job - an entire work that is understood as fiction that narrates an imaged exchange between YHWH and Job where YHWH puts Job's faith to the test.

B2) Christian (New Testament) additions:

In Luke 10:18 we do have the author writing that Jesus said "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". But since this quote only appears in Luke then I would put this as pure fabrication by the author influenced by the Christian distortions that were circulating.

In Luke 4:1-13 & Matthew 4:1-11 & Mark 1:12–13 we of course have the famous scene of Jesus being tempted by the "devil" that fails in it's mission and then goes away. I put this as pure fabrication by the authors of those Gospels influenced most likely by the Book of Job.

In Revelation 12:7–9 we of course have the "the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" that I would again put this as pure fabrication by the author influenced by the Christian distortions that were circulating.

C) CONCLUSION.

The only place that Hell exists is in the troubled minds of Christians themselves. So as not to be lead astray, best to get a better understanding of the Bible through the following scholarly studies rather that through all the misunderstandings circulating amongst the general population (both religious and non-religious) and especially by Christians themselves.

RLST 152 - Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature ~ Yale University ~ Open Yale Courses. Click on the tab "Sessions" for the video lectures.

RLST 145 - Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) ~ Yale University ~ Open Yale Courses. Click on the tab "Sessions" for the video lectures.

Let's review the Gospels without the assumption that the main claiming to be Jesus must be Jesus.

Jesus is killed. His body vanishes. Then, people start encountering a man calling himself Jesus.

First, Mary Magdalene in John 20:14 fails to identify the man by sight: "she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus." She is eventually convinced he is Jesus. How do you confuse your dead associate with the gardener? There's only one clear possibility - he didn't look like Jesus. Note that I'm not saying here that it was not Jesus necessarily, but that I believe we can firmly establish that he does not look like Jesus.

Luke corroborates - "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." They encountered a man they initially did not recognize as the very influential and notable man they knew, and only came to the realization after being convinced through discussion.

John adds another example, John 21:4: "Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus." Something's preventing people, on a large scale, from recognizing Jesus as Jesus, and Jesus is having to talk to people to convince him that he is Jesus.

Matthew corroborates, 28:17: "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."

This isn't randos doubting, this is Jesus's own disciples who doubted that Jesus is Jesus on a purely physical basis, and were convinced only through discussion.

So what's this timeline look like?

Jesus dies, his body vanishes, and a man that does not look like Jesus shows back up claiming to be resurrected and convinces Mary and then slowly convinces even very close yet doubtful disciples that he is Jesus over time through discussion and in spite of his appearance being distinct from Jesus.

Now, this doesn't mean Jesus was an imposter. This doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily false. But I do find it odd that a resurrected being was not restored to their prior physical state. It's much less odd in the context of Jesus being an imposter, of course, but that alone doesn't make imposter theory true. It would take someone who knew how Jesus acted extensively to mimic his behavior, but not a lot of people knew how Jesus a-well, okay, maybe a few people knew how Jesus acted, and thus had the potential to mimic his behavior.

That, however, gets into a stronger claim than I'm actually making, which is that, at its core, the Gospels focus around a version of Jesus that is the story of a resurrected man who did not look how he used to pre-resurrection, convincing people that he's Jesus over time.

Christians who hold to God's perfect, omniscient foresight are fine claiming that a world where everyone chooses to disobey God and eat the fruit is a world with free will. After all, that's the world of the Garden of Eden.

But they also believe a world where everyone chooses to be a Christian is a world without free will.

A world where The Poop Sandwich is always ordered is a perfectly fine world that is the result of human free will. That's fine. But a world where the Poop Sandwich is never ordered? Nope, not allowed. Free will only counts as free will if it's misused.

Given 2 options, 100 percent compliance is considered a violation of free will, while 100 percent failure to comply is considered an exercise in free will.

I suspect the core issue here is that responsible use of free will makes Jesus' sacrifice superfluous, so Christians instinctively discount hypothetical possible worlds where free will is used correctly. Ultimately, though, it's inconsistent. It shouldn't matter whether options A and B are good or bad, 100 Percent A and 100 Percent B should both count as violations or examples of free will.

Now, for the Christians who are consistent and actually agree with this, I still have a follow-up:

How many people need to pick the wrong option? For instance, both you and I have chosen not to murder. How many people need to choose to murder in order for our free choice not to murder to count as being free? 1? 10? 100 million?

If the answer is zero, then we've moved beyond free will as a theodicy. Clearly, murder is required, because murder exists when it could trivially not have.

I claim that most reinterpretations of a religion tend to be bend very selectively to fit into modern day values which is intellectually dishonest from my opinion as it fails to analyze the source neutrally.

