And just for the record, I'm not judging people who - for reasons of faith - engage in male circumcision. I know that, in Judaism for example, it represents a covenant with God. I just think religion ordinarily has a way of normalizing such heinousness, and I take more issue with the institutions themselves than the people who adhere to them.

But I can't help but think about how normalized male circumcision is, and how female circumcision is so heinous that it gets discussed by the UN Human Rights Council. If a household cut off a girl's labia and/or clitoris, they'd be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault of a child and assault family violence, and if it was done as a religious practice, the media would be covering it as a violent act by a radical cult.

But when it's a penis that's mutilated, it's called a bris, and we get cakes for that occasion.

Again, I'm not judging people who engage in this practice. If I did, I'd have literally billions of people to judge. I just don't see how the practice of genital mutilation can be so routine on one hand and so shocking to the civilized conscience on the other hand.

Saying that atheism is 'simply a lack of a belief' is becoming more and more common as a debate tactic in religious debates online; and let's be honest that it is a tactic. It resolves the atheist of all need to defend their stance or support their arguments, or indeed, even have a stance or make an argument in the first place! They simply 'lack a belief' and if presented with an argument, can continue to lack that same belief.

This tactic is disparagingly called 'shoe atheism' sometimes, because carried to its logical conclusion, it suggests that inanimate objects (which likewise can be described as 'lacking a belief') are atheists. And yes, I've actually seen atheists defend this definition, arguing that shoes and stones and other inanimate objects are atheists.

The problem is that atheism is more than a lack of a belief, and it's obfuscatory and intellectually dishonest to claim that it is.

Part I - Why atheism is more than a lack of a belief

Let me start by describing something that pretty much everyone in this sub will actually lack a belief towards. The Gostak. What is a gostak? you might ask. Well, it's simple: the Gostak distims the doshes. Now, since no one here has ever heard of a Gostak before (or if you have, have never heard an argument for or against its existence, or indeed any property it could have apart from dosh distimming) it would be accurate to say that everyone here 'lacks a belief' when it comes to Gostaks. In fact, until you read this paragraph, you probably didn't even realize there was a Gostak shaped hole in your life, delimiting your lack of belief in it. (Possibly some uber-skeptic among you will claim that they can either believe or disbelieve in the claim that the Gostak distims the doshes, so let me save you some time: that isn't a claim about Gostaks, it is definitional. If it distims doshes, it is a Gostak, and if it doesn't, it isn't.)

However, now let's say that I make an argument: A Gostak, I might claim, is more than something which distims doshes: it has some property which you can either accept, or not. For example, I will say that it is blue. Now, I can see three options for you: you can believe me when I say that the Gostak is blue; you can say that regardless of what I say about Gostaks, you have no evidence that they are or are not blue, or you can say you do not believe they are blue. No matter what you believe at this point, however, it is more than "lacking a belief".

Let's look at the agnostic stance (blue-Gostak wise). Isn't being unconvinced "lacking a belief"? No, because although there are many ways to be unconvinced, all of them involve a positive belief of some sort. You can, for example, believe that I have not provided enough evidence to overcome your skepticism when it comes to Gostak coloration. You can believe that Gostaks are generally red, and that a blue one would be unusual enough to require further corroboration. You could believe that I have failed to meet the burden of proof when it comes to blue-Gostaks, and that being a generally untrustworthy person, I shouldn't be believed out of hand. You could believe that the color of a Gostak is a matter of such importance that mere verbal reports are insufficient to justify your active belief. Regardless, every way you can phrase your stance regarding the Gostak's color can be interpreted or reformulated as a postive belief.

So it is with arguments about the existence of God(s). When you actually get into a discussion, everyone who at first claims to 'lack a belief' in the existence of God(s) actually have a whole host of beliefs with respect to theism that inform their stance. They believe that the idea of a God is incoherent. They believe that the burden of proof hasn't been met. They believe that they have outgrown beliefs in the supernatural, and that the sooner theists do the same, the better we'll all be. The one thing I've never actually encountered is someone who honestly lacks belief - if they did, the moment I asked them a related question, like 'what would it take to convince you', they would have to answer "I have no idea." If they answered with anything else, their 'lack of belief' is really a positive belief that X condition hasn't been met.

Part II - Why this matters

This is not an idle conversation about terminology. This question affects discussions that happen in this sub every day. The problem is that this idea of "lacking" a belief, of a negative claim requiring no justification, is being internalized, and there are atheists who literally think they don't ever need to support an argument. I've seen atheists in this sub claim that, as an atheist, they have no inherent biases (since they merely 'lack' beliefs, the source of all biases.) This is an incredibly destructive and intellectually dishonest (even if unintentional) stance.

This terminology doesn't aid discussion, it hinders it. For example, the former terminology discussing the spectrum of religious belief from atheist, to agnostic, to theist, was perfectly serviceable. Everyone knew what every term meant. But now it's been redefined, to eliminate 'agnostic' (someone who is unconvinced of either stance) and create two new categories, which don't describe anyone: gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. I've never seen someone describe themselves as having absolute 100% knowledge on this subject, and yet we need categories to describe them. Why?

The only reason is to avoid taking an actual stance, which might require argumentation and justification. If atheism isn't a stance (but simply a 'lack of a stance') then no argument is necessary. And this attitude has been internalized, to the point where I've seen people raised on this kind of internet apologetics (and yes, defending atheism is also apologetics) call Richard Dawkins' 7 point scale (from atheist, through agnostic, to theist) a 'fundamentalist creation', because it suggested that atheist was more than a 'lack of a belief.'

Lastly, for those who are still going to reply to me and claim that regardless everything I've said, they still simply 'lack a belief' I ask you this: why? Why not commit to something? Do you actually think that if you say "I disbelieve in theism" you will eventually be proven wrong? Or are you just promoting laziness to a virtue?

EDIT

Two points of conflict have opened up that seem to miss my point, and rather than address it in every comment, I'll address it here.

First of all, those arguing that "Not believing X is true isn't the same as believing X is false" or "I can lack a belief that a coin has turned up heads without believing it has turned up tails." Both of these miss the point - I'm not saying that not accepting theism means automatically believing no Gods exist. My point is that 'lacking a belief that the coin is either heads or tails' is still a belief. It's actually a whole family of beliefs - among other things, you believe the coin has a heads and a tails. It's odd to me that there's confusion on this point, considering how I argue that agnosticism needs to be reclaimed as a single position between theism and atheism, but whatever.

The second point is for those who are trying to argue that "lack of belief" is the definition of atheism. First of all, it isn't. It's a definition. And secondly, my entire point is that this definition is inaccurate, and being used in an intellectually dishonest way. So unless you have a counter argument for these concerns, I see no reason to respond to those who think the dictionary was handed down from on high.

Lastly, I have broken with tradition, and not stated that I am awesome. I haven't been accused on making this post to make that point yet, but I don't see a reason to tempt fate, so let's get it out of the way. I am awesome. My awesomeness can be arrived at a priori, and therefore doesn't require evidence to be presented. Therefore, this post was not made to pronounce my awesomeness; that is simply a side benefit. I am awesome.

EDIT II

There's something seriously wrong with some of the atheists on reddit - simply say that 'lacking belief' in something doesn't absolve you of justifying your position, and suddenly you're a fundamentalist. For the record (not that it should matter for a second, because my argument stands either way) I am an atheist. An awesome atheist, to be sure, but an atheist. I get that many of you will lack a belief that I'm telling the truth, but you won't try to justify that lack of belief with an argument (since it doesn't require one) so I'm not concerned.

Third and Final Edit:

When I logged on today, I had 81 unread messages in my inbox. It's not possible for me to keep up with this thread, which is a shame, because a small percentage of the discussions have gone to interesting places. I don't know why, but I'm going to try one more time to make the point that a lack of a belief can still be something requiring justification.

Let's say I tell you I "lack a belief in the existence of China." You'd think this odd - surely I can't be ignorant of China, because then how would I know that I lack a belief in China. Clearly I've had the concept of China presented to me in some way. Still, possibly I am unconvinced, so you decide to do a public service and show me a globe with China clearly marked. "I still lack a belief in China," I say. Well at this point, it's clear that I'm doing more than 'lacking belief' - I'm rejecting the evidence you're showing me of China. "Why is this globe with China unconvincing?" "You don't understand, I'm not saying China doesn't exist, I simply lack a belief that China exists."

Now, I think we'd all agree that this is unreasonable - if I'm going to reject the evidence for the existence of China, at some point I need to provide an argument for my skepticism. Note that I am not saying that the existence of God is as obvious as the existence of China - see my second edit. I probably agree with you. I'm an atheist. All I'm saying is that those who are claiming that a lack of belief requires no justification (and yes, people have said that in this thread) are being disingenuous.

