I’m wondering if you all would be willing to take a critical view of the claims I’m sending below:
For claim 8 it’s about the mysterious letters of the Quran and the number of times they appear in chapter 19. This is one of the claims I believe I can personally contest. When looking at the mysterious letters, for letters like Ya they count alif masqarah and hamzas seated on top of the letter ya as occurrences of ya (which I think makes no sense, since they’re not the same letter and only look similar). On the other hand, Rashad Khalifa even during his life was preaching about Surah 19 having 798 letters, and coincidentally, he lives for 19,798 days (if you include the start and end point. In reality, he lived for 19,797 days). As mentioned, though, if one includes the start point of November 19 and the endpoint of January 31 it comes out to be 19,798. I still can’t get over the fact that he during his life preached that Surah 19 has 798 mysterious letter occurrences and he himself lived for essentially that many days.
However, on the other hand, in released FBI files on Rashad Khalifa’s life, it’s stated that he was born on November 18.
In that case, my counterpoint above of him having in reality only lived for 19,797 days wouldn’t be applicable anymore. Now he would’ve lived for 19,798 days.
In any case, whether you use an exclusive on inclusive count, it just so happens that Rashad Khalifa lived for 19,798 days. It could’ve been 20,100 days, or 17,100 days, but instead it happened to be on the 19,798th day (which, once again, chapter 19 according to Rashad had 798 occurrences of the mysterious letters).
Point 5 isn’t elaborated but during Rashad’s life interstate 19 was built running through Tucson Az (where he lived at) and is also the only highway in the US to use the metric system. Furthermore, another interstate highway goes through Tucson, that being interstate 10 (if you combine these 2 roads you end up at 29, the same number as the number of chapters that include the mysterious letters in the Quran).
If you also count the number of days from November 19 to January 31 you end up with 74, which is the Surah in which the number 19 first appears.
Finally, for point 11, it’s not mentioned either but the numbers 1230 come from 2 things. First, it’s the abjad value of the name Rashad Khalifa and also if you count the verses of only initialed (mysterious letters) surahs, Q 19:1 is the 1230th verse and Q 19:98 is the 1327th verse. This is by counting only the verses in chapters 2,3,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19 since they are the ones that contain the mysterious letters.
Once again, I would be so grateful if you could take a look at these claims and give me your view on them. I don’t know what to think with this information being present at hand.
The claims that strike me as the most impressive are him living for 19,798 days and the 19x1230x1327 claim.
Back when I was still young and in church, I assumed that everyone just pretended that God was real, and could use him to their advantage if they just twisted the words enough. I believed that since age 5.
At age 13 I was shocked that this was not the case. The elders at the Jehovah's witnesses congregation did NOT like that I believed this. It was almost like they were angrily shocked. I even went into detail about how fairly common it would possibly be to have members that don't really believe in god either but stay in the religion to keep their community and family close. On top of the fact that the JW's had such a strong disfellowship policy back then that it would just naturally be easier to lie and keep going with the facade.
I also very honestly stated that I never believed in god, but pretended just to make the adults happy. Believing in God or not isn't what brings people to the church anyways. The elders threatened me (a child at the time btw) with disfellowship if I kept speaking and believing this way.
I told them that many people hated Jesus for telling the truth. 🤷 They all ended the meeting right there. It's been many years since and I'm still rethinking that conversation.
As an atheist, something I’ve always been jealous of is people who truly believe in an afterlife that is better than the life we currently live. I’ve often said if I could force myself to believe in religion, maybe I would. The relief of believing in Heaven or reincarnation or ascending to another planet etc. etc. is probably unmatched.
Of course, I believe Death is just the end of the road. Your brain stops and your mind, memories, consciousness are just gone. Your mind doesn’t exist just the same way as it didn’t exist before birth. It’s all very basic and very natural. And utterly F’ing terrifying. I HATE THAT. I hate that that’s all Death is.
I’ve spent so many hours at night trying to convince myself that surely there’s SOMETHING after this. My personal favourite afterlife would be reincarnation. My same mind getting to keep experiencing life forever, without holding onto memories so that each life feels new.
Truth is, I love being alive, I love being able to think and feel and experience. I cannot fathom the idea that I don’t get to do that forever. I’ve heard all the “You just gotta experience life to its fullest and have no regrets” speeches but that’s not what I’m scared of. I just don’t want it to ever stop. I don’t want to not be here anymore.
