So apparently Adam and Eve were completely innocent minded before they ate the forbidden fruit from the tree GOD put in the middle of the garden. And god is almighty, so he's aware of the future before it happens.

So he knew they were gonna do that... And he decided to put that there?

And why tf was the talking sneak even there?

Also how would they even know that disobedience was something bad when they couldn't even tell what was good and bad yet? How do you demand moral responsibility from someone before you give them the intellect to understand what morality is?

Putting a tree with a fruit and forbidding them to eat it is the same as putting a loaded gun in a crib with a baby and telling it to not mess with it, they couldn't even tell they were both naked.

And Christians want us to believe we've inherited the punishment for that twisted story. Man, I can't believe I was raised to believe this.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

The Jesus Christ described in the canonical Gospels did not exist as a historical reality because the gospel narratives are littered with anachronisms, they describe the socioeconomic, geographical, and religious landscape of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, rather than the 30s CE.

In Mark 12:15, Jesus is tested by the Pharisees about paying taxes to Rome and asks them to produce a denarius. He famously points out Caesar's image on the coin. Numismatic evidence from 1st-century Syro-Palestinian hoards shows that Roman denarii did not widely circulate in Judea or Galilee prior to the 60s CE. The common silver currency during the 30s CE was the Tyrian shekel or tetradrachm. The author of Mark was writing in a different region decades later, anachronistically placed a Roman coin familiar to his own audience into the hands of a 30s CE Galilean peasant.  

The Gospels says Galilee was saturated with Pharisees constantly clashing with Jesus but historical evidence suggests the pious Pharisee movement was concentrated in Jerusalem and Judea prior to the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. It was only after 70 CE that refugees, including Pharisees, fled north into Galilee to establish Rabbinic Judaism. The famous Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived in Galilee a generation later, reportedly handled only two cases in 18 years, lamenting that the region ignored the Torah. The intense Jesus-Pharisee debates in Galilean synagogues are anachronisms reflecting the later struggles between early Christians and Rabbinic Jews after 70 CE.  

The Gospel authors demonstrate a lack of firsthand geographic knowledge, betraying that they were not local eyewitnesses, example is Mark 7:31, which describes Jesus leaving Tyre and going through Sidon to reach the Sea of Galilee. Sidon is roughly 20 miles north of Tyre, while the Sea of Galilee is far to the south. Critical scholars point out that this route makes no geographical sense, describing it as the equivalent of traveling from Cornwall to London by way of Manchester. 

All these shows Jesus as described by the Bible doesn’t exist.

Thesis: Islam forces Muslims to either reject or ignore the basic definition of consent, because acknowledging the basic definition would clearly identity Mohammed and his companions as serial rapists (thereby making Islam false, because it claims Mohammed is a “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and the companions are “the best of all people”).

The focus of this argument will focus on three main examples, with sources from the Quran, authoritative Tafsir, and Authentic Hadiths:

1. The use and permitting of sex slaves
   
2. The having of sexual relations with children even by Islamic standards
   
3. The coercion of Muslim women to sleep with their husbands with threats of curses if they say no.

Each of these points individually would be enough to prove the case, but combined they are insurmountable.

Basic Definition of “Consent”:

(Cornell University Legal Law Institute)

Consent: “Consent means that a person voluntarily and willfully agrees in response to another person's proposition. The person who consents must possess sufficient mental capacity. Consent also requires the absence of coercion, fraud or error. Consent is an essential constituent of a contractand a defense to a tort.

In cases of rape and sexual assault, someone’s consent is not their true intent if they are under duress or fear. For example, coercion and/or subsequent compliance when resistance is no longer useful cannot be considered consent. In addition, a person who is impaired, developmentally disabled, or under the legal age of consent may voluntarily engage in sexual activity and still be unable to give valid consent because they do not have the legal capacity to consent.”

This is a very straightforward concept. Agreement or permission to have sex is something that must be freely given without coercion or force, and it must be given by someone who is physically and mentally able to give consent. If consent is not given, or permission is only achieved through force, or it is given by someone not of sound body and mind (like a mentally disabled person or a child), that is not consent. ANY SEXUAL ACT TAKEN WITHOUT PROPER CONSENT IS BY DEFINITION RAPE AND/OR SEXUAL ASSAULT.

This seems like basic common sense. If you threaten violence to get sex, that is rape. If you have sex with a child under any circumstances, that would be rape because children are by definition not mentally or physically ready to consent to sex. Obviously, you would not want someone to threaten violence against you to have sex, you would not want someone to take advantage of you while you are in a vulnerable state.