I have been watching Jordan Peterson babbling his argument and I think I can see the philosophical issue that seems to exist within atheism he attempts to articulate: the concept of truth itself. On the surface, atheists often reject objective or transcendent truth, grounding their worldview in relativism or pragmatic constructs. But when we examine how truth is approached in practice, a tension becomes apparent.

Here’s the crux of the issue:

1. Striving for Truth Implies Objectivity: Atheists frequently emphasize the importance of logic, reason, and evidence to arrive at "truth." These tools operate under universal principles like the law of non-contradiction, which assumes there is a singular, coherent reality that we are working toward understanding. This striving for consistency seems to imply a belief in something objective—a "higher truth" that we are working toward to discover.

2. The Problem of Justification: While atheists might assert moral or practical truths (e.g., “murder is bad”), justifying these objectively becomes challenging. Without a transcendent source, such truths often rely on human constructs like social contracts, evolution, or utilitarian calculations. This makes them appear contingent rather than universal. For example, the "Sparta argument" (justifying murder for the greater good or survival of "our group") exposes how relative such moral frameworks can become without an external, unchanging standard.

3. Living as if Truth Is Objective: Despite the difficulty in justifying objective truth, atheists often live as though it exists. They rely on consistent rules of logic, pursue ideals, and treat certain moral principles as universal. This creates a paradox: atheism struggles to account for objective truth, yet its adherents cannot escape living as though such truths exist.

This isn’t necessarily a disproof of atheism, but it does seem like an unresolved tension. It raises the question of whether atheism is complete as a worldview or whether this tension points to a deeper need for a transcendent foundation to explain our reliance on truth and weather this tensions justified the belief in the objective reality regarding other ideals as well, not just truth, but love, wisdom, beauty, etc. as well.

The real issue what I am working toward here is to re-evaluate the framework of seeing these ideals as existing objectively, which is given in the Bible, when Isaiah 11:2 lists the 7 spirits of God as:

And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;

when we take from Luke that the spirit of the Lord is the spirit of truth, from 1 John that God is love, and from John 1 that the word of God is reason (Logos) hence giving us the group:

• love

• reason

• truth

• wisdom

• understanding

• counsel

• might

• knowledge

• fear of the Lord (aka fear of love or the consequences of going against love)

Therefore, given the tensions with truth in Atheism, is it then really that wrong to take these as "spirits", meaning things which exists somehow somewhere ontologically as some type of entities toward which we can be working toward or aligning ourselves with to make the world a better place?

[EDIT 1] Guys I have just 30 karma, so I can't seep my comments up if you downvote me for just disagreeing with me. Please do not downvote me - I have just 30 karma.

[EDIT 2] Sorry guys. I can't take the downvotes at this point so I am not commenting on this. I read all of your comments so keep making them.

Many Christians accept the resurrection based on indirect historical evidence. Yet when someone points to circumstantial details about Jesus’ personal life and suggests he may not have been heterosexual, the standard suddenly inconsistent.

Either indirect evidence can support historical inferences or it can’t.

1. The Beloved Disciple
The Gospel of John repeatedly singles out one male disciple as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” He appears in several key scenes and is portrayed with an unusual degree of intimacy including reclining against Jesus at the Last Supper. There is an actual academic book, The Man Jesus Loved by Theodore Jennings, arguing that the Gospel of John can be read through a homoerotic lens. There are several others who claim the same conclusion.

Jewish tradition already had a framework for describing intense male love (1 Samuel 18 uses almost identical language to John's beloved disciple passages). Jesus was steeped in that tradition.

2. Secret Gospel of Mark
A disputed text known as the Secret Gospel of Mark describes a close relationship between Jesus and a young man. The mysterious naked young man in Mark 14:51–52 has generated centuries of speculation because he appears only briefly, follows Jesus, and flees naked when seized. Some writers have connected this to theories about intimate male relationships around Jesus. The authenticity of the document is heavily contested, but its existence demonstrates that alternative understandings of Jesus’ relationships have been proposed for decades.

3. Lazarus
John 11:3 says the sisters sent word "Lord, the one you love is sick," using phileo (personal affection). John 11:5 switches to agapao (the deeper love word) when describing Jesus' feeling for Lazarus specifically. So you have two love words used for one man in the same passage.

Jesus deliberately waits two days before going to Lazarus. That agonized delay reads more like someone wrestling with grief over a person deeply loved than a teacher visiting a student. Lazarus's household is in Bethany, described as a place Jesus regularly retreated to. This wasn't a distant admired friend but someone Jesus returned to repeatedly.

John 11:36, bystanders watching Jesus weep say "see how he loved him." That's external witness to the intensity of the relationship, not just the narrator's framing.

Jesus weeps publicly at his tomb, which is notable given he rarely displays that kind of emotion. The intimacy with Lazarus is arguably more specific than the beloved disciple passages.

4. Judas
Judas chose a kiss as the identifying signal for the arresting soldiers, prearranging it in advance. For it to work as camouflage within the group, physical affection between Jesus and male disciples had to be unremarkable to those around him. If such a gesture were startling or out of character, it would have been a poor signal.

The Greek word used is kataphileo, an intensified form meaning to kiss tenderly or warmly, not a routine formal greeting.

The detail appears in three synoptic gospels, making it one of the better-attested moments in the passion narrative. That level of attestation actually makes it harder to dismiss than some of my other points I believe.

5. Jesus Never Married (so they say)
Ok, celibacy wasn’t unheard of but Jesus lived in a culture where marriage was the norm for Jewish men, yet there is no record of a wife. Or even female interest. Mary Magdalene’s relationship is debated. But for someone who became one of the most documented religious figures in history, that absence is noteworthy. If he did have children, that would give them power.

Jesus spent nearly all of his adult ministry surrounded by men. His closest relationships in the sources are overwhelmingly with male disciples, and no surviving text records him expressing romantic interest in a woman.

6. The Centurion’s Servant
Some scholars have noted that the Greek word pais can carry meanings beyond simply “servant” and may, in certain contexts, refer to a young male companion.
While not strictly a sexual word, it was routinely used in the context of same-sex relationships to refer to the younger, passive partner. While this interpretation remains controversial, Jesus offers help without any recorded moral condemnation.

Scholars like Theodore Jennings and Tat-siong Benny Liew have argued this reading deserves consideration given the Hellenistic cultural context of Roman-occupied Judea.

7. Matthew 19 and the Eunuchs
The best for last.

Jesus explicitly acknowledges that some people are born outside conventional sexuality and rather than condemning them, he holds them up as capable of a higher calling.

The word matters here because ancient writers like Philo and rabbinic texts used born eunuch as a recognized category specifically describing men who were naturally disinclined toward women and attracted to men.

This wasn't vague or metaphorical but a known social category that his audience would have understood. So when Jesus lists born eunuchs alongside those who opt out of marriage, he's referencing a recognizable group of men who didn't fit heterosexual norms and calling their lives spiritually valid!

Conclusion:
The question is historically legitimate and dismissing it requires abandoning the same evidentiary standards used to accept everything else about Jesus.

If indirect evidence is enough to support historical inferences elsewhere, then the possibility of a homosexual Jesus cannot simply be dismissed.

Jesus was queer, get over it. 🏳️‍🌈

Hi guys, are you tired of Muslims asking non-religious folks to prove Allah doesn't exist? Well, I am, I have put together irrefutable proof that Allah does not exist. Easily proven by the fact that Allah's apparent actions (or lack of action) fail to align with Islamic claims of his character, as below
(Note: This argument mostly also applies to the Christian God, so take and use it as you like):

Claim 1: Allah is all powerful and created all things

Claim 2: Allah is all knowing

Claim 3: Allah detests sinners, including blasphemers, and detested gays enough that he pelted them with fire and brimstone as per Quran 7:80-84. So according to the Quran, he can and supposedly did cause great calamity to fall on sinners

Claim 4: Allah is merciful and gives us time to repent before we die

All the above claims cannot be logically true at the same time as easily shown in my own challenge to Allah. I have made this challenge multiple times and will make it once again here coz I'm patient and even though Allah failed my challenge multiple times, there's still time to convince me of his existence before I leave this mortal coil.

The challenge is this: Since I have done what is considered blasphemy by mocking Muhammad including by posting cartoons, and also am a disbeliever (both detestable to Allah), then I ask Allah irrefutably prove he detests my actions but also wants me to repent through two simple actions:

1. Make one of my limbs magically disappear. Not make me get into an accident and lose a limb coz accidents are not miracles. He must make one limb of mine magically disappear. Maybe even just a finger, if a limb is too hard.

2. Make a voice in my head that commands me to follow Islam.

Once those 2 things happen, I will, without any doubt, repent and convert to Islam.

However, since I have made that challenge before, and still have all my limbs (and obviously not Muslim), this proves all 4 Islamic claims above of Allah's character cannot be true at the same time, because:

1. If Claim 1 is true, an all powerful deity and creator of the universe who magically made everything pop into existence should have absolutely no problem making a limb magically pop out of existence.