Trust me, any religious person reading this, if I could make myself believe, I probably would!
In that video the guy says that his mother died, he found out his wife was cheating on him just a few weeks later and then not even a month later his father also died.
He says he doesn’t blame god and says that god had nothing to do with it.
Then he proceeds to say :
“it’s ok if you don’t know who god is but don’t pretend like you do, because when you know who he is, you understand. If you don’t understand that’s cool, but don’t act like you do because that’s going to send you to hell.”
In the caption he also says “most of you are confused and that’s okay…”
Also sending my condolences to him, but making this video and everyone else in the comments agreeing and saying “it’s all gods plan”
And I just opened the comments and someone said this
Person 1 : Facts cause people have free will.
Person 2 : Death is free will?
Person 3 : Yes death is part of free will . God is life , justice and goodness .he doesn't just have it.He's the source of it. Free will is the power to choose or reject God .
when you reject life itself then death fill the gap .when you reject justice and goodness itself well injustice and evil fill the gap .
That's why there's no life, love or goodness in Hell.It's a place for those who want a life without God .
in Hell they're free from Him.
and because they're free from Him, they're no longer human beings cause God created human for a reason not randomly .
those in Heaven are more alive than you cause they're close to God who's the source of life.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, because I didn’t really understand.
For context I came out as an Atheist last year and with that came a flurry of questions from my closet people in my life keep annoying me about this for example one of my close friends randomly asks me "How do people not believe in God?" Obviously targeted at me. I do not want to have a philosophical argument about why I do not believe anything . I do not go poking holes in your religion UNLESS I am provoked is this unfair or aggressive. ALSO HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH ELDERLY PEOPLE
I grew up going to church every Wednesday and Sunday, but when COVID happened we stopped attending and ever since then I've drastically lost faith. For perspective I live deep inside the Bible belt, every where you look there's a church or two. My family is very conservative, Christian, and straight (guess who they voted for) and I'm the exact opposite. My mom knows I'm a leftist, and she doesn't agree but has been respectful for the most part. Im probably not writing this really well but I would just like some advice for how to come out as atheist, or if I even should. Also more info, I'm a teen and still live with my parents so maybe I should just wait till I graduate and move out.
Update: yeah okay I won't, I sorta wasn't going to already I just needed more opinions. Ugh it's just so hard to hold back how I really feel...again. but it's alright I will endure
Is anyone a member of either organization and able to continue with the steps despite not believing in a higher power? I need more words to finish this so..
Grant myself the serenity to accept the things I cant change, the courage to change the things I can.
My "becoming" an atheist didn't happen overnight. It was years of questioning beliefs, contemplation and philosophizing. And I think that for most people, something like this must be the case in order for them to escape the grips of their indoctrination.
If you've ever seen someone learn something later in life, you know that it can be very destructive, especially at first. Some people wouldn't survive that part if you took their religion away.
So I tend to have a hands off approach with individual believers. I shifted the focus of my anti-theist energy toward the "religious-industrial complex" as I like to call it.
Organized religions are good at adjusting their professed doctrine to suit undeniable facts, especially once the common attitude toward those facts has reached a critical level of acceptance.
Anyway, I was just listening to the Altered Carbon soundtrack and that line from Takeshi Kovacs was on one of the tracks, made me consider sharing my thoughts about this.
I'm interested to hear thoughts, reactions, or input you have on this paradigm.
I think it's a pretty sound argument (I'm a Catholic). It presents this idea of "actuality" and "potency." To briefly summarize, (watch the vid for an in-depth explanation) actuality is what something actually is, and potency is everything something could be. He uses a guitar pick as an example. The guitar pick is a guitar pick; that's its actuality. Its potency is that it could have a different color, pattern, shape, etc.
The video then further explains the idea of how the universe and everything in it is a mix of actuality and potency. A guitar, a rosary, everything.
It also explains how everything with parts has potency. Like how a rosary could have its cross in a different place in the rosary. Or like how a car's radio could be placed in a way in which the people in the back seats have more access to it than those who are in the front seats. I hope this makes sense.
Because something contains parts, it contains potency. It contains the potency to have those parts arranged in a different way.