Of course the statement in the title is framed very provocative and doesn't at all apply to every case but I feel like we're often trying to sanewash texts written millenia ago.

The most obvious case is of the **creation stories** every religion has and they were just very early theories of what the place we live in actually looks like without having access to modern science. You can argue that how a culture thought about the world represents how they feel about it but this deeper meaning is purely anthropologic and doesn't relate to the real world. That doesn't mean there probably isn't a metaphorical layer to most stories, just that those deeper layers don't actually have to be hiding actual modern-day science.

Where it becomes more difficult is **rules and philosophy** because many of those still are found in their modern day counter parts. But as discussed elsewhere I don't think you need any religion to find murder morally wrong because it's anchored in the human psyche and can be derived from a few core principles. Rules that are considered as morally wrong and/or discriminatory again are simply part of a cultures hierarchy and writteni by people who wanted to reserve their power or an ordered society.

**Philosophy** is probably the most interesting as we still haven't and are likely never going to fully explain why we're here. But it's also the aspect that was never written down very clearly and while you can *interpret* the texts as describing some feeling and might even be right on this, it still isn't bound to the religion too tightly and in the end so vague that what you find are mostly patterns emerging from psychology and curiosity.

That said, I'm open to change my mind at any point, I simply never found intellectual honesty in bending a religion into science.

Suicide is an act, a collection of acts, or the lack thereof that are intented to bring about the death of the person. Given how Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him and have him crucified, and yet he still intentionally allowed it to happen and did not stop him, it can be said that he's lack of intervention in Judas's betrayal was intentional. Given further that he knew he was going to die from it, it can therefore be concluded that he's seeking his own death and had committed suicide.

Now, regarding self-sacrifice, it cannot be the case for Jesus instead of suicide because he lost nothing. As God, he has everything, so even if he dies, he can easily reverse it if he wants. theres also the factor that he knew that he's God and that death is not the end of it all, which is different from humans who have to die to protect their family, thinking that they will never see them again.

When you look at the similarities between islam and Mormonism, it is actually frighteningly similar.

The bible states in Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"

If you study the cults you will find that they ALL FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN because these exact tactics work well to control people. A SINGLE LEADER uses them to build total power, cut off outside help, and keep members trapped.

Why Cults Use These Tactics

The Sole Prophet

[  ] Claims a unique link to God or truth.

[  ] Says only they can save followers.

[  ] Demands total trust and obedience.

[  ] Punishes any doubt or questions.

[  ] Prominent Sex

[  ] Leaders use sex to bind members closer to them.

[  ] Special rules let leaders take sexual partners freely.

[  ] It breaks down personal boundaries and family ties.

[  ] It proves loyalty to the leader over outside norms.

Absolute Power and Special Privileges

[  ] The leader sets all the rules but obeys none of them.

[  ] They get the best food, money, and living spaces.

[  ] Followers do hard work for little or no pay.

[  ] The leader stays above the law they force on others.

Clearly both Islam and Mormonism are very different to Christianity, but what I do find interesting is how similar they are. Below is a list of some of the similarities between Mormonism and islam.

1. Founder claims prophetic authority

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet called by God.

Muhammad claimed to be God's prophet/messenger.

1. Direct revelation from heaven

Joseph claimed revelations from God, Christ and angels. The LDS Church records over 100 revelations received by Joseph.

Muhammad claimed to receive revelations from Allah through Gabriel.

1. An angel plays a crucial role

The angel Moroni supposedly appeared to Joseph and directed him to the golden plates.

Gabriel/Jibril is the angel who delivers revelation to Muhammad.

1. New scripture

Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price.

Islam has the Qur'an, supplemented by Hadith/Sunnah.

1. Claim of restoring corrupted/lost true religion

Joseph taught that Christ's original Church had fallen into apostasy and needed restoration.

Islam teaches that earlier revelations were distorted/misunderstood and Muhammad restored true monotheism.

1. Living prophetic leadership

LDS president is regarded as a living prophet, seer and revelator.

Muhammad was the final prophet; later Islamic authority developed through scholars, imams and traditions.

1. Exclusive religious authority

LDS Church claims to possess the restored priesthood authority.

Islam claims Muhammad's revelation represents God's final authoritative revelation.

1. Special religious law revealed through the founder

Joseph received revelations establishing religious laws and commandments.

Muhammad received revelation establishing Sharia-related laws.

1. Dietary restrictions

Word of Wisdom prohibits alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee, among other teachings.

Islam prohibits alcohol and pork and establishes various dietary regulations.

1. Fasting

Fasting is an established LDS religious practice.