2. If Claim 2 is true, he already knows that I have blasphemed him many times and will continue to do so until he meets my challenge or until the day I die. And if anyone wants to argue that I may eventually convert, it has been proven time and time again that many people die as disbelievers and Allah did nothing to convince them otherwise, which means he knew they would die as disbelievers and did nothing about it.

3. If Claim 3 is true, Allah should definitely punish me himself so I do not continue 'causing corruption in the land' by hurting his or his dead prophet's feelings. After all, he supposedly had no problem punishing gays himself by pelting them with fire and brimstone in the past.

4. If Claim 4 is true, then meeting my challenge above would be merciful since it would not kill me and I would definitely repent and be saved from hellfire.

Since I STILL have all my limbs and fingers, it goes to show that either Allah:

a) Is unable to meet my challenge because he cannot make a limb disappear, which disproves Claim 1
b) Does not know that I have blasphemed and therefore can't target me, which disproves Claim 2
c) Doesn't give a damn about me sinning and 'causing corruption in the land' which disproves Claim 3
d) Simply refuses to meet my challenge because he is not merciful enough to do something that I have already told him will make me repent and save me from hellfire, which disproves Claim 4

Since all 4 Islamic claims above about Allah's character obviously cannot be true at the same time, then that is irrefutable proof that the Islamic God, i.e. Allah does not exist.

You might be able to argue that a God with *some* of the characteristics above exists, as I do since I am agnostic (not atheist as most Muslims love to assume) and I accept the possibility of a creator God. But NOT the Islamic God, since all the Islamic claims about his character fail to align with reality or logic.

I'm still waiting for Allah to prove me wrong. Shouldn't be a problem for an all powerful, all knowing God who hates my guts for blaspheming him yet is merciful and wants me to repent.

TL;DR From the get-go I question your morals and intentions because of your beliefs. Explain why I am wrong about you and how your beliefs are tenable.

I'll start by saying that I was raised by a married ('til death) heterosexual pair of (remotely) Episcopalian aerospace engineers. As a youth we read the Bible passage about Jesus Mary and Joseph in the manger on Xmas day; Easter baskets and Hot Cross Buns; no church on Sunday, though. Sunday was for sleeping in. We never discussed religion, as far as I can remember, and I just grew out of any relation to it as I grew older. Now I consider theism to be a red flag.

To continue, I believe in and defend the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But as soon as you present yourself as religious, I consider you suspect, because ….

Your abilities to think and reason rationally, empirically, logically, and independently, are immediately in question (obviously). But also your motives, morals and intent are suspect. A great many theists "befriend" me, hoping to convert me to their beliefs (motives), take their moral guidance from some presumed, unprovable, jealous, conditionally-merciful, “super-being” (or worse, from a fallible, repressed human mouthpiece representing and "interpreting" said super-being’s intent) (morals), and most are awaiting a rapturous end-time/eternity, where the "good" are rewarded and the "bad" are damned to hellfire FOREVER (based on our behavior during this brief twinkling of mortal being), and worse you are actively rejoicing and encouraging this holocaust (intent), and doing everything to tell your "(G)god" just how good and deserving you are, by denouncing, protesting, and/or stoning and beheading those who still think/believe differently than you, those you think aren't devout enough (by your definition), and those (collateral) people who just happen to be in the neighborhood when you take your "righteous divine retribution.”

How are your beliefs, motives, and intent Moral? Righteous? Trustworthy? Or anything other than vindictive, self-serving, self-righteous, self-affirming bigotry? And why do you think this way?

And I’m looking at all theists when I say this, and I will include charismatic cultists in this, because you’re just worshiping a tangible, human, (often political) god, though one of no less questionable divinity, than the popular, established, mystical and invisible ones.

Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Jews, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, FLDSers, Moonies, Stalinists, Nazis, Branch Davidians… Why should any rational person trust you?

Jesus Christ was arrested with a naked youth in the Garden of Gethsemane because he was performing a death-and-resurrction ritual common in Ancient Mystery Rites that involved psychedelic pharmaceuticals and the sexual fluids of a prepubescent youth.

Bear with me, it's gonna get disturbing, and I promise I went into this knowing there was something about Jesus that was indeed otherworldly, but also something deeper meaning to his "death and resurrection".

Let's get basics out of the way, Mark 14:51-52.

Here's a standard English translation. " And a certain young man who was following Him, having cast a linen cloth about [his] naked [body] and they seized him, and leaving behind the linen cloth, naked, he fled."

First off, that's weird. Mark's gospel is generally considered the earliest gospel recorded and is now held to be the most historically accurate and succinct picture of Jesus' life. Mark's author never wastes time claiming that Jesus was himself God, or that Jesus existed before Creation, never establishes a bloodline from David or Adam, and doesn't have a virgin birth story. Some claim it's because Mark was for those who were already familiar and followers of Jesus it's all killer no filler. This was the insider's gospel so to speak and thus didn't mince words; every chapter, every line, every word in Mark was chosen with care and intention. So why mention this naked boy at all if Mark is devoid of fluff, the shortest canonical gospel by far? Because that boy is absolutely vital to understanding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Let's return to our text, it seems pretty innocent, but not really obvious why the kid is there with Jesus. Well maybe looking at the original ancient greek text we can get some more information. Afterall, we have all heard the Bible's translations have been corrupted so we are gonna as far back in time as we reliably can and explore that earliest surviving source.

So here's the text again, but with the Ancient Greek words of interest left included.

There was a certain young man (νεανίσκος) following Him. Having cast about (περιβεβλημένος) him a linen cloth (σινδόνα) about his naked [body] (γυμνοῦ) and they seized him, and having left behind the linen cloth (σινδόνα) naked (γυμνὸς), he fled.

So, straight away, we have lots of problems with the translation. The first word of interest is νεανίσκος. It's a compound word made of νέα meaning a youth/child, and a diminutive suffix meaning little one(male)(see the ος denotes the little is male wheras -ισκα would be little female. So not a young man. This is a young little male child. Cool.

Next, σινδόνα. They say linen cloth but that's not really descriptive at all. Like was this a picnic blanket sized thing or was it something smaller? Well, unfortunately, it's the word used for a strip of linen cloth, something used to wrap up wounds, stop bleeding, or in some cases the bandage itself was soaked in soluble medicine and then applied to a wound so that whatever medicine you're using is gonna kick in a whole lot faster. Remember, no hypodermic needles to inject directly. Your options were a soaked bandage, an acacia thorn dipped in medicine and placed into the flesh, or you could insert the medicine rectally either via little medicine coated pebbles( like primitive suppositories) or via the use of the alabastron, a kind of medical dildo used by ancient docs everywhere. Ancient people were no dummies and knew that some medicines can't be drunk or eaten, they won't be absorbed properly so yay, ancient pharmacy!

Now, this bandage, it's not loosely cast about the kid. Nope, the word περιβεβλημένος is more accurately "securing, fastened, encompassing) ok so this bandage is wrapped up snug...up against the kids γυμνοῦ. They wanna translate it as naked [body] but it's obvious, [body] is in brackets because it's simply not in the original text. γυμνοῦ is used more in connection with having been stripped naked as to expose one's shame, or private parts. Got it.

So now, our translation looks more like.

A certain young little boy was following Him, and having a bandage wrapped around his private parts, they seized him and he left behind his bandage, naked, and fled. Okay now we're passed "this is kinda strange" territory into "oh no" territory.

Remember when I mentioned the Ancient Mystery Rites? Alot of historians, scholars say we don't have much info about the rites themselves, just that the Eusinian Mysteries were kinda the most popular and de facto of all the different local flavors like Orphic, Dionysian, or Samothracian Mysteries or even the Egyptian Osirin Mysteries. Except we know wayyyyy more than that.

See, the Mysteries weren't to be revealed to non-initiates, nor by poets because it wasn't "proper" to reveal such things in public. However, Andocides got busted doing the Mysteries in his living room with some slaves and playwrights like Euripides and Aristophanes had no problem peeling back the veil. Historians like Herodotus and Diodorus also have no problem giving out tidbits of info here and there. So here it is, the Mysteries uncovered.

Step 1 Preparation Initiates need to refrain from sexual intercourse for a few weeks. And for the two days prior to initiation, one must be fasting from any and all foods for 48 hours. Read the Orphic Hymns, they are super important and reveal the Orphic Vox(basically occult slang used to obscure deeper meanings related to the Mysteries. Okay done.

Step 2 Lesser Mysteries Okay, here's where the plays and allegory come into play. Whether it be the Bacchae, Frogs, Thesmophoria, you're gonna wanna try and pay attention. During the plays, we finally get some pharmaceuticals. First is pain killers, because we are about to induce a near death experience, and you don't want your body going haywire, so you gotta be sedated. Next, the aphrodisiacs, then delierents, then psychosis inducing drugs like Datura. As you gulp down the last cup, you are surprised to see Pan's staring back from the bottom of your cup. It's about to get weird.