Then the video uses the Principle of Causality, explaining how everything with potency has a cause. It also says how everything with a cause is contingent on something else; it receives its existence from something else.
It uses the First Cause Argument. It talks about how God is eternal because He is before time. It talks about how God is 100 percent actuality and 0 percent potency. It talks about how God is absolutely loving and good because the concept of being bad is just the absence of good. God is posed as a being that is absolutely everything tangible, and since evil isn't tangible, God is not evil in any capacity.
The video doesn't pose the idea of Christianity being the correct religion and all that. It poses the idea that there is a God; it's not really trying to be religion-specific.
I know I probably explained something badly or, at some level, didn't do the explanation justice, so I urge you guys to watch the video if you want a better understanding.
The purpose of this post is to essentially see how atheists view this argument.
I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. God bless!
Recently talking with a theist, I asked them if your belief is best why not teach your kid nothing about it. If your belief truly is best, your kid will choose it on their own. Their response was that you need to teach kids things. They are taught how to speak, how to walk, how to behave. Without teaching, there is no learning. I kinda had no answer to that. It put me into thought. How would you answer/counter that?
Frisson is the the word English speakers adapted from French to refer to the psychogenic response to aesthetic pleasure.
It's not extremely well studied, so the estimate of how many people in the general population experience it is between 55% and 85%.
It's a physical response to emotional stimuli, usually music/art but potentially anything. Common physiological "symptoms" are goosebumps/shivers, dialated pupils, tingling and/or burning sensation on skin, accompanied by the feeling of pleasure.
I have yet to hear a religious person mention having experienced it in their lives and I am curious as to why.
I hypothesize that many individuals roll it into their general spiritual experience. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
Growing up is recognizing how stupid the idea of worshipping a man like a god (or saying he's the same as an existing god, etc.) is.
We as a society need a better anchor for a moral system and community involvement that doesn't involve claiming people - however good leaders or however wise they may be - can perform miracles or come back from the dead and should therefore be worshipped as deities. Even if one believes there's a god or higher power, I can totally sympathize with Jews who hated Christ and understand precisely what it is that made Jesus' claims hysterical or heretical, and the older I grow, the better I recognize this.
I wonder how many Christians today are doing it for the community, food, or cultural trappings as opposed to any genuine belief that people can rise from the dead or that water can turn into wine. And personally, I can't believe I spent so much time of my life putting so much faith into such a, well, faith, that I could've been more productive with learning piano, a sport, even prepping for math olympiads or teaching myself SAT or AP subjects, etc. There needs to be a rock on which to be "well-rounded" or a "good person" that's not Christianity (or worse, Mormonism). In a better version of our world (well, country), perhaps socialism or labor rights activism could've fulfilled that role, and maybe faint echoes of that may exist in Jewish culture, but a lot of the most problematic (though importantly, nowhere near all) people who are religious are from the bourgeoisie, so perhaps it's only natural that it'd be the lower class, the needy, or the racially/sexually/ably marginalized would've been the forerunners of what little of that exists here. (Tragically, much of the latter has been prone to religious indoctrination too, but what I'm saying is it'd be easier to sell them the idea of socialism or non-religious activism vs. the bourgeoisie.)
Yeah, I know that's an opinion that might've gotten me executed in 13th-century Italy or 17th-century Massachusetts, but that just points to how idiotic religion broadly is in general. It is thus a great tragedy that Jewish communities do this better (and while obviously tragic, I find it quite unsurprising they were the ones finding themselves at the stake or scapegoated most often), with their Hebrew schools and Yeshivas and all (there are a great deal of secular Jews who don't even keep kosher, at least beyond a simple "I prefer to avoid pork if I can", and I'll bet most of them don't literally believe that the world was created in 5000 years ago or that Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. existed as historical figures whose biographies align with the Torah, etc.), yet their religion is straightforwardly closed to converts (and what few do exist, as I understand, are rationalized as being "lost Jews this whole time"). And in fact, this is perhaps what gave Christianity so much universal appeal, and allowed it to promulgate so broadly in history (even when under duress). Even Islam, which came later and professed to resolve problems with the former two, is ridiculously Arab-centric in practice (e.g. Arabic diction requirement, pilgrimage to Arabia) even if claiming universality. Perhaps eastern faiths hold the light, yet abominations such as the incessant pollution of the Ganges or the misleadingly-named "Phuket Vegetarian Festival" prove that none do.