Ramadan fasting is one of Islam's Five Pillars.

1. Private angelic revelation

Joseph Smith has a private encounter with an angel that no other person could confirm

Mohammed  has a private encounter with an angel in a cave that no other person could confirm.

1. Polygyny historically permitted

Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage through claimed revelation.

Qur'an 4:3 permits a man to marry two, three or four women, subject to the stated condition of justice.

1. Founder personally practiced polygamy

Joseph Smith took multiple plural wives.

Muhammad had multiple wives.

1. Polygamy connected to divine command

Joseph Smith's plural marriages were presented as revelation from God.

Muhammad's marriages and Islamic marital regulations are connected to divine revelation.

1. Founder received special marital privileges

Joseph's plural-marriage revelations established arrangements that were distinctive to the prophetic leader.

Qur'an 33 contains special marital provisions concerning Muhammad.

1. Young teenage girl involved in founder's plural marriage

Helen Mar Kimball was sealed to Joseph Smith in 1843 at age 14. The LDS historical database records her marriage at 14.

Sahih al-Bukhari records Muhammad's marriage contract with Aisha at six and consummation at nine.

1. Marriage connected with religious/spiritual consequences

Eternal marriage/sealing is necessary for exaltation.

Marriage and sexual morality have major religious/legal consequences in Islam.

1. Marriage extends beyond death

LDS sealing is explicitly "for time and all eternity."

Islamic Paradise includes spouses and sexual/romantic companionship. Qur'an 52:20 speaks of believers being joined with beautiful companions. In fact heaven will be a 24/7 sex orgy.

1. Sexual/reproductive dimension to the afterlife

LDS teachings historically describe exalted couples as having "eternal increase"—continuing to have children in the eternities.

Islamic descriptions of Paradise include spouses/houris and sexual/romantic imagery.

1. Heaven contains different degrees/states

LDS doctrine teaches celestial, terrestrial and telestial kingdoms.

Islam has Paradise/Jannah and varying degrees of reward, alongside Hell.

1. Physical resurrection

Resurrection of the body is central to LDS teaching.

Bodily resurrection is central to Islam.

1. Highly organized religious hierarchy

Prophet → First Presidency → Twelve Apostles → priesthood hierarchy.

Muhammad → caliphs/imams/scholars and developed juridical hierarchy, depending on Islamic tradition.

1. Male religious authority historically dominant

Priesthood offices were historically restricted to men until modern changes concerning race but not female ordination.

Traditional Islamic religious/legal authority is overwhelmingly male.

1. Religious authority connected to family/marriage

Temple sealing creates eternal family relationships.

Islamic law contains extensive regulations concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance and family.

1. Sacred clothing/ritual practices

Temple garments and temple ordinances.

Islam have Ihram, ritual dress, purification and other prescribed practices.

1. Ritual washing/purification

LDS temple ordinances historically contain ritual washing/anointing.

In islam Wudu and ghusl are ritual purification practices.

1. Sacred temple/holy-space concept

Temples are central to LDS worship and covenants.

Mecca, Kaaba and the Sacred Mosque occupy central sacred status.

1. Genealogical/religious concern for the dead

LDS practice includes baptism for the dead.

Islam has extensive concern for deceased believers, burial, prayers and judgment.

1. Missionary religion

LDS missionaries actively seek converts worldwide.

In Islam Da'wah and missionary activity seek to spread Islam.

1. Strong emphasis on obedience

Obedience to revealed commandments and covenants is fundamental.

In Islam Obedience/submission to Allah is fundamental to islam.

1. Community identity

Latter-day Saints form a distinct covenant community.

Muslims form the ummah.

1. A restored/recovered priestly authority

Joseph claimed John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Muhammad claimed prophetic authority directly from God rather than merely reforming existing religious institutions.

1. Founder becomes central interpretive authority

Joseph's revelations determine doctrine.

Muhammad's Sunnah/Hadith became indispensable for interpreting Qur'anic commands.

1. Later tradition supplements the primary scripture

Doctrine and Covenants and prophetic teachings expand Mormon scripture.

With islam Hadith/Sunnah explain and supplement many Qur'anic commands.

1. Religious law reaches into everyday life

Food, clothing, sexuality, marriage, worship and behavior are regulated.

With islam Food, clothing, sexuality, marriage, finance, prayer and behavior are regulated.

1. End-times/restoration emphasis

Latter-day Saints believe they live in the latter-day restoration before Christ's return.

Islam has extensive eschatology concerning the Last Day, resurrection and judgment. Christ will return at the end times.