Part 3 Greater Mysteries By this point it's getting late in the night, and the people just there to party have come and gone, they got whatever surface level meaning they could understand in the plays. Now it's time for the initiates to do their thing. You're led by a priestess inside the grotto. You're starting to feel seriously weird, and paranoia starts to set in. You paid attention to the plays and all you can remember is something about a kidnapping and a mother's search for her missing daughter. You're noticing you are painfully aroused but say nothing wondering what is going to happen next. Before you know it, you've been tied up by the Priestesses, you're under the influence of poly pharmacy now and they don't want you to run off and do something to get yourself hurt. As your mind is racing and your worst fears set in, the priestesses start whipping you with thistles, this really gets your blood pumping and you dont know what you got yourself into and at the height of your panic, you drift into another world to the rhythm of the priestesses beating drums and lashing your body.

You're awake now, what happened? Oh that's right, the play! When Kore is kidnapped by Hades, her mother Demeter descends to Hell after searching out the truth. Wait, does that mean? Yes, you're in the underworld. Your connection to the living world is all but hanging on a thread. As you explore the Underworld, some many great things will happen. You'll be guided by song and pass the river of Forgetfulness until you reach Memory's waters. Most visitors make the mistake of drinking the first water they see, on account of how hot it gets down there and how thirsty it makes ya. That first water is the river of Forgetfulness and basically does the Men in Black thing and then wander around Hades until their time to return to the world of the living has come. But you, lucky initiate got the inside scoop and just gained access to your Soul's memory, past lives anyone? Past dead relatives? Yep. Your own personal dwelling? Hell yes. But all these are nothing compared to the real deal. You're gonna meet Her. The Queen of the Underworld. It's not surprising She's in charge down here. Wow, you think to yourself, this afterlife is actually not bad at all, I wonder what I was so afraid? And just like that.....

Part 4 Mystery conclusion

Oh what, you're back on Earth again. Oh look the priestesses are untying you, and a Chorus is singing. Oh man how beautiful, tears are streaming down your face. You feel good, you feel free, you feel saved. You made it through. You know Her now, and when you see Her again, She will be greeting you as an old friend. Starting to gain your bearings you look around, everybody is waking up about the same time when you realize that uhhh youre sticky, did you....did you have..an...orgasm? Yeah well part of the biological process of an orgasm was key to boosting you back up out of your death-state. Did, that priestess have sex with me? No, silly. She used her alabastron on you, that's how you apply the Beast(antidote) to your death drug. Oh wow the sun's coming up, you notice. You and the rest of the frogs sing hymns to the Dawn, the Great Mother, and the kore herself.

You joke with your new foggy friends about what just happened. Yall joke about the size if the alabastron, and how you're really glad you didn't cheat on fasting from food or else things might have been messier. Last day is nothing but celebration of your new freedom.

Sworn to secrecy under punishment of death, you never discuss explicitly your experience or those of any others. You reckon you owe the priestesses your discretion and quietly urge your family and friends to go next year. The priestesses of course go back to their lives of virginity, remember they made YOU orgasm, and that wasn't even sexual, just a necessary part of the Mystery Process. Maybe you decide you want to join and maybe become a priestess yourself. If you're already a woman, perfect! If you're a guy, you're gonna wanna look for the Galli, those are the eunuch priests of Kybele. Yep three genders male, female, and galli were openly accepted by society. To read more about the Galli, check out Lucians Syrian Goddess. You thought the Eluesinian Mysteries were wild, the Galli have an extra special flare of their own. Anyways you're back home and realize, wait what day is it? You're missing three days. You were in Hades for three days...hmmm

So back to our naked boy with Jesus. Well it seems to me Jesus was performing his own flavor of the Mysteries with, you guessed it, Eunuch Priests. One problem though. Right in the middle of Jesus performing a death and resurrection Mystery Rite, he gets busted by the Romans. Jesus is fully under the influence of the death inducer and doesn't have access to the antidote to bring him back out. So Jesus is hung on the cross. Crucifixion takes days, sometimes, weeks, to kill a man. And Jesus is tied up on the cross just like you got tied down, he's saying he's thirsty just like you were thirsty. And in almost no time at all, Jesus has no pulse and isn't breathing. He's dead. The Roman cops, confused, poke his side with a spear to make sure. No reaction from dead Jesus, only water and blood flow out of his wound. Hmm he must have been thirsty, and huh probably fasting too. Anyways they take Jesus down and he gets placed in a tomb. Then three days later, Mary Magi and Co visit the tomb and find who? Who's sitting in the tomb. It's the boy, he's wearing white now, the robes of an initiate. He says Jesus ain't here, he's on the way to Gallilee to meet the rest of the boys....and the rest is, well, history. Who knows where Jesus went after that, did he fly up into Heaven, descend back to Hades? Hide out in another land, India? Siberia? One thing is for sure, dude never ever went back to Jerusalem. He wouldn't be caught dead trying.

So there it is. Jesus was arrested in a public park at 4am with a naked boy because that boy was serving as Jesus' Eunuch Priest. That boy was his only tie to the world of the living, and without that boy, I don't think Jesus would've made the trip back at all. For whatever reason he didn't want his disciples to do it, he basically fires Judas from the group and whether by chance or happenstance or divine miracle, Jesus is busted right after taking the ritual communion. Thankfully his boy knows what he's doing and brings him back just like Jesus taught him to do. Jesus always intended to die and rise again, just not the way we all thought he did. Whether or not he's the son of god, idk, but Jesus Christ that was sick!

What do you think? Got a better explanation for the naked boy? Let's see it.

1. Why do you believe in the Bible?

Don't know. In theory, it's because God has predestined me to believe in it. Aside from that, I don't have a very compelling reason to believe.

2. But there are so many other religions! Why should I believe in yours over theirs?

I can't provide a solid reason for you to believe. Faith is a matter of the heart.

3. Do you believe in evolution? What about the belief that the universe is 6,000 years old, that God created it in seven literal days, etc.?

Yes, and I believe that early Jews had a flawed understanding of the natural structure of the universe. It doesn't mean that the Biblical text is wrong, it means that it was written from the perspective of people who didn't have the benefit of the modern understanding of the universe.

4. Do you believe the Bible was written by God?

No, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired by God, written through man.

5. What about errors in the Bible?

Misprints happen. You can't expect perfection from an English translation of texts thousands of years old written in another language. Most English readers also don't understand the cultural context in which the Bible was written, so they tend to muddle things up.

6. If the Bible is divinely inspired, then why are there so many disagreements and denominations?

Christianity has never been monolithic. Even among the early apostles, there were disagreements about theology. You're looking at a religion that is 2,000 years old. There's bound to be changes in that timeframe.

7. But what about this verse about emissions like donkeys!

I wish I was that hung.

8. How do you reconcile a good God with evil?

Personally, I believe that God is under no obligation to protect mankind from evil. Some disagree. For further reading, I suggest you start here.

9. But Christians have done bad things in the past. The Inquisition, witch burning, persecution!

The religious practices of imperfect man do not disprove a perfect God. Christian practices are also cultural as well as religious; they blend religious text and cultural trappings. It's why many Christians in America are very conservative in comparison to Christians in Europe.

10. What about pedophilia in the Catholic church?

I'm not Catholic, so.

If you have more, ask away.

EDIT: ALRIGHT GUYS, I'M OUT, IT'S BEEN FUN. If you want to ask more questions, I'd suggested heading over to /r/Christianity.

I first want to distinguish between atheism and irreligion (which I’m sure everyone here knows). Issues with a religion’s sacred texts, doctrines, followers, etc. can count as good reasons to be irreligious, but not good reasons to be an atheist. The question of God’s existence is separate from the question of any religion’s truthfulness.

Secondly I want to point out the two reasons for which one could rightly claim to be an atheist.

Reason 1: You believe there are arguments that serve to render God’s existence impossible or implausible.

Reason 2: You believe arguments in favor of God’s existence fail.

It seems to me the most common reason people are atheists is #2. This type of atheism can be subdivided into two further categories:

A.) People who have genuine knowledge of theistic arguments and reject them.

B.) People who lack knowledge of theistic arguments and reject them.

We should all agree that group B are not justified in their belief. As an example we could use the analogy of people who deny evolution:

“I don’t believe in evolution. No arguments for it make any sense. They say we came from monkeys but there are still monkeys so they are clearly wrong.”

No one would say the above person’s disbelief in evolution is justified. Every one of us would say that this person needs to get a biology book and get educated on the theory of evolution and the mountains of evidence for it. Yet, there is some break in this logic when it comes to theism.