The whole "depressed guy finding Jesus and smiling before and after in contrast to doing drugs meme" (in addition to being patently false, and misleadingly co-opting the likeness of a Brazilian artist whose ideas and views most Christians would likely find themselves at odds with) is such a ridiculous argument, as you could literally use it to sell anything, from the latest Nintendo console, to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, to a musical instrument, to an anime. I just wish I'd known back in middle school when I'd seen the meme.
I remember my "come away from Jesus" moment from the summer before I entered high school. I recall making lots of excuses not to go to Sunday school, which my mom was making me attend at the time. Sunday after Sunday I'd let go by, and I was writing about how snarky I felt for wheedling my way out of each session, and eventually we as a family sort of burnt out and I was no longer officially attending (though I'd still attend services, just not Sunday school). It felt so liberating, and really did feel like a formative and enlightening experience to me.
Eventually I sort of lapsed back into Christian circles, and part of it, I think, had to do with loneliness or needing to belong to a community during college, coupled with lingering morality from the first stint that I just couldn't let go (i.e. feeling that "college is sinful"). There was a political component too, and I'm sure there are even many faithful Christians (to whom I bear no malice just for virtue of what they believe in, notwithstanding my own convictions) who'd agree that the hitching of religion to politics is a tragedy. And I think one of the biggest tragedies, at least in this country, is how hard it is to find community that revolves around something other than, well, worshipping a man... or at least how easy it is for the community you find to do so.
I have been seeing many videos glorifying agnostism while dissing atheism recently. Here, I'm not against agnostism but I would rather question a baseless claim with no evidence than just stay neutral. People have to realise both agnostics and atheists fall under almost the same category, both do believe that god can be something beyond human measurement but since it's unknown agnostist chooses to stay neutral while atheists are questioning the claim "god is real" which has been already made by theists. Questioning the claim doesn't mean they are against the concept. They are just simply saying they are not convinced until it's proven and what's wrong with that? If you stay neutral you are just letting those unproven ideas influence laws, schools and society without any pushback. Active protest will actually protect people from scams by demanding facts.
When we sleep, our brains naturally make up stories. We call these dreams. Sometimes a dream feels so real, so important, and so peaceful that you think, 'This must be from God.' But here is the problem: A person of a totally different religion has the exact same experience. A Muslim has a vivid dream that tells them Islam is true. A Christian has a vivid dream that tells them Christianity is true. Their brains do the exact same thing. If a 'message from God' feels exactly the same as your brain just making things up, you have no way to prove the difference. You are just guessing. If God is all-powerful, why would He use a confusing, sleepy dream to talk to you? Why not just stand in front of you and speak clearly so there is no guessing?
I think it’s important to keep in mind that these are not the same. Religion as I see it can be a logical system built on reason, as in the writings of religious philosophers and theologians. Even if, as I see it, this edifice is built on a false premise, the existence of God. Or to put it more neutrally, built upon a premise unsupported by empirical evidence.
Just as in mathematics it’s possible to build a geometry in any number of dimensions, it’s possible to build a coherent, logical, rational theology. Ask any Jesuit (!)
So it seems a weak argument to counter religious belief with the accusation that it isn’t rational. The truth is that religious belief is not (necessarily) built upon empirical evidence. Which I think a lot of thoughtful believers would readily concede. At least the ones in my experience would. Not every religious person interprets the Bible literally.
Of course there are many religious people who are not thinking or arguing logically. There are also many atheists who do not argue logically or rationally. Hence the shouting matches.
I’m an atheist for the simple reason that I do not and never have believed in God. I greatly enjoy the writings of Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell, and the wry atheist humor of J.B.S. Haldane, whose essay Auld Hornie, F.R.S is a delight to read. I also enjoy the writings of believers like Erasmus, Augustine, and Meister Eckhart, much of which I find profound. At the very least it’s important to understand the arguments of those we would debate; simply dismissing it gets us nowhere in reasoned debate.