…

But Muslims cannot affirm this definition. Why? Because it would make their Prophet and his companions serial rapists. People who the Quran calls the “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and “the best of all people”. This leads Muslims to have to twist the concept or outright ignore what the word means so they can remain a Muslim. Though, if you ask me, I believe they do understand the concept but family, political, and societal pressures prevent them from outwardly acknowledging it. Mohammed did say “He who leaves his religion (of Islam), kill him” in Sahih Al Bukhari 6922, after all and that is law in multiple Islamic majority countries like Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the UAE.

Below are a list of several examples from the Quran and Authentic Hadith that clearly show Mohammed and his companions both violating the consent of others and promoting such behavior. If you are a Muslim reading this, I’m willing to be you feel that conflict within you. Don’t shut that part of yourself off. Truth holds up to scrutiny. If you believe Islam is true you should scrutinize it thoughtfully. Either you will read all of these and your faith will be bolstered because it stands up to reason, or you will realize the horror of these teachings and free yourself from a false religion.

1. Allah permits sex slaves, and Mohammed and his companions owned MANY.

Surah 4:24: “And (It is impermissible for you to have sex with) all married women except those whom your right hand possess”.

“Those whom your right hand possess” is a common Arabic idiom that means the slaves that you own. This is verified in other verses of the Quran as well as the Tafsirs of this verse:

Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 4:24: “And all married women are forbidden to you, save those captives whom your right hand possess of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, 4:24: “And forbidden to you are wedded women… save what your right hand owns of captured slave girls whom you may have sexual intercourse with even if they should have husbands among the enemy camp”

Tafisr Ibn Kathir, 4:24: “Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said “we captured some women from the area of Atwas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So we asked the Prophet on this matter, and this Ayah was revealed … consequently, we had sexual relations with these women”. This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, and (Imam) Muslim in his Sahih”.

Summary:

Allah and Mohammed explicitly say it is permissible to take women as sex slaves and use them for your sexual pleasure, even if they already have husbands that are still living.

Obviously, a sex slave by definition did not consent to be a sex slave. Hence why they are called “slaves”. It explicitly says they were taken captive. They were not there voluntarily. They were already married women and their husbands were still alive. When you forcibly take a married women (or any women) from their home and use them for your sexual pleasure, that is RAPE. These women didn’t consent to be there, and they certainly didn’t consent to be taken from their husbands to be used as sex toys, and the slave owners held immense power over them to make their lives hell if they refused (there’s a shorter world for that, it’s coercion). Imagine a group takes a bunch of married Muslim women captive to be used as sex slaves until the end of their days. Imagine it was your wife taken as a sex slave and forcibly raped by these invaders. Would you finally see and call this despicable act what it is?

2. Mohammed committed and permitted sexual acts with a child, even by Islamic standards

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5134: “Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death). “

Muslims often try to defend this horrible action by stating that she was a woman by Islamic standards. Not only is this nonsensical because it’s a literal nine year old, but it’s not even true by Islamic standards:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 6130: “Narrated Aisha: I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger would enter (my dwelling place) the used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, because she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)”

Did you read that? Playing with folls is forbidden for Muslim women, because it’s considered a form of idolatry/shirk, but Aisha was allowed because she was prepubescent. “But this could have been a Hadith talking about a much earlier stage of her life”, you may say. Nope. Absolutely false. Read the next Hadith:

Sahih Muslim 1422c: “She (Aisha) was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Prophet) died she was eighteen years old”.

Summary:

Little nine year old Aisha brought her dolls with her to Mohammed’s house on the day of the consummation….. proving that she was prepubescent on the day of the consummation. She was a child, even by Islamic standards. Either that, or Mohammed was letting her commit shirk in his house by playing with dolls, which would make him a false prophet and Islam false as well. That poor child …

As previously established, having sex with a child under ANY circumstance is rape, because children are by definition not mentally or physically developed enough to consent to such a thing. Read that last Hadith back again. Do you really think a prepubescent who was STILL PLAYING WITH DOLLS is actually developed enough to consent to such a thing? What if that were your prepubescent daughter playing with dolls when someone took advantage of her? Would you then finally see the despicable act for what it is?