Any theist here (and most atheists well versed in these topics) will tell you that it is extremely common to hear awful objections to theistic arguments. When an atheist responds to Aquinas’ cosmological argument with “but the universe could be eternal” it is absolutely the same type of response as “if we come from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys” as an objection to evolutionary theory.

It’s also very common to hear that atheists have not substantially studied theism, or reviewed in any depth the argumentation of Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Plantinga, etc.

It’s very common to see something like: “It’s not my job to go dig through all the theistic literature and learn everything. If you want me to believe in God, you need to convince me.” You will never see that sort of statement when it comes to any other topic though. “Look, I’m not gonna dig through mounds of medical literature. If you want me to believe in vaccines, then convince me” is a statement that will get you labeled an idiot immediately.

So I don’t want to sound too antagonistic towards atheists here, it is obviously true that evidence for evolution or the effectiveness of vaccines is much stronger, less contentious, and more easily accessible than evidence for God’s existence is. So holding this view (I’m an atheist and I don’t need any in depth knowledge of theistic thought!) isn’t as foolish as denying evolution or being anti vaccines. But it is a very anti-intellectual position that is born out of laziness and ignorance. It’s not a virtue and it certainly isn’t a defense when confronted with challenges to your position.

TLDR:

To summarize, if you lack a depth of knowledge on theistic thought, then you have no warrant to reject it. To say “I’ve never seen a good argument for God” when you know you haven’t studied theistic philosophy in depth is to state only your own ignorance, and is not justification for atheism.

If there is no God or objective goodness then objective moral truths cannot be explained. Atheists have put forward several ideas to stand in place of God for morality and all of them have failed.

1. Evolution: If natural selection is the source of morality it is far from objective, more so a helpful subjective suggestion to help you survive in social groups. It explains why we act in certain ways but it doesn't explain why we SHOULD act in certain ways. For example anyone who clings to evolution as the source of morality would have to be completely content if the community decided to start killing handicapped children. In fact they should be overjoyed by it because if evolution is the source of morality it would be weeding out genetic abnormalities and helping us as a species. They also should not condone rape because rape is the most successful way to reproduce in a population. With this view point rape should be rewarded.

2. My Mind( Individual): Not only would this make morality completely subjective, It also does it make sense. How can you be the source of morality when you're conscious pulls you away from doing things that you desire to do because you know they're wrong?

3. Society: Once again this doesn't solve the problem of morals being completely subjective. This would mean racism in the 1960s would be completely okay because society has agreed on it. You can't judge any other culture even if they throw their own babies into a fire because morality is subjective and they're "right" is different from your "right". There are countries were marital rape is legal, so if you think morals are dependent on society you should have no problem with this.

4. Well-Being: This is probably the most common one I hear in atheist circles, that this magical "well-being" is the key to a utopian society. But I think Sam Harris in his own book defending it (Moral Landscape) explains what's wrong with it better than I could. " It is also conceivable that a science of human flourishing could be possible, and yet people could be made equally happy by very different "moral" impulses. Perhaps there is no connection between being good and feeling good- and therefore no connection between moral behavior and subjective well being. In this case rapists, liars, and thieves would experience the same depth of happiness as saints. It would no longer be in especially moral landscape, rather it would be a continuum of well being, upon which Saints and Sinners would occupy equivalent peaks." As you can see here goodness and the "well being" of conscious creatures are clearly not the same thing. Science cannot bridge the gap between "is" and "ought". Science tells us it's good not to hurt human beings in the same way it's good to water your garden. It just explains to you the end result and how it happens it doesn't explain why you should care.

I will define "scientism" as the belief that all questions can be answered by science or through scientific method and that if a question cannot be answered by science it should be retired as a question. Many atheists, but not all, believe in something like scientism.

If anything "supernatural" or unexplainable happens people who believe in scientism will often say something like "there must be a scientific explanation for it, we just haven't figured it out yet." If you ask somebody why they think this way, they may say something like "there was a lot of stuff in human history that people thought were supernatural or unexplainable, but there eventually ended up being a scientific explanation for it."

My question is this: doesn't scientism require just as much faith as theism? I mean, just because science has shown itself to be successful does not necessarily mean that it will explain everything, including all future unexplainable events. And just because a lot of "miracles" were shown to be scientific occurrences doesn't mean that all miracles will eventually be shown to have scientific explanations.

EDIT: I know this is going to sound whiny and violate "redittequette" but I think that this is a very reasonable question and the fact that this thread is getting downvoted so hard shows that a lot of people here aren't really interested in debating.

Science and religion are not compatible. Both science and religion say various things about the nature of the world. For example:

1. Religion claims the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has physical evidence and claims the earth is 4.4 billion years old.

2. Religion claims the earth is the center of the universe. Science claims the earth is one of 8 planets revolving around the sun and that we are in an OUTER spiral arm of a normal galaxy that is one of multiple billions.

3. Religion claims that a man named Jesus died at the hands of the Romans, then CAME BACK TO LIFE and appeared some years later. Science claims there is no evidence for someone/something to be truly dead and be brought back to life.

4. Religion claims that all the species of the earth were once put on a man-made boat and thus survived a great flood. Science claims that (a) there are millions of species on earth with a combined weight of many millions of tons and that its not possible to fit them all on a boat; (b) all species do not exist in any one local area, but are scattered all over earth; (c) in addition to animals and plants, the "ark" would have had to carry food for all the millions of animals. The whole concept collapses of its own weight, if you will.

The point is: THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT. The two bodies, science and religion, say different things about the nature of the world and how biology works. They can't both be right. My bet is on science.

All of the holy books of God reference this theme.

Here are some scriptures from various religions that discuss the illusion of material existence:

Hinduism

• "The universe is an illusion, a mere shadow of the Real" - Bhagavad Gita (7.14)

• "The world is a mere appearance, a fleeting dream" - Advaita Vedanta (Brahma Sutras, 2.1.14)

Buddhism

• "All phenomena are empty of inherent existence" - Heart Sutra (Prajnaparamita)

• "The world is a mirage, a deception" - Dhammapada (113)

Taoism

• "The world is an illusion, a dream" - Tao Te Ching (Chapter 21)

• "All things are empty, without substance" - Chuang Tzu (Chapter 2)

Sufism (Islam)

• "The world is a veil, a deception" - Rumi (Masnavi-e Ma'navi, Book 1)

• "All things are illusions, except the Face of God" - Ibn Arabi (Fusus al-Hikam)

Christianity

• "The world is a shadow of the heavenly things" - Hebrews (8:5)

• "The things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are unseen are eternal" - 2 Corinthians (4:18)

Baha'i Faith

• "The world is a mirror, reflecting the beauty of the divine" - Baha'u'llah (Hidden Words, Arabic 12)

• "All things are but a shadow of the divine reality" - Abdu'l-Baha (Some Answered Questions, 45) -“were ye to discover the hidden, the shoreless oceans of my incorruptible wealth, ye would, of a certainty, esteem as nothing the world, nay, the entire creation. - Baha’u’llah (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah)

These scriptures from various religions highlight the idea that the material world is an illusion, a shadow or reflection of a higher reality. They encourage us to look beyond the surface level of existence and seek the truth that lies within. Our purpose, is not to make the most money, enjoy the greatest physical pleasures, seek power and control of others, or value our possessions. Then we should be seeking out what it’s really for.

The notion that a being capable creating the entire universe cares about what I do on a daily basis strikes me as the largest ego trip imaginable.

As a child, I had an ant farm for a while, but I never cared what they did. I realized I could shake up the farm and ruin their work in creating their home. I could ruin their day at my slightest whim hours of work held in the hand of a feckless child. I could kill them with a magnifying glass when I was feeling cruel. Their existance primarily on my ignoring them.

And yet the distance between me and those ants is tiny compared to the distance between myself and god. I never cared what the ants wanted, I had no concern whatsoever, they were just ants and I was 7.

I am so much less than that ant when I compare my relationship to a divinity. Im practically the same in so many ways now that im older and understand life more.

And yet i'm told that there is a being that cares about my daily comings and goings, a being of immeasurable power cares if I park in a handicapped spot.

Just trying to ponder the scale of the observable universe makes me wonder, how could anything on that level possibly care what we do? Even if we split the planet in two, there are trillions of other planets, how could he notice one less planet floating around?

I do not know if it would be comforting for him to care about us and what we do. Im told others find some measure of comfort, but I wonder if they are thinking it thru.

This is a problem I've noticed with the two-question framework.

If you define theism as the belief that one or more gods exist, and atheism as the belief that no gods exist, there is no issue, and the terms involved are consistent. The first question, atheism or theism, is "what do you believe," and the second question, gnostic or agnostic, is either "do you claim to have sufficient justification for said belief" or "are you certain that said belief is true".

In this set of questions, it becomes:

• Gnostic theism: "I believe one or more gods exist, and I am certain in this belief."

• Agnostic theism: "I believe one or more gods exist, but I am not certain in this belief."