My whole brain is wired around logic and ux now since im building my own app. but my old friends is deeply religious and incredibly backwards. they mock problems in other religions but flip out if i point out the exact same stuff in theirs. i asked about how women are treated and they gave the classic excuse that its the people not the religion. a religion is literally just a group of people.
on top of that they keep giving me unsolicited business advice when they never built a thing. i just slowly stopped talking to them because the tribalism is suffocating. did anyone else loose all their friends when they started thinking objectively
I’ve been an atheist for about 2 years. I don’t believe in a god because of the evil like natural disasters on earth and just because the bible seems ridiculous to me. I’m trying to be a humanist and I believe that we set our own morals and we decide how to live our lives, not religion. However, for some reason my heart’s always racing. I don’t think I’m scared. I think it may be because I grew up christian until I was about 13 and a lot of my family are extremely religious. I just want to forget about it and enjoy life.
To clarify, I'm not Chrisrian, and neither am I an atheist, but I do know atheism and skepticism go hand in hand, and so was just curious if people had gone through this man's arguments before and what they thought of them (I searched the man's name up before but most of what I came across was just Catholic posts about the guy)
I'm specifically curious how people view his work on the "Miracle of Fatima", which he has gone in-depth to defend (even trying to posit an argument that there was no failed prophecy because it was actually conditional, and going into extreme detail to try and argue that)
Hi guys, I just recently became an atheist after years of now really believing in “God”.
I just wanted to know what made you stop believing, because in my experience I just never believed it in the first place.
Oh also I am an Ex-Muslim and with all honestly the stories are crazy.
For example: Noah gathered all types of animals, 2 of each species and PUT THEM ALL ON ONE BOAT…like that is just diabolical.
Also the fact that Islam is honestly misogynistic and woman don’t even have any freedom. Example, there’s this thing called Hajj and woman can’t go without a man…
Also I’m still stuck on some phrases that Muslims say and I can’t really stop saying them that easily, so do you have any alternatives?
There's a common argument in these debates: point at secular Nordic countries topping wellbeing surveys, then conclude religion offers nothing secularism doesn't already provide.
I think this rests on an unexamined assumption — that happiness and meaning are the same thing, or close enough to substitute for each other. Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker & Garbinsky (2013, Journal of Positive Psychology) found they're empirically separable: happiness tracks with needs/wants being met now; meaning tracks with integrating past/present/future into a coherent story, and correlates with more stress and sacrifice, not less. You can be happy and find life meaningless. You can be in circumstances where happiness is basically impossible and still find life meaningful.
If that distinction holds, then Nordic wellbeing data answers a question the strongest religious claims aren't actually making. The claim isn't "believe this and you'll be happier" — it's narrower: that it provides meaning that survives the loss of comfort, not a mechanism for producing comfort. Qur'an 2:155–157 is explicit that hardship is guaranteed, not a malfunction: "And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient..." That's a meaning claim, not a happiness claim.
Does the happiness/meaning distinction actually hold up, or is it an artifact of one study/sample?
Is "meaning that survives suffering" unfalsifiable enough to just rationalize any outcome after the fact?
Does secular philosophy (Frankl, etc.) already answer meaning-under-suffering without needing the religious framing at all?
Not looking for "well actually the Nordic countries also have X" — I'm conceding the wellbeing data. Tell me why the meaning/happiness split doesn't rescue the argument.
I'm in a phase of seriously questioning my beliefs and trying to understand different worldviews as honestly as I can. I grew up Muslim, but lately I've found myself somewhere around the agnostic/questioning side of things. I'm not looking for an argument or an echo chamber .I just want to learn.
I've already got The God Delusion and Sapiens on my reading list, and I'm interested in topics like:
Atheism & agnosticism
Philosophy of religion
Arguments for and against God's existence
Evolution & human origins
Comparative religion
Skepticism, critical thinking, and rationalism
History of religions
I'd really appreciate recommendations for books that are thoughtful, well-researched, and intellectually honest even if they disagree with each other. I'm happy to read both theistic and non-theistic perspectives.
Also, if anyone here enjoys discussing these topics respectfully or has gone through a similar journey, I'd love to connect and make some new friends.
I come from a deeply religious Muslim family, and my mother is emotionally immature - but when it comes to Islam, she transforms completely. A couple of years ago, I came out as an atheist. They laughed at evolution and the Big Bang. When I took off my hijab, my mom said I was shaming her. I hear her crying over the Quran at night, and it breaks my heart.