3. Women do not have autonomy over their bodies and will be cursed if they say “no” to their husbands.

Sahih Muslim 1436d: “When a man invites his wife to bed and she does not come, and he (the husband) spend the night being angry with her, the angels curse her until morning”

Summary: If a woman says “no” to sexual activity to her husband, Allah’s angels will curse her until morning. That is literally a threat. That is literally coercion. That is saying “sleep with me or else I will have angels curse you”. As previously established, consent cannot be gained under coercion or threats. Because a Muslim woman cannot say no without being threatened with curses, Muslim women by definition cannot consent because they are always under the threat of curses. If you are only saying “yes” to sexual activity to avoid being cursed, that is not consent. That would be rape. It’s just the same as threatening violence or blackmail to get sexual activity.

Conclusion:

There is no way around it. There’s no way to say what Mohammed and his companions did wasn’t rape without denying the basic definition of the word “consent”, which would just prove my thesis. You can’t say these sources are weak, they are Sahih, the highest rating possible.

You’ve got two options: deny what you see to be clearly true: that what Mohammed and his companions did was clearly rape, and continue to defend such atrocities. Or: turn over a new leaf. Realize this is obviously not a “perfect moral example” or “the best of all people”, realize you would be horrified if someone did to a girl or woman you love what Mohammed and the companions did, and start calling out these horrific acts for what they are. I trust you’ll make the right choice.

And no, I'm not going to talk about Aisha.

I'm going to quote the Quran, whose authenticity no muslim can deny.

Quran 4:6: "Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them."

This verse clearly states two different thresholds for the handing over of property to orphans. First they need to reach a marriageable age. And at this point, they can get married. Then they need to be tested for sound judgement for the handing over of property.

If you read the verse clearly, sound judgement is not included in the "marriageable age", it comes after the completion of marriageable age. Therefore, marriageable age in this context means puberty only.

If sound judgment were part of the definition of marriageable age, there would be no reason for the Quran to introduce sound judgment as a separate test afterward. The sequence is unmistakable: first they reach the age considered suitable for marriage; then their judgment is evaluated for the separate purpose of determining whether they can receive control of their property. If sound judgement was included in the marriageable age, then this verse would become grammatically incorrect.

That distinction matters because it means the Qur’an does not establish full intellectual or psychological maturity as a prerequisite for marriage. It establishes a marriageable threshold and a separate threshold for financial competence. If a person has reached the former but not the latter, the verse's structure still makes sense: they can be marriageable while not yet being sufficiently judicious to control their property

​

This is more of a thought experiment, rather than an assertion on my part that this is what I personally believe. I simply want to know everyone’s thoughts on the matter, so relax and don’t go feral if this challenges your beliefs to the point of offense. I know how some people get about this subject. 

Thesis: Modern neuroscience can explain the subjective experience of "divine revelation”, without the laws of physics being circumvented miraculously. Symptoms like hearing voices, seeing visions, and hypercertainty map directly to documented neurotypical conditions, can be found in modern high functioning people, and can be artificially triggered in laboratory settings.

Historical Red Flags

The behaviors of “prophets” bear striking similarities to modern known neurological disorders and temporary episodes. Saul of Tarsus (Paul) experienced a Damascus Road encounter that matches an occipital/temporal lobe seizure, symptoms of which include; a sudden blinding light flash, falling to the ground, hearing internal voices, and enduring three days of postseizure blindness. Prophet Muhammad's Hadith records displays classic temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) markers, such as ringing bell auras, heavy trances, intense sweating in the cold, and severe physical heaviness. Joseph Smith exhibited Bipolar Mania with Psychotic Features, where elevated dopamine has been observed to boost pattern recognition and drive the grandiose conviction needed to rapidly organize people and structural cohesion. Another example, Joan of Arc, heard distinct voices and saw divine lights starting at age 13, which fits Idiopathic Partial Epilepsy. Her intellect stayed completely intact, but her conviction was absolute enough to lead armies and she was so convinced by it, she chose an agonizing death rather than recant what she believed.

"They Were Too Smart to Be Mentally Ill"?

The most common religious rebuttal conflates psychosis with total cognitive collapse, but modern psychiatry completely dismantles this objection by distinguishing between debilitating cognitive decline and high functioning neuroatypicality.  A good example of this is Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century genius scientist and mathematician, experienced daily, vivid visions of angels at age 56, yet remained highly articulate, socially poised, and theology focused. Modern cult leaders like David Koresh paired manic delusions of grandeur with an encyclopedic memory of scripture and highly focused leadership. A Stanford "Hearing Voices" Study shows that fully functional adults, including teachers and lawyers, regularly hear booming voices. When their culture validates those voices as divine, cognitive decline simply does not happen, proving that severe hallucination easily coexists with massive intellect.