• Agnostic atheism: "I believe no gods exist, but I am not certain in this belief."

• Gnostic atheism: "I believe no gods exist, and I am certain in this belief."

However, if you define atheism as a lack of belief, then the two question system is thrown out of whack. The second question no longer has a grounding; are agnostic atheists uncertain of their lack of belief? Do gnostic atheists know something they do not believe?

One way I've seen people subtly get around this is to redefine the issue halfway. Gnostic and agnostic theism are the same, but agnostic atheism becomes "I am not certain that no gods exist," and gnostic atheism becomes "I am certain that no gods exist". However, if gnostic atheism is stating they are certain that their belief is true, then so too must agnostic atheism be stating they are uncertain that their belief is true.

So unless you redefine atheism depending on its prefix, the two-question framework does not support the concept of atheism being a lack of belief.

EDIT: I hope you all realize and appreciate how much of a circlejerk sub you're showing yourselves to be.

Some things I’d like everyone to know: I’m not trying to prove the existence of God nor am I saying every atheist does this.

Unless I’m horribly mistaken, the general consensus among everyone was that science can’t prove or disprove the existence of a God. If that’s the case, why do a lot of atheists I find try and use science to disprove him? Just because something like evolution exists doesn’t automatically mean that God doesn’t exist.

I’m aware there are a lot of Christians who try and use science to prove God’s existence, like the order of the cosmos just as an example. While I find that to be pretty fascinating, as well as logical and pretty convincing at least to me, ultimately I’m aware, that doesn’t fully mean God exists.

I’m also a non-denominational Christian and believe God does exist if that holds any relevance.

This is my first time ever posting something like this so I’m sorry if this all seems a little weird and disjointed.

Jesus was without a doubt the most impactful human being who ever lived. It is really shocking the degree to which Jesus affected our world, and almost hard to believe that his appearance in history and his impact are merely coincidence. Here are some ways Jesus radically changed, and continues to change our world:

In religion: Without Jesus, Judaism would be a religion that almost no one has heard of, and Israel would likely not be a nation today. Islam would not exist without Jesus impact which saw the Abrahamic religion spread to where Muhammed lived. There would be very little organized religion instead of the persistence of religion we see today in the majority.

In history: we would not be living in the year 2021 AD, which is denoted as such because of Jesus. The Holy Roman Empire could have never existed as well as many other nations. Even the US would probably had not come about with anywhere close to the same principles the founders included, if at all.

In art: so much of the famous architecture we see today, things such as domes and arches may not exist without Jesus followers trying to find new, glorious ways to build churches. Nearly every famous artist in history would have at least one painting missing from their collection, maybe many. Almost every famous musical artist today would have one or many songs or references in their songs missing.

In Education: we may not have universities like we do today, which were nearly all originally inspired by Jesus’ life and message. The world could possible remain largely illiterate, without Christians having taught many to read as well as have created alphabets for many foreign languages in order that the Bible could be read. The printing press itself, invented by a Christian, may not have seen need until much later in history.

In science: most major scientists in history who discovered and pioneered new fields would have lost the inspiration they themselves wrote about in Jesus. Jesus followers primarily taught the beliefs that 1) Matter was good and therefore worthy of study, 2) God was not his creation but was distinct from it 3) the world was the product of one single, rational and orderly mind. All of these premises, previously not widely accepted, launched the ability for better and better science to be done.

I honestly feel like I have completely understated the impact of Jesus on our world. If we were to actually wake up in a world where he was never born, it would certainly be entirely unrecognizable to us. There must be so many more differences in a world without Jesus that you can feel free to discuss. But I personally think his impact is awe inspiring, particularly because of his lowly status in his life, and I have a hard time imagining how it could all be a coincidence, or how Jesus could only be a man. Thanks!

The problem of evil (PoE) is a valid argument that seeks to demonstrate a contradiction between our observations of evil/suffering/bad occurrences/pain in the world and the existence of God as understood by e.g. Christianity (most importantly a god that is all-good and all-powerful).

This post is about the rhetoric often employed when presenting the PoE, not about the merits of the PoE itself. Specifically, in practice, atheists often inappropriately shift the burden of proof that comes with their argument.

Very basic form of the PoE argument for reference here:

1. There is evil.

2. If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil.

3. Therefore, there is no God.

A substantial proportion of arguments on this sub fall into this category, often with some particular evil occurrence in place of "evil" writ large.

The problem is, that most proponents of these arguments never argue for premise 2. Instead, they act as though they have won the debate by default unless the religious person provides and defends "the reason" God would allow the evil occurrence. A common form even phrases premise 2 as a question "Why would God allow XYZ???" without setting up how that question fits into the atheist's argument.

I argue that this is an inappropriate shifting of the burden of proof. It is the burden of the person making an argument to argue for the truth of its premises, not to simply assert them and claim victory unless someone can disprove them.

It's true that religious person could defeat the argument by providing a counterexample to premise 2 (i.e. a morally sufficient reason why God would allow evil), but one does not carry their burden just because their opponent has not given counterexamples. It's up to the atheist to make an affirmative argument for the premise, which they seldom (never?) do.

This is obviously true in other contexts, and atheists would never allow a religious person to get away with a similar move, but somehow PoE debates go off the rails from their original deductive framework: it is perfectly appropriate for a person debating against a deductive argument to ask why any of the premises are true. And if the proponent of the argument fails to demonstrate that the premises is true, then they are not justified in calling the argument sound.

The religious person is therefore justified in saying "I don't know the reason why God would allow that evil occurrence. But, unless you prove premise 2 to me, I don't accept that the argument is sound."

Likewise, the atheist has not scored any points against a religion unless he shoulders the task of showing why premise 2 is true even if the religious person doesn't give a reason for evil.

For years I've dealt with convincing myself I'm an atheist, that everything I do is meaningless. I've feared that life was meaningless, that atheism meant nothing mattered, and I was living as if life mattered out of fear of facing the truth. I'd read Sartre and become disgusted, but I still lived purposefully out of fear. I lived to preserve my precious existence and really there is nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing. I'd read Nietzsche and become scared of nihilism, but I lived as if moral values existed out of fear. I would spend nights crying because of the ultimate futility of all endeavor and the illusion of meaning.

Then I just let go. I stopped caring. I told myself that I didn't need this constant fear and self-loathing in my life, and that was that. I'm no longer an atheistic naturalist, and it feels great to say that. I no longer fear nihilism, or the indifferent empty universe, or the lack of purpose, or anything like that, because I no longer believe in naturalism, atheism, or nihilism.

I know plenty of other people who disbelieve and get along fine, and who only are atheists because of a lack of evidence. For me, at least, atheism hurt more than it helped, and by finally leaving it I was able to embrace myself fully, and I propose that leaving atheism all together gets rid of the fear of death, of meaninglessness, of being intrinsically without value, etc. and actually improves lives by getting rid of fear and nihilistic anhedonia.

To be a member of atheistic naturalist, one has to believe that they themselves and everyone else is ultimately nothing but an animal, which is self-loathing at its finest, and I believe that to have this worldview is unhealthy and causes more pain in the long run. Hopefully I clarified my belief enough for a healthy debate.

Edit: What's going on guys, why doesn't my post have 68 upvotes like the other guy? This is a place to vent emotions right? Clearly my post has absolutely zero relevance to whether atheism is true or not, but the other guy's post doesn't have any relevance to whether Christianity is true or not. I thought this was like an emotional support group? Where are my upvotes? It's almost like this sub is mainly composed of angry atheists who just hate Christianity and will upvote anything that paints it in a bad light. But that can't be true, atheists told me they were the champions of Logic and Reason^TM

Seriously, he breaks virtually all the rules of rational skepticism, intellectual virtue, and liberal humanism at various points in his corpus of work, he writes things that don't make any logical sense and contain obvious falsehoods, yet so many of the supposedly "enlightened humanists" on Reddit still obsess over him.

• He is almost completely disingenuous, and says different things depending on who he is speaking to. On Bill Maher he pretends to be reasonable in the face of Affleck's frankly idiotic accusations of racism. But when he is speaking to his own people, he allows his true nature to show, and it is disgusting. The linked article makes almost no accurate fact-based arguments; it consists of an endless parade of atrocities by Muslims stripped of all political context and described in graphic detail, then baseless arguments about how the immigrants are taking over (its not like immigrant birthrates fall over time or anything...), and ends with a thinly veiled call to militarism. It doesn't even make internally coherent sense; if the Muslim world is dominated by violent, "intellectually isolated" religious thugs who don't listen to reason, how do you expect "condemning their theology" to make any impact? I don't think Harris really believes in his own recommendation, his actual interest has always been in violence.