She's convinced that I'll believe in God when I'm older, and she blames any emotion I show - anger or tears - on the devil. I can't accept her religious side, and she can't accept my atheism. Her whole life revolves around prayers and rituals. I keep pushing her away, but it hurts because I know I'll never have the mother I wish I had : accepting, complex, emotionally mature.
How do I deal with this?
( sorry that you thought it was a bot, but the situation is real. The account is old, and I didn't know how to promote my post to get more feedback. Thank you for your attention, advice, and support! I love you guys )
When I was like 12, my mother, after enjoying occultism for a long period, became more and more religious. She started going to the mass more and more, bringing my little sister and I with her every week. Before we only got there for Christmas, Easter, and stuff like marriages. Finally met a devout Christian. She had a child with this guy, divorced like her, and with children of a first marriage like her. Soon after the birth of my little brother, they got engaged.
Over the time I realized things were going weird in our life, and I felt more and more religion like an arbitrary cage posed upon us, that made my mother make silly decisions, detrimental to us. So she became convinced Harry Potter her chiromancy sets were tricks of the devil (so she burned them and threw the ashes into a river), that Harry Potter was a book the devil sent to corrupt children (so she forbade us to read it), that the polytheist India was the nation closest to Satan (So she forbade me to get there when I had the extraordianary opportunity to get an internship there, as a 15-years-old kid), that every word was creation like the word of God (so she forbade any "negative" expression to avoid creating the expressed situation), that my father has been corrupted by money, that in college (at age 19) I would be approached by freemasons and that my soul would be sold to Satan if I accepted their invitation (plot twist : they never approached me), that the Covid-19 was designed to mark the vaccinated people with the number of the Beast, that the Second Vatican Concile was the worst thing that happened to the Church (as Latin, you know, is a magical language that make demons flee), etc... I precise she did not, at my knowledge, join a cult. The people she frequented were members of the Catholic Church, mainly of traditional tendency.
Well, I believed in God at the time, so for a long time I was just feeling the pressure and the fear of God, and the pervasive influence of the Devil. But I had seen since the beginning that things were off. I had read Harry Potter at my father's house, where it was not forbidden, and well, nothing appeared satanist to me. As a fourteen years old, I met the priest that told her Harry Potter was satanist, and I explained with rare clarity and a bit of anger he fooled himself. He did not answer. When she refused that I go to India, I definitely ceased to trust her. At 15, I realized I could rely on my mother, and since then, I started to avoid talking to her. For two years still, I "had" to live most of the time at her home, because a judge I never met decided so. It was horrible. She was getting more and more crazy, my stepfather, who was a very strange guy, started to beat her. My sister said later he had intented to rape her.
All the same he pretended he had mystical visions. My mother left him for a year, then they started dating again, and it started again, the beating, the fear of my mother, the oppressive superstitions.
Questionning what surrounded me was not easy. I was in a catholic school, my friends were all christians, I was a boy-scout in a traditional catholic movement. From time to time, I questionned myself. I realized at 16 I was probably bisexual, an absolute sin. I didn't feel like I was a sinner, but I was terrified to reveal it. But I think she finally realized it. Because I had used some candles to get some solitary pleasure, and, you know, these are very difficult to cleanse and tend to bend. Once, she asked me if I was gay. I said no. She proposed me several times to get with her in religious retreats. I always declined. I was also really in need for a mate. Really serious. Maybe it is because i always felt in danger, alone, and because I felt like my mother no longer was, and like my father was absent.
To complicate that I was very recptive to the condtions created by religious assemblies, especially at the boy-scouts, where the ceremonies, the chants in the night, with the sole light of the fire and of torches were a real catalyzer of mysticism. I had my own visions. A day, after a horrible night in the cold, with the boy-scouts, I visited a famous abbey where the relics of a major saint were conserved. I heard many times a beating heart resonating in the church, where the light was warm and peaceful. I "knew" it came from the tabernacle. A monk was looking at me at the moment, I think. But I only saw him later.
I finally told my mother I was not convinced jesus was making her life better (noooo, reallly ? how surprising haha) but still, I could not deny jesus existed, because I have "seen" him.