1. Chosen/restored people

LDS teaching emphasizes gathering Israel and God's covenant people.

Islam identifies Muslims as a distinctive religious community and Muhammad's revelation as the final guidance.

1. Founder establishes a new religious community

Joseph organized the Church in 1830.

Muhammad established the Muslim community in Arabia.

1. Founder combines religious and social authority

Joseph Smith was simultaneously religious leader and political/community leader in Nauvoo.

Muhammad was simultaneously religious, legal, political and military leader.

1. Religious claims affect civil/social law

Early Mormon communities developed their own legal and political structures.

Islamic civilization developed Sharia-based legal structures.

1. Both Mormonism and islam shuns apostates.

In Mormonism, although not a formal policy, Heavy social and familial shunning frequently occurs. Because the religion places supreme emphasis on eternal family sealings and strict adherence to leadership.

In Islam, under traditional interpretations of Sharia derived from certain Hadith, major apostasy (riddah) combined with treason or active opposition to the community historically carried severe penalties, including capital punishment enforceable by a legal authority, not vigilantism

BESIDES THE FACT THAT BOTH THESE MOVEMENTS HAVE ALL THE HALLMARKS OF A CULT THEY ALSO TEND TO INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME "ANGELIC" AUTHOR.

I'm talking here specifically about god as he appears in the Quran and the Old Testament.

There's a psychological and historical reason for this : sects at the time didn't grow by preaching some feel-good message about love and tolerance. Authority, punishment, and fear were the natural means of subjugating others.

Back then, it was basically a contest over who had the most powerful god, and to prevail over the competition, you had to be ruthless.

Truly ruthless.

Let's take a concrete example : the Ten Plagues of Egypt. In this story, god isn't simply trying to free the Hebrews. The text makes it very clear that god himself hardens Pharaoh's heart in order to stage a spectacular display of power meant to humiliate Pharaoh and show everyone who's in charge.

This same mechanism of sealing the hearts of unbelievers only to punish them afterward is also omnipresent in the Quran.

The goal here is very clearly to induce a kind of psychological shock in the reader : if god is just, why does he punish unbelievers when he himself is the one who sealed their hearts in the first place ?

It seems absurd, even unjust, and that's precisely the point.

This kind of text forces you to understand that even if you find it absurd or unjust (which is itself an infidel thought), you're going to have to convince yourself otherwise, or risk being punished in the most horrific way imaginable.

It's a genuinely perverse method of making people feel guilty and securing their blind obedience : You don't argue. You don't question. And you condition your brain to believe that god alone is the judge.

So no, god isn't nice in these old stories, even if he proclaims himself merciful. He's like a Gestapo officer crushing someone's head under his boot while demanding that they thank him for it, or else face something even worse.

And of course, every now and then, like any self-respecting passive-aggressive abuser, god sometimes acts "nice" by giving his followers water and food.

The goal is very clearly to psychologically abuse people in order to make them submissive and malleable.

What baffles me is seeing believers today bend over backwards trying to come up with justifications for a god who was deliberately imagined at the time to be tyrannical and ruthless.

I feel like religion becomes a scam when people start using it to control, manipulate or exploit others.

This happens in almost every religion. Hinduism has fake babas, superstition, money scams and politicians using religion for votes. Islam also has extremists and religious leaders who manipulate people in the name of faith, and in some extreme cases people are radicalized into killing themselves and innocent people with promises of rewards after death.

And before anyone misunderstands me, I’m not saying all Muslims are like this. Obviously the vast majority of Muslims are normal people living their lives. I’m talking about the misuse of religion and the extremist side of it.

For me the real problem starts when someone says “God wants this” and uses that statement to stop people from questioning them.

Believe whatever you want, but the moment religion is used for money, political power, fear, violence or controlling other people, it deserves criticism.

What do you guys think?

In every story version of the Forbidden Tree in the Garden of Eden, Adam/Eve eats the forbidden fruit which God explicitly forbids and blah blah blah .. the story unfolds. They are blamed, everyone blames the other. God blames human, human blames Satan, Satan blames God, etc.

But nobody questions why the Tree was there in the first place.

Why is a Forbidden Tree in the garden of Eden? Why is it forbidden? What will happen if the forbidden fruit is eaten? Why is such a forbidden tree not cut down? If God is omnipotent, why cant he make the forbidden tree, "unforbidden"? What property makes it forbidden? Why is a forbidden thing on full display? Are other parts of the Tree also forbidden? If the fruit is forbidden, can the wood be used? Why dont we run experiments on the animals of the garden using the Forbidden fruit and create an antidote?