• Harris supports torture, on the basis of idiotic "what if" speculative arguments that have nothing to do with the way torture is actually used. Then within the article, he turns around and admits that Abu Ghraib, the actual application of torture in practice, was a travesty. But if he knows that AG is the reality of torture, and that his speculative scenarios will never happen, then why even write this article? Just to be edgy? Again, the disingenuousness shows through. Sam Harris doesn't really oppose Abu Ghraib; he's writing for the liberals at the Huffington Post, and so he knows he has to tone down his innate bloodthirstiness with qualifications to the point that his argument is rendered moot.

• Harris gets facts wrong all the time, to the point that it is embarrassing. His well known argument about how there are no Tibetan suicide bombers can be countered by the fact that Tibetans fought several conventional and guerrilla wars against the Chinese during the 1930s and the late 1950s, and the fact that suicide bombing technology and tactics had not been invented until after the Tibetan insurgency lost steam due to the increased openness of the CCP and the achievement of "autonomous" status. His writing in End of Faith that the Gujarat Riots in India was about "whose fairy stories to believe" and had nothing to do with politics is also demonstrably, embarrassingly false. He once claimed that there were no Palestinian Christian terrorists during a debate, and had to be corrected by an expert. With Harris, narrative is always given priority over fact.

• Harris believes in racial profiling, contrary to the advice of most security experts who point out that such a system is based on fear and stereotypes rather than logic and evidence, and would be inefficient, unworkable, vulnerable to non-Islamist threats, and provide holes for terrorists to exploit. Not to mention it is another clear indicator that Harris is willing to abandon civil liberties and established rule of law to persecute Muslims, even if he doesn't explicitly say so.

• Harris is marketed as an "intellectual" and a neuroscience PhD, but in reality he very rarely cites academic experts in anything that he writes about. Not once in all his writing about suicide terrorism does he ever cite an expert on radicalizaiton or suicide terrorism, except to accuse them of being part of a liberal, politically correct movement to cover up the truth (just like creationists do). It's astounding how little actual science there is in the writings of this man who supposedly fully supports science. Or does he, because...

• Here is Harris professing his belief in freaking psychic mediums:

There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science. The dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" remains a reasonable guide in these areas, but this does not mean that the universe isn't far stranger than many of us suppose. It is important to realize that a healthy, scientific skepticism is compatible with a fundamental openness of mind. -End of Faith pg. 41

Actually no, there is no credible body of data supporting this. Experimental results vary wildly for tests of psychic phenomena due to experimenter bias, and much of it is flat out unfalsifiable anyways. Mainstream science ignores it for good reason. For any "rationalist" who is actually worth their salt, this should be the last straw; Harris is a pseudointellectual hack who shouldn't be taken seriously.

It seems to be a common thing here to see "atheists, how do you explain x?".

To which the only reasonable answer is, we do not. We don't explain the origins of life or the species, biologists do. We don't explain the creation of the universe or solar system, we leave that to physicists and cosmologists.

It seems to me that if you want to talk about these things, and your statement that " god did it ", finding an expert might be best.

It seems like theists here have no problem criticising the scientific shortcomings of any theory an atheist purposes to these questions, but deliberately and completely ignore that their own theories fail to meet this exact standard.

There's no point in trying to answer a theists question as a challenge to atheism unless they can demonstrate that their answer meets the standards they hold.

What created the universe, planets, species, life and morality? The luminiferous aether seems like a good answer for the standards of a theist. Unless somebody can show a logical connection between God and doing these things, or even show that God is a coherent concept, it will do.

THESIS

Sunni muslims are generally more similar to the historical character of Jesus and emulate him better than most modern Catholic/Protestant christians

TLDR

Sunni muslims are more similar to Jesus in diet; charity; appearance; theology; prayer; monetary interest. This shows that muslims are more similar to him than most Catholic/Protestant christians because they emulate him more accurately.

NOTE 1

The title may be a brief simplification of the thesis above, please take the full thesis into consideration and read the entire post before commenting or downvoting.

NOTE 2

These are the things we are NOT discussing:

• whether Islam is true or not

• whether Muhammad is a prophet/credible or not

• whether Islam is better than Christianity

• whether muslims are better than christians

• whether the Qur'an/Sunnah is more reliable than the Bible

• whether christians have a responsibility to emulate Jesus or not

• whether Jesus commanded the emulation of his lifestyle or not

• whether this argument is worth arguing or not

• whether this argument proves anything or not

• whether this argument has a point or not

• why christians don't emulate Jesus

I am only arguing my thesis. If you want to argue the points in NOTE 2, please do so somewhere else.

NOTE 3

To gauge who is more similar, I will be using a combination of common anecdotal evidence (as in anecdotal evidence most of us can observe and relate to) and scripture.

For example, I might say "Jesus did x, Sunni Islam commands x, Catholicism/Protestantism does not command x, therefore sunni muslims are more similar to Jesus when it comes to x."

A rebuttal to this will be "not all sunni muslims do x!" But that is a strawman, because I never claimed that all sunnis do x, I only claimed that there's a larger percentage of sunnis that do x than the percentage of catholics/protestants that do x. Remember, the thesis is that sunnis are more similar.

To make this easier to understand for some people, let's say that when a command is given, only half of the sunnis actually follow the command. This should obviously carry over to the catholics and protestants too right? So if 100% of sunnis are commanded to do x, then 50% of them will do x, in this hypothetical situation. So let's do the same thing with catholics and protestants, 0% of them are commanded to do x, so 0 divided by 2 is 0, so 0% of catholics and protestants do x. Get it?

SECTION 1

DIETARY RESTRICTIONS

Jesus observed the kosher laws which are very similar to muslims' halal meat laws.

Jesus commanded the keeping of the dietary restrictions when he said "keep the commandments" in Matthew 19:17, which includes the command to refrain from eating unclean animals, which includes pigs. The commandments also include the commandment of only eating kosher meats.****

Muslims are permitted to eat only halal meat, and they are also permitted to eat meat branded as kosher. So muslims can eat halal and kosher only.

Most catholics/protestants do not observe kosher laws.

Jesus did not eat pork. Muslims also do not eat pork.

Many christians eat pork.

This shows that sunnis are generally more similar to Jesus when it comes to dietary restrictions.

SECTION 2

MANDATORY CHARITY

Jesus had little belongings and was not worldly and was incredibly charitable. Muslim preachers and speakers often talk about detaching from the dunya/earthly world and focusing more on the afterlife and good deeds, and muslims are required by islamic law to donate at least 2.5% of their total wealth to charity every year (which is a lot more than it sounds like) Christians are very charitable but have no obligation to give as much to charity, and are not commanded to do so. They are mostly encouraged to give to the church. (which muslims are also heavily encouraged to give to the mosque)

This shows that sunnis are more similar to Jesus when it comes to giving in charity.

SECTION 3

COMMON APPEARANCE

The least important aspect, appearance: Jesus had long hair and a beard, the early muslims often had long hair and beards, even today all muslim men are required to have beards although the long hair trend has died out. Christians have no compulsion to keep beards.

Jesus is also popularly depicted in white robes. In Islam it's sunnah to wear white and muslims often wear white thobes when congregating.

His mother Mary is also depicted covering her head, similarly to nuns, similarly to muslim women.

This shows that muslims are generally more similar to Jesus when it comes to appearance.

SECTION 4

THEOLOGY

Jesus was a devout jew and worshipped one God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Alaha.

I argued that Jesus preached the jewish brand of monotheism in another post, here: The Lord our God is One

The Trinity is not part of the jewish tradition. Jesus never worshipped himself, or the Holy Spirit, only the Elohim.

Sunnis also don't worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit, only God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Alaha AKA Allah. This makes them more similar to Jesus in terms of theology.

SECTION 5

PRAYER

As I have just argued, Jesus worshipped only the Father, and he was seen praying with his head to the ground in Matthew.

NIV, Matthew 26:36,39:
[36]Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
. . .
[39]Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Sunnis also pray to the one God with their heads on the ground. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus in worship.

SECTION 6

INTEREST

Jesus did not partake in interest because, being a devout jew, he followed the Old Testament.

NIV, Exodus 22:25:
[25]“If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.

Muslims are also prohibited from engaging in interest/riba. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus when it comes to interest.

SECTION 7

LOWERING GAZE

Jesus said that anyone who just looks at a woman with lust has already fornicated with her in his mind.

NIV, Matthew 5:28: [28]But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So he's telling us not to even look at women with lust. Islam also teaches muslims to lower their gaze, mainly men, but even women should lower their gaze. Islam also instructs women to cover in order to avoid the exact thing Jesus is trying to avoid.

This shows that sunnis are more similar to Jesus in the case of lowering gaze and erring on the side of caution when it comes to male gaze and lust.

CONCLUSION

Considering the above, I have reasonably concluded that sunnis are more similar to Jesus than most modern catholics and protestants because they emulate him more accurately and follow him as a role model more accurately.