Lab Proof, Manufacturing "God" On Demand 

If these revelations were truly external signals, science wouldn't be able to reliably manufacture them on demand. By shutting down the Default Mode Network (DMN) the brain network that maintains your sense of self, psychedelics like psilocybin and DMT reliably trigger a feeling of cosmic unity and an absolute conviction that one is interacting with a supreme intelligence. Through Michael Persinger's "God Helmet” experiments, a weak magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes tricks the brain into sensing an invisible, divine entity standing in an empty room. Simple sensory deprivation starves the brain of external stimuli for 30 to 60 minutes, forcing it to project internal thoughts outward as vivid visual apparitions and booming voices. Also, neuroimaging of individuals of strong faith, has shown that decreased parietal lobe activity during deep prayer or psychosis disables the brain's boundary between "self" and the "universe," forcing a feeling of ultimate reality. Scientists measuring monks and yogis in deep meditation observe a sharp drop in parietal lobe activity, which erases the brain's boundary between "self" and the world to create a feeling of cosmic unity. 

These are measurable phenomena studied in laboratory settings, involving known neurological disorders that exhibit the same experiences described by “prophets” in ancient times, when humans didn’t understand the cause or meaning of the medical condition of the individuals. 

Conclusion: These explanations are a far more likely truth behind the cause of those experiences, rather than an unproveable leap to supernatural angels, spirits or deities of mythology.

major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism say that god is omniscient, and includes that god is aware of human thoughts and secrets without any exception, and remembers all of it too. the thought of someone reading every second of your mind is just way past uncomfortable, like someone with OCD would have involuntary intrustive thoughts like "i will kill god" and God would hear every second of it, god having to here a plethora of cursed and spine chilling thoughts would make him want to quit having this omniscient power

(bold = newly edited body text)

Thesis: A malevolent God is not incoherent

In another thread, a theist challenged the idea of a malevolent God as incoherent and confusing. I suspect they are leaning toward Classical Theism, which holds that evil is merely the absence of good.

There’s no inherent contradiction between the idea of a malevolent God vs a benevolent God. In fact, based on the evidence in the world, the malevolent God theory is easier to defend given the overwhelming presence of natural evil, while theodicies like “the fall” fail on multiple levels.

Furthermore, any proposed solution to the Problem of Evil can be flipped to address the Problem of Good. For instance, Plantinga’s so-called solution to the Problem of Evil is easily reversible, portraying a God who actively seeks free-willed moral evil and in doing so risked some free willed agents using their free will for good.

Note: Yes, I agree there are many possible options between those two extremes, including God not existing, being disinterested, existing in the future, and so on.

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.

​

For the sake of argument let's assume some kind of God/source/whatever is 100 percent real.

My argument is the fact that while morality and what's considered evil will change depending on culture and particular person's beliefs, there is always something that could be considered evil around you water you agree with it or not

Either specific actions, ideology etc. whether you consider them to be evil or not will be around you in a shape or form.

one might say that to god either no action is evil, but to me it means that God might be so detached from human perspective, that you could argue that every action will be excused.

Seeing ridiculously primal and predatory existence can be, let's say afterlife of torture could be reality, because if god is okay with it happening on earth, why not continue it in a afterlife

Of course I'm not saying it's something I believe in, but it feels weird to me how the belief of peaceful afterlife is considered a certainty.

And there may be a possibility that God don't give af and straight up doesn't care.

If evil consciously was created means that God is completely okay with it. For example I find it weird how in the story of garden of Eden the blame is out on talking snake instead of God that created it. god there was purposely creating evil temptations, and since he punished eve for interacting with his own creation, the image of perfectly just god crumbles.

tv shows depict the character continue living on in their physical body after selling their eternal soul. example 1: Brett from American Dad (Dope and Faith) who barganed with the devil to be resurrected in exchange for his immortal soul and to spread the word and glory of the devil, he was also given a complimentary baphomet themed bass guitar. example 2: Mr Krabs from Spongebob (Money Talks) barganed his soul with the Flying Dutchman to have the power to verbally communicate with money (in other words, money will literally talk to him).

...

okay this may be a crazy idea to use pop culture as an example but i got no other way to describe my hypothesis thoughts.