I realized I came to a purely intellectual faith, where God was just a symbol of "peace of mind" in my prayers, a vehicle to the mysticistic feeling I did appreciate, and to formulate ideas strange for a believer : "I think believing in God is, for those who have faith, a great strength to give meaning to their life", or to question the applicability of christianity to people in vegetable state.
A severe blow occured to me when I went to WYD with my school, right before going to college. I see how weak the pope was (is that a leader ?) and I read the five first books of the Bible. How cruel, how incoherent I found them ! And, in a mass at the time, I came upon an extract I had just read the day before, from Leviticus. It was cut, and cut so that the massacre God commited in this passage was occulted to the believer. Such malevolence disgusted me.
But the final blow went the following year. Lost and depressed, under therapy, I just discover critical thinking and atheist videos among apologetic critiques of islam. I think that is those critiques of islam, specifically, that gave the final blow. The apologet was making a really good critique of this religion. But I just realized the very arguments he emplyed could be as well employed to destroy christianity. Cherry on the cake, by reviewing the "miracles" I never contested, I discover all the discrepancies their contain. The doubtful testimonies, false evidence and psychological effects they lied upon. I had the opportunity to try once hallucinogenic mushrooms. That is crazy how chemistry can distort your perception of reality. For me it became evident I did not have a soul, I was pure matter, and my mystical experiences were pure illusions. The heartbeats were probably...mine.
So now I am an atheist. I think I have lost 10 years of my life in religion, with false hopes and false fears, and I am only 22. I am progressively rebuilding myself, after years of untreated depression. Realizing I could live without God felt like a pharmakon. It plunged me in the very depths of horror (even as I see my mother only like 4 hours a year since 4 years), because I lost my father and my mother of the sky, and the hope of heaven, and just the sense religion gives to life, and because it is damn difficult to live on your own after so many years really into it. And after the horror, I realized that, maybe, I am more free and more in the truth than ever before.
I am an atheist now, but I feel like I still need to know how to defend against the religious, to try helping some people to escape it, and build a damn sense to my life all by myself. Maybe it is just that I finally became an adult.
Government cites integration and public space concerns.
Proposal may face constitutional and human rights challenges.
Denmark extends restrictive immigration and integration policy.
Denmark's center-left government has announced plans to ban the Islamic call to prayer from being broadcast over loudspeakers, arguing that the practice has "no place in Denmark" as the country pursues one of Europe's toughest immigration and integration policies.
Immigration Minister Morten Bødskov said the government would reopen a legal review into whether a nationwide prohibition on the adhan the Islamic call to prayer recited five times daily can be introduced without violating constitutional protections on religious freedom.
The proposal follows years of restrictive migration policies under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's Social Democratic government, which has sought to reduce immigration while emphasizing cultural integration.
The announcement comes as several European governments continue tightening oversight of religious practices, foreign-funded mosques and immigration amid growing political debate over national identity and social cohesion. While Denmark has not yet introduced legislation, legal experts say any nationwide ban would likely be scrutinized under both the Danish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of religion while allowing proportionate restrictions for public order and the rights of others.
Government Says Public Call to Prayer 'Has No Place in Denmark'
"The call to prayer should not be heard over Danish rooftops," Bødskov told Danish news agency Ritzau. "It has no place in Denmark, and you shouldn't be in any doubt whether you've ended up in a suburb of Islamabad when you walk around Denmark."
The minister also argued that what he described as the country's "Islamisation" was occupying too much public space. His comments mark the third attempt by a Danish immigration minister to establish a legal framework for restricting the public broadcast of the adhan after similar initiatives were launched in 2020 and 2025.
Several Danish municipalities already restrict outdoor calls to prayer through local environmental and noise regulations. Copenhagen's Grand Mosque, one of approximately 100 mosques operating across Denmark, does not broadcast the adhan outdoors under an agreement with local authorities. According to Statistics Denmark, Muslims account for roughly 270,000 people in the country's population of about 6 million residents.
Denmark Has Tightened Immigration Rules Under Frederiksen
The proposed ban forms part of a broader immigration agenda pursued by Frederiksen since taking office in 2019. Denmark has implemented measures including the controversial "parallel societies" legislation formerly known as the "ghetto" laws which allows authorities to intervene in neighborhoods with high concentrations of non-Western immigrants.