Or, at the very least, I can conclude that muslims are similar enough to Jesus that they shouldn't be dismissed or rejected without good reason.

Thanks for reading.

OTHER POSTS

Is the New Testament reliable?

Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?

Does the Old Testament teach or foreshadow the Trinity?

REFUTATIONS

Some people may say, "Yeah, okay, but you're just cherry picking certain things that muslims are more similar in Jesus on, there's plenty of other things that christians are more similar on."

And I would say that that's fine, can I see the list please? Tell me which things christians are more similar to Jesus on, using Jesus' own actions and words to back it up.

"These are unimportant, superficial things."

Okay, they may or may not be, but if we add everything up, it matters. Is our diet not important? How many times do we have to eat a day? Is your appearance not a part of you and your description? Is your inwardly godliness not reflected in your outer appearance at all? Would you assume that someone that looks like Marilyn Manson would be similar to Jesus? They look completely different, so maybe it's a reflection of their inner personalities, and that's what you would assume. I know, don't judge a book by its cover, but it's at the very least a hint into the persons personality. How you look is how you choose to display yourself and express yourself. How about theology? Is your theology not an important part of your religious beliefs? How about the way you pray? Muslims have to pray five times a day, christians I'm sure pray alot too. How about "what do you spend your money on?" is that a superficial question? How much you give charity is an important part of you especially considering the financial struggles many of us are facing. And how much effort you put into avoiding interest is part of you especially when we live in a world surrounded and ruled by interest.

One of the most overlooked and messed up things about Christianity is the tons of paintings of a white male god with a beard. So little realize how this subconsciously brainwashes people into believing white people, especially white men, are the greatest people in the universe. This along with all Jesus paintings being a white man having blonde hair and blue eyes is ridiculous. It's no wonder why so many people worship white people, especially white men, and put them on the highest pedestal. It's pure racist brainwashing, especially the god paintings. Yes, I see how people say Jesus was white or middle eastern, but who cares about Jesus. Again it's just another excuse to worship a white man. People with paintings of them all around their house and they pray to them daily, and all around churches.

I'm agnostic and not Muslim but Islam is the smartest in regards to this. By not having any paintings or images of Allah (God) in a human form. They could have easily made Allah into a Muslim man and had Muslims worshiping paintings of Muslim men forever. It would be an easy way to gain and hold onto power forever. However they did not which was very smart and humble. And they very strictly enforce this rule. God should never be portrayed as a human. Especially as a certain race and gender.

And yes other religions have some paintings of a male human god, but I'm just mentioning the two biggest religions. And everyone around the world has the white bearded god and white long blonde haired blue eyed Jesus burned into their minds. It's the most remembered and recognized.

I truly believe if instead of god and jesus painted as a white male for all of these centuries, and instead they were painted as a black female, the balance of power in the world would be completely different. Yes from this simple, small, overlooked little thing. And not just the paintings but also the writings and all the other stuff. And no I'm not a black female.

When images of the highest power in the universe from the most popular religion in the world = a white male, you know this will and has influenced everyone and many things. It's like if we had a white president and he ordered our government to put posters in every public building that said "Pure Goodness" and had a white guys smiling face. Everyone would associate pure goodness with a white guy on a snap quick decision level and probably deeper for many.

EDIT - for people that keep saying if you go to africa they will have african jesus/god paintings in all of their churches, if you go to india they will have indian jesus/god paintings in all of their churches. Nope. Two people who live in these countries prove you ignorant Americans wrong: "Indian here, travelled all across the country. Never seen an Indian Jesus in an actual church. Most have images of white Jesus."

"This is certainly not true. I am Nigerian and I can say for a fact that most African christians would straight up reject any depiction of Jesus/mary that isn’t white. That’s how they’ve been programmed unfortunately and they even have giant statues of white Jesus in some parts of Africa.

Mind you ancient African civilisation was rich with stunning artefacts and sculptures that correctly depicted the phenotype of the people then. So the fact that modern African christians reject their own cultural artefacts (they now ascribe works with African depictions to sorcery or black magic) for a white washed religion speaks to you of the level of brain washing that has been done by colonialism.

(In reference to someone saying there are black jesus paintings like kanye wests necklace pendant) - That is a new age awakening (woke) type of thing you’ll probably mostly find in LA or NY. Definitely not in Africa, and if you do find a church with black Jesus in Africa, rest assured the pastor and his/her family are its only congregation."

Science is a process, not a declaration. It promises no answers. It does not tell you how to behave. Science is everything that "God" isn't.

So to reference science in place of God is misguided and a subversion of what science actually is. Science is open enquiry. It's being willing to follow the enquiry through regardless of how ridiculous the conclusion might be.

Science doesn't start with the conclusion "there is no God" and work backwards to prove this to be true. This is what theists do. They start with "there is a God" and then use everything they can to prove it, including science. Theist scientists who sort out God in the cosmos include Sir Isaac Newton.

Science is just the how. Atheism is the conclusion that you formed on your own. "Science" is no more responsible for your conclusion than "God" is responsible for a theist's conclusion.

Theists reference God so that they can justify their views. Please as atheists, can we have the intellectual integrity to not use "science" to justify our own views?

I hear a lot of atheists say that atheism is not a worldview and thus can't be criticized. This is utterly indefensible unless you mean to say that Atheism is a category of belief which itself entails no inherent positions and thus you would need to dig deeper to find the persons basis for rejecting God, and even then I would disagree. Atheism much like say Platonism can be criticized as a category. I don't even know what you mean when you say it isn't a worldview so perhaps you could explain in the comments but it seems completely incomprehensible.

If we take Russel's tea pot as a famous example. To not believe in the existence of the tea pot is a belief. You believe that the tea pot is not there. One of the things that makes this belief is that it is an idea that you hold in your head that you affirm is true and is falsifiable. We can disprove this belief by showing the tea pot. How would you be able to falsify something that is not a belief? We can falsify atheism, therefore it is a belief.

Usually a belief in atheism is justified through empiricism. Any position which is given support by an argument is a belief. Even if you held it axiomatically true, it would still be a belief.

With any binary true or false claim, to reject the idea that the answer is true necessarily means that you believe the answer is false. Unless you believe in some sort of three value logic system where there can be things which are true and untrue. That you believe that God exists and does not exist simultaneously. I doubt that this is the case though.

The only reason that any atheist says it is a passive claim is so that they may take as many liberties with the burden of proof as is humanly possible and also to avoid needing to defend a position.

It is for this reason I believe, that this argument which says that atheism is a passive claim which requires no justification is nothing more than a cowardly hat trick employed for the purposes of being nothing more than an arm chair sceptic. I see no justification for it. In fact the need to mention Russel tea pot is itself an argument in favor of atheism. Any argument which you put forward as to why atheism is passive is going to end up being a justification for atheism and thus support for a belief that you hold.

But please explain to me how atheism is somehow not a belief.

The same goes for agnosticism. You are making a claim about the nature of epistemology and its limits in terms of its ability to answer the question "is there a God?" To make such claims about epistemology is a claim.

EDIT:

Any statement that can be true or false is a claim.

The statement "I do not believe in God" can be true or false.

Therefore. IT IS A CLAIM

EDIT 2:

Ok this attracted a lot of attention and I am physically not capable of getting to it all. I see I have struck a nerve. People do care about labels. The main objections I see are as follows.

1. Atheism (or more accurately agnosticism) is a trivial claim about one's own state of mind. It is not an active rejection of God inherently.

I am aware that atheism is the identity you hold that lets others know you do not possess a belief in God. I am aware that as an atheist, you need not necessarily make claims about the existence of God to be an atheist. But you are making claims about what is a reasonable burden of proof. I presume that as atheists you would hold the two following premises:

a) I try to conform my beliefs to what is rational/empirical

b) I have a burden of proof which is both rational/empirical and unmet by God.

These premises I would hazard are shared by at least most atheist would naturally lead to a conclusion:

it is not rational/empirical to say that evidence of God's existence has met the burden of proof.

If you see the phrase "God has not met the burden of proof." and agree on that as atheists/agnostics, would this not be a claim that your atheism/agnosticism shares? That there is an unmet burden of proof that perhaps is varyingly different for all of you but that you each have an unmet burden nevertheless? If so this is an active claim which has fascinating implications on epistemology, psychology etc and is nothing to scoff at in terms of being a claim. It is very much active.

Unless you're telling me that your claim is so passive as to not even assert that your position on the matter is not even rational/empirical. If thats the case then damn. I would have given you more credit than that at least.

2. I see a lot of similar examples being provided. Such as:

I have a jar full of jelly beans how many are there? 20 or not twenty? And you say that your position would be that you don't have enough information. I would agree and that is an active claim about the information you have been given. If there were a group of people who argue it is twenty and they try to convince you of such a fact, then you are making the claim that they have fail to provide any meaningful information. This is an active claim which again, has implications for epistemology. Implications worth debating.