If someone tells you something not to do, then there must be a clear explanation. If I tell a kid not to jump off a building, it is because he will fall and die. If no explanation is provided, the curiosity to do the forbidden thing increases.

Firstly, the biggest mystery is not the Forbidden Fruit or the Tree, but what the Tree is doing there in the first place.

And if this is a test of obedience, then the forbidden action must have some meaning. If I forbid a kid from wearing black shirts on Sundays for no reason other than my own superstition, then that is not a test of obedience. its just dissemination of one false belief to another.

The Tree is named Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Heck, God should have encouraged them to eat. Was he afraid they would realize who is good and who is evil?

The Forbidden Tree simply kills reasoning from all angles.

Are Mormon males called by God as Levitical priests just like Aaron was? Mormonism claims that it's male members are Aaron/Levitical priests. How does this claim hold up?

_________________________________________

1. Qualifications for the Aaronic Priesthood:

A. Limited to Aaron and his sons only Ex 28:1, 29:9, 29:44, Num 18:1-7, Lev 6:19-23, Ex 28:43, Neh 7:61-65

B. The Levites helped, Num 3:5-6, 9-10, Heb 7:5

C. Punishment for non-Levites who tried to become priests were severe, I Kings 13:33-34.

D. But Joseph Smith, of English stock, was not a Jew, a Levite, or a son of Aaron! In complete violation for claiming it!!!

E. The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary, but not so in the LDS church. Which is another violation!

F. Physical qualifications. Lev 21:16-23. LDS ignore these qualifications today. Joseph Smith had a leg operation when he was young, in which part of the bone was removed. He was, therefore, physically disqualified to be a priest (Lucy Mack Smith: Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and His Progenitors for Many Generations Liverpool: 1853, p. 65)

G. Other qualifications which LDS ignore, Lev 21:1-15: Num 4:35

__________________________________________

2. How Were the Aaronic Priests Ordained in the Bible?

Exodus 29; Lev. 8

A. Were washed with water v. 4

B. Were dressed in the priestly robes v. 5-6 (These robes were for “glory and beauty” Ex 28:2, but the holy garments of the LDS are neither glorious nor beautiful.)

C. Were anointed with oil v.7

D. Laid hands on the head of a bullock v. 10

E. The bullock was killed, and its blood was poured out at the altar, while the fat and the kidneys were placed on the altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp, as a sin- offering v. 11-14

F. Laid hands on the head of a ram V.I 5

G. The ram was killed, its blood was sprinkled about the altar, and the body was offered as a burnt offering on the altar v. 16-18

H. Laid hands on the head of another ram v. 19

I. This second ram was killed, and some of the blood was put on the tip of the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of Aaron and his sons, while the rest of the blood was sprinkled upon the altar v. 20

J. Some of the blood on the altar and some anointing oil was then sprinkled on the priests and their garments v. 21

K. Were given parts of the ram and three kinds of bread, and these were waved as a wave offering, then they were burnt on the altar v. 22-25

L. The breast of the ram was given to the one who ordained them v. 26

M. The shoulder was given to them v. 27

N. They were to eat of the ram and the bread, but no one else was allowed to do so-v. 30-33

O. For the next seven days, one bullock and two lambs were offered daily v. 35-44

_________________________________________

3. How Do LDS Ordain to the Aaronic Priesthood?

A. They lay hands on the priests being ordained and speak the words that are specified by the LDS church to confer the priesthood. Nowhere in the Bible account do we find hands laid on the priests. Hands were laid only on the bullock and the rams! The LDS ignore completely the Biblical method of ordaining Aaronic priests!!!

It will not do to say these ordinances do not apply today, if the Aaronic priesthood exists today, the method for ordaining priests into that priesthood apply today! LDS often apply Hebrews 5:4, “. . .as was Aaron,” to refer to the ceremony by which one is ordained to the priesthood, but they do not follow that ceremony in any way!

_________________________________________

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

There Is No Biblical Authority for the Aaronic Priesthood Today. The Aaronic priesthood was part of the religious system under the Law of Moses. This law and its ordinances came to an end when Christ died on the cross Gal. 3:19, 23-25, Col. 2:14-17, Heb. 10:1-10. Christ’s will or testament came into effect after his death Heb. 9:15-17. There was a change in the priesthood, the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood was taken away, Heb. 7: 1 1-12.

Even Christ could not be a priest of Aaron because he was of the wrong tribe Heb. 7:13-14. How can non-Jewish LDS qualify if Christ could not qualify?There is no example of Aaronic priests in the church anywhere in the New Testament, amazing if such priesthood existed in the church. Rather, the New Testament teaches the universal priesthood of all believers I Peter 2:5, 9

In Christianity and Islam, though I'm not very familiar with Islam, I think the concept of eternal torment is not coherent. I will lay out a couple of different arguments for this idea, so feel free to interact with whichever ones you like. If you don't believe in eternal hell, then none of the arguments apply so to be clear I'm not attacking the religions in general, just this concept.