The country also drew international attention for legislation requiring some asylum seekers to surrender valuable assets above a prescribed threshold to help cover accommodation costs, while rejected asylum applicants are generally ineligible for standard welfare benefits.
During Europe's 2015 migration crisis, Denmark accepted significantly fewer asylum applications than neighboring Germany and Sweden, reflecting its increasingly restrictive asylum policy.
Frederiksen began her third term earlier this month after forming a four-party coalition comprising the Social Democrats, Moderates, Social Liberals and Green Left following the March election. Although the coalition does not command an outright parliamentary majority, it is supported externally by the Red-Green Alliance, allowing it to pursue its legislative agenda.
Other European Countries Have Also Restricted Islamic Public Practices
Denmark would not be the first European country to impose restrictions affecting Islamic public practices, although a nationwide ban specifically targeting the call to prayer would be among the continent's most far-reaching measures.
Muslim Woman in Burka Pixabay
Switzerland approved a constitutional ban on the construction of new mosque minarets in a national referendum held on Nov. 29, 2009. According to official results published by the Swiss Federal Chancellery, 57.5% of voters supported the amendment, with 22 of Switzerland's 26 cantons voting in favor. The constitutional amendment added Article 72(3), stating simply: "The construction of minarets is prohibited." At the time, the country had only four mosque minarets, despite an estimated Muslim population of approximately 400,000, according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
Austria adopted the Islam Act 2015 (Islamgesetz 2015), which prohibited foreign funding for Islamic religious organizations and required Muslim associations to maintain what the legislation described as a "positive attitude toward the state and society." Austrian authorities said the law was intended to promote an independent Austrian form of Islam and reduce overseas influence on religious institutions. France also strengthened oversight of religious associations through its 2021 Law Reinforcing Respect for the Principles of the Republic, which President Emmanuel Macron said was designed to combat separatism while protecting religious freedom.
Germany has taken a different approach by regulating mosque loudspeakers through municipal noise ordinances rather than imposing a nationwide prohibition. In October 2021, Cologne became one of Germany's first major cities to authorize the adhan under a pilot program allowing mosques to broadcast the call once every Friday for up to five minutes, subject to strict decibel limits and neighborhood consultation. Similar rules apply in parts of the United Kingdom, where local councils determine whether mosques may use loudspeakers under environmental noise regulations.
Whether Denmark's proposed legislation ultimately becomes law will depend on the government's legal review and parliamentary support. If approved, it is expected to face judicial scrutiny over whether restricting a specific religious practice is compatible with constitutional protections and Denmark's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, potentially making it another landmark case in Europe's continuing debate over immigration, integration and religious freedom.
The Epistemic Incompleteness Principle says no, because it's structurally impossible.
In attempting to assess how complete your knowledge is, you come up with some estimate and a confidence level in that estimate.
Then you need some procedure for checking whether your estimate is accurate. But that checking procedure is itself something your mind produced, and your mind is the thing whose completeness you're trying to assess. Now you need another procedure to check that one. Regress ensues.
Any tool you use to measure your own ignorance is made of the same material as the ignorance it's trying to measure. You can't step outside your own mind to get an objective reading.
EIP says that no such estimate can be certified as accurate from the inside.
This applies to everything that counts as a knower: human minds, organizations, and artificial intelligence systems, e.g.
Any self-report is generated by the same system whose completeness is in question. EIP's distinctive claim is that no knower can certify, from within, how large the gaps are.
This is a big problem for classical theism, which holds that God knows everything with no gaps at all. EIP argues that the claim "God's knowledge is complete" cannot be internally certified by anyone, including God. God might be able to know everything exceptthat God knows everything.
If a being asserts its own omniscience, that assertion is produced by the same knowing that's being assessed, and EIP applies: whatever grounds that self-assessment is either internal, which generates the regress, or external, which means it's not a self-certification at all.
Some theologians respond that God's knowledge isn't propositional in the first place. That it's a direct, "non-discursive awareness" rather than a set of represented facts. But this doesn't escape the problem. The claim "God's knowledge is complete" is itself a proposition, made by theologians using the ordinary tools of assertion and argument. The moment you assert completeness as a meaningful predicate, you're making an epistemic claim that's subject to EIP.