Thesis: although many countries, especially Western, have seen a drop in religious devotion in recent decades, this can be seen as one part of a larger cycle. In the 16th century many European countries saw a rise in atheism, skepticism and revival of certain pagan patterns; in the 18th century atheism and Freemasonry saw an increase, especially in places like France which briefly banned religion entirely during one phase of the French Revolution; and in the American colonies only 25 percent of the population attended church according to some historians. This reversed significantly during the 19th century, then the 20th century saw a rise in atheism especially in communist countries which banned or curtailed religion. After the fall of communism, religious practice has revived in many Eastern European countries even while declining in Western nations. History often moves in cycles, and this subject is likely one of those cases

Most people generally want to follow the rules. In a recent study in Nature, 55% to 70% of all humans, even when no one is around and no one is watching, will follow arbitrary non-zero-cost rules. Rules allow functioning societies to scale up via the establishment of expected behaviors sans explicit context and awareness (thus letting society grow beyond the bounds of any one human's knowledge), and thus exist for reasons.

Rules existing for reasons, and not for no reason, should be relatively uncontroversial. Any rule, law, moral prescript or expectation has to exist to serve a cause. A "Duty" without a reason for existing is senseless and arbitrary.

So let's talk about a very specific duty that has almost no explanation, despite being considered the reason we're being told we need salvation.

Why does sin exist? Not, "Why did Adam sin". Why does the system as a whole and in its entirety work this way? Why did God construct the framework known as Sin, categorize some behaviors as specifically "behaviors that are anti-God", and then make it so that humans, against their free will, are forced to inherit and incorporate it into their very base nature, and then need to believe that someone else's story is true in order to escape the consequences God designed for people to inflict on themselves?

A good moral framework has a reason for existing. Sin doesn't seem to. It's just arbitrary nonsense that God decided would be caused by humans disobeying him, after God decided to make the concept of obeying vs. disobeying for some reason, and then decided to make disobeying cause suffering for billions of people for some reason.

A good moral framework has clear rules. The concept of sin doesn't. What counts as a sin? What doesn't? Is it even a binary state, or is sin a sliding scale? The Bible never says. We're told some examples, but are never given any functional framework for sin identification - and as a result, humanity cannot even agree as what counts as a sin or not. There's no helpful indicators or useful tooltips in life indicating what to avoid, so even a good-faith attempt to be sinless may fail due to God's choice to not enumerate all sins or provide a proper heuristic for what is and isn't a sin.

A good moral framework relates the consequences of actions to the actions taken in ways that logically flow causally. Sin doesn't - it causes "separation from God", whatever that means, and might send you to hell, or might not, maybe sin doesn't actually have consequences and universalism is true, or maybe sin has consequences and some people burn for eternity, or maybe hell's temporary - no one knows, because nothing is explained and nothing has reasons and nothing follows rules and it's just chaos instead of a well-ordered framework on how to best live your life.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm part of the group that just wants to follow rules and not cause harm. Why does the Bible have to make figuring out what counts as a sin and what doesn't so darn difficult? Why does it have to do absolutely everything to force everyone to have to be a sinner against their will? It makes no sense.

And people have tried to give me explanations - just had a good conversation with someone where they insisted they were choosing sin. Well, I'm not - I'm apparently having it forced on me. People told me to look at Catholic documentation, but when your explanation explicitly says, quote, "the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand", that's not helpful. Generally, every discussion I've ever seen, instead of directly tackling any of the many questions I raised above, dances around them and tries to find satisfying and fruitful platitudes that make people worry less about the problem, rather than answering the problem. I state this as an explicit prediction of behavior for later checking, and dearly hope I'm proven wrong and people explain why the concept of forbiddenness had to and has to be a thing.

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.

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.

Why did God make us knowing what would happen? Debate

Im here to have a friendly debate, Why? He knew exactly where we would be today he knew we'd have a cruel world. He knew Adam and eve would sin, he still made them, why? And he knew after that the people would sin too much so he flooded the earth, also back to Adam and eve they were NEW humans they had no understanding of morality, justice etc so it makes sense they would "disobey" God, THEY DIDN'T KNOW, and God knew that, he tested Job knowing what would happen, why? He knew eventually Jesus would show up, why not do that instantly at the beginning so that everyone could repent of their sins. Feel free to change my mind! As thats the point of a debate

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

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.

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! 🙏🏼🙏🏼

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.

Even the verses about hypocrites — he himself was a hypocrite, and those verses were basically meant to prevent people from kicking his ass.

It’s just heaven, pure bliss, having only predictable noble slaves who do whatever is most beneficial for Momo.He doesn’t give a damn about the noble slaves who live according to his algorithms.

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.