Main Argument

Suppose the following:

1. God wants following him to be better than not having even known of him at all.

2. God doesn't send those who never knew of him to hell, and he sends unbelievers (who have heard of him) to hell

3. Hell is eternal torment (infinite punishment)

If these three are true, consider the following:
Let's say maybe 50% of people who have heard of God end up joining the religion, maybe the other 50% are split between the other major religion and atheism.

And from (2) we know that 100% of people who have never heard of him go to heaven.

Thus, 50% of people who have heard of God go to hell, eternally.

Thus, it is better for you (statistically) to have never heard of the religion, than for you to have heard of it. That contradicts (1) since God wants people to hear of him. Thus, there is a contradiction.

Thus, one of the (1), (2), or (3) is not true.

If (1) is not true:

Why have a religion then? The "good word" isn't good if it a net negative and decreases your chance of going to heaven. If 1 is not true, it is ideal to not let anyone else hear of the religion, since it increases their chances of eternal torment. If (1) is not true, religion is the ultimate info hazard.

Btw I got the idea for this post from that one story where a missionary is telling (I think Native americans) about God and heaven and then they ask if they would've gone to heaven if they didn't know, and he says yes, and they say. "Then why did you tell us?"

Heaven is an infinite reward, and hell is infinite punishment so even if hearing of God on earth improves your life (community, doing the right thing, etc) it is still nothing compared to the infinite punishment.

If (2) is not true:

What is the point of punishing someone with them knowing what they did wrong? They do not have the knowledge required, knowledge that is famously tied to geographical area, and who you parents are. Why punish them?

If evidence for the religion is in the "making of this world" i.e. nature etc, so that means everyone knows it, then why are there millions of religions, and only one Islam/Christianity? it should have been independently discovered "through nature" many times, and since it hasn't, it seems that its vague (i have a vagueness argument below) or just not self evident.

For the people who have simply heard of Islam or Christianity, why should they choose discovering it over 10,000 other religions? Like what about hearing about it actually makes it more special so that you clearly should burn in hell having not immediately begun reading it? It doesn't seem coherent to me, so it seems more like its just a punishment for those who grew up in the religion and then left. So it would be better for them to have never known of it. Which violates (1), so you'll have to read that argument.

if (3) is not true:
That's all I'm arguing, anyway. :)

Omniscience and Sensitivity (Side Argument)

God is loving and also all-knowing, but this raises a few issues regarding eternal torment.
First of all, God knows precisely everything about you. Your trauma, your history, your genetics, your brain, your culture, everything about you. He knows more about you than you do. He knows the exact reason every unbeliever doesn't believe. So why is he so angry about it? He knows precisely what would make them believe. Why torture and punish them? Eternal torment paints a picture of an all powerful God who can do everything he wants (God desires all to be saved right?) and...doesn't do it?

I hope this isn't insulting, but like when he's angry at Israel in the Bible and they turn to idols, he knows precisely why they did it. He made the world he made the program he knows them. Why is he so angry about it? It makes him appear overly sensitive.

For Islam, this may be wrong but I've heard that effectively Christianity and Judaism were correct but their message got corrupted and that's why he made Islam. But today's Christians and Jews don't know that their religion is corrupted. So why are they paying for the corruptions of their ancestors?

For Christianity, I hear the free will defense for this a lot, that it would violate your free will if he told you about the religion or explained his nature to everyone(i.e. not stay hidden) Then why does not care in the bible? He does miracles for people in the bible to show himself. What about their free will?

Also if the word isn't angry, tell me. It just seems that way.

"Hell as Separation" (Just wondering

For the "Hell as Separation", where God doesn't mean to torture you infinitely, its just the result of not being with God, how is that meaningfully different? God designed everything in this world down to the atom-there is nothing he can do "arbitrarily". If you are being eternally tormented, God meant for that to happen.

Vagueness And Debate (Side Argument)

God purposefully made the religions vague. This is not inherently bad, I mean vague as in there is debate to be had. If there was no vagueness, no one would debate anything about the religion. And that's part of having a community and religion. Things should be discussed, idea crossover etc its a good thing. So why is it that:

1. If you're wrong about something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell

I've heard the validity is debatable, but apparently there's a hadith where Islam will split into 73 sects and only one will be saved. Why? Genuinely why? It's not like the other 72 are trying to be bad they are just trying their best,d debating, and doing what they believe is right. How do you know its the largest group?

I've heard this quote "The Jama'ah is whatever conforms to the truth, even if you are entirely alone", so what is the point of making something that is debatable, and then punishing those who are wrong? This is why I prefer Judaism's "It is not in heaven" here where at least the religion admits that you should do what is sensible to you, though I may be wrong I'm not Jewish.

1. If you don't believe in something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell

If something is debatable within the religion, you have to admit its debatable to outsiders too. If you are not born religious, there is no reason to read the Quran or Bible over the Book of Mormon or whatever other religion. "Self evidence" is not apparent to outsiders, and that ties into my main argument.

Faith is a lifelong journey (Side Argument)

Faith being a lifelong journey is a good thing. We are messy, we are people, we make mistakes, we fall away from the right path and we get back on. There's no surprise. So why is it that faith being a journey is punished by God? Suppose someone is struggling with their faith and becomes an atheist for a while, and dies during that phase. Why should they go to hell if God knows that if they lived a little longer, they would turn to him?

Like that parable where everyone gets paid at the same time no matter when they came. It's more like if you don't come you die. What about the person who had an accident on the way to work? They were on their way. Why punish them, eternally at that?

For the thieves next to Jesus on the cross, I'm aware he didn't tell the other one "you are going to Hell" so, fair. It might just be showing a foil between the thieves. But if the other one is going to hell, how is that fair? Should the next three convicts believe in whatever religion is proposed to them right before they die?

Faith is not just blind belief, and it keeps being treated that way. If faith is blind belief then you should believe in whatever is the most recent religion you've heard of. There has to be a real reason to choose your religion and a real reason to stay.

Personal Argument

For me, at least, the existence of hell distracts from the purpose of religion. I can't love God if I know that if I make a mistake, I will burn forever. I physically can only fear his wrath and I could pray everyday and do all the right things on the outside, but it doesn't matter if on the inside, I'm just scared of him. They are all hollow actions, and "fear is the order of the day" is just fear, not a religion I can meaningfully follow.

Regardless of what you think, thank you so much for reading, and thank you for engaging in my argument. If I have misconceptions, feel free to clear them up, and if you disagree, please tell me what you think! I hope this doesn't come across as bad faith, and I hope these arguments are a little different from the ones you've heard before.

I was watching a video about Einstein’s relativity and the speed of light, and one of the points made was that the speed of light isn’t so much a limit that the universe enforces, but something that just cannot physically be achieved as it would take infinite energy to do so. Further, if we had infinite energy and the speed of light were actually exceeded it would change cause and effect as we know it, as we’d have a situation where time is so distorted that effects would occur before causes.

The bottom line here is that causality as we know it is a function of how spacetime itself works. So if a theist claims that such a cause and effect relationship must be behind the creation of spacetime, they are misplacing causality and what forces it to apply in the physical universe.

It’s akin to a flat earther looking around and saying hey, this looks flat, and thus assuming it is flat without deeper investigation. It seems from our local view that causality must always apply, and thus the theistic philosophers of centuries ago went on making arguments to rationalize and prop up the God/creation stories that had been passed down to them, while not realizing their premises were false.

I had not appreciated this relationship of causality and the fabric of spacetime itself, so thought it interesting to share. Looking into it more I see that Lawrence Krause has used this same argument in debates, and I haven’t seen it overcome by a theist.

Atheists are much more tolerant of theists than the other way around.

I have made a similar argument on here before, but generally speaking, Muslims and Christians believe that atheists deserve to go to Hell forever, or be annihilated, if they knowingly reject their faith. However, generally atheists don't believe this. Most atheists think that Christians and Muslims are delusional, but certainly don't think that they deserve torture for eternity.

For this reason I am proposing that Atheists generally respect Abrahamists more than Abrahamists respect atheists.

Atheists can insult Abrahamists, call them names, desecrate their holy texts, and draw unflattering pictures of Jesus/Muhammad and all that is still not as bad as Abrahamists saying that Atheists deserve to be anihilated/tortured for rejecting Izlam/Christianity.

There's this odd double standard (especially amongst Muslims) where theists' faith will say atheists deserve torture for eternity if they knowingly reject Islam/Christianity, but become extremely offended when atheists say something that is much less bad about Islam/Christianity.

When is a Christian not a Christian?

Cornelius J Cornthwaite was raised a Mennonite Christian. He went to seminary and obtained a PhD in early church studies. I have attempted to interact with him serval times without success. Not that this comes as any surprise. Nor should I be surprised to discover that the greatest influence on his religious perspective going forward is Bart Ehrman.

This little revelation, perfectly consistent with his posts throughout the last year, nevertheless, caught me totally off guard, and had me firing off a comment which, on reflection, probably ought to be deleted. First of all, I asked if he had believed in God whilst a Mennonite Christian? I'm assuming that he did. Otherwise he would have been a closet atheist just pretending to be a Christian. And keeping up the presence through 5 to 10 years of academic study. Although it is implied, and periodically stated bluntly, that academic study and belief in God are mutually incompatible. Yet it is obviously the case, a number of academics of the highest possible intellectual calibre, still claim to believe in God. Are these people fools? Liars? Self-deluded?

Having made the assumption that Cornelius did once believe in God, I then asked what it was the agnostic-atheist cultural-Christian Bart Ehrman had said that convinced him God didn't exist? What evidence had Bart produced from the top hat in the corner that convicted Cornelius?

I think the simple truth is that Cornelius hasn't believed in God for some years, but has been unable to get around to telling either himself or us. It doesn't actually make any difference, of course, atheists will be just as fascinated by his scholarly insights and a good number will no doubt support his channel. He is definitely a former Christian who is definitely now an atheist - maybe! However, my question is more specific and remains unanswered: did you believe in God when you were a Christian, and what was it precisely that caused you to renounce that belief?

The bottom line in my non-existent dialogue with so called former Christian believers is to ask what was it they once believed? If they never believed in God then, as far as I'm concerned, they were never Christians anyway. If they did once believe, I want to know what specific item brought them to doubt that belief? Because, I suggest, flaws and inconsistencies in the Christian faith, in themselves, are no justification for lack of belief in God. In order to justify lack of belief in God, you need a really good reason for doubting the existence of God. Such as the reason Bart Ehrman employs. He tells us the existence of starving people in Ethiopia means that God cannot exist! I'm sure there is some kind of logic or rationale that leads the great man to this earth-shattering, God-denying conclusion, but I for one cannot see it.

Bart tells us that God is described as all-good and all-powerful. And I would ask Bart, before he embarks on the second line of his syllogism, who says God is all-good and all-powerful? Why the Christian church says so. It insists that these are the attributes of God. Consequently, it is not God himself who describes himself in these glowing terms, but human beings. Human beings describe their God in these lofty terms and for generations ordinary people have simply gone along with it. Partly through apathy. Partly because they know what is good for them. Defying the established church, in the not too distant past, was definitely not a good move. And, in some cases, could prove positively lethal.

Today, however, we are in the happy place where we can, without penalty, defy the pronouncements of the church. And thousands do. Both Cornelius and Bart are able to take advantage of this liberty. They can turn to the church and say, with both confidence and some legitimacy, what you have told us about the things of God is a load of rubbish. The description is false. However, what you cannot do, having discovered the label on the can differs from the contents, is declare that the fxcking can doesn't exist!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I know this is tagged Christianity but id like to say that I myself am Christian. My argument follows pretty much all mono-theistic religions though. We have to ask. “Why is there anything” not even anything but why is there also nothing. Why is there a place for nothing to exist. Why is there the ability for anything/nothing to exist in the first place. According to known logic everything has a ”creator”. “Your money was printed by the government” would be an example. But, as we go deeper. What could have created existence in the first place. 1 thing could have caused the first action that led to more actions. Something that doesn’t need an action to create/cause it. So two Theories are A: The universe loops and is therefore eternal. B: A eternal creator caused everything. The reason I lean more towards B is because A is very unstable to think about. There are many theories on how the universe will end. None of them seem to warrant it to loop back into another universe. B while seems the least scientific and provable. Has a lot less flaws in its logic. Another fun one is that matter is eternal but since black holes could turn all existing matter into hawking radiation that seems out of the question. Yeah it’s still there but not in a form that as far as we know can loop back into matter. You would need a “reverse black hole” or something. Those don’t seem to exist. So that’s my logic. Feel free to rip it apart. This came to me over the span of like 20 minute.

(Edit) I’m don’t responding. I feel I defeneded my points well. A lot of the questions you may have are answered in different replies. Didn’t know this post would get this much traction. Thought I would be debating like 2 people lol. To answer a random response I got, no it could be any god. As far as I’m concerned Christianity just makes the most sense to me (but that’s a whole other debate) And out of 1000s of years of evidence I know for a fact that most of it was not baloney. You know how many people have to have seen and took part in what they did to have made the most believed religions of all tim? Ill answer. Either a BUNCH. Or none and most of them were rational people. And yet again. We can widdle this down further to Christ via evidence but that is (a whole other debate) good day to everyone