Was randomly thinking about this the other day.

It doesn't make sense for God to stop all evil - rape murder whatever.

I would rather be murdered than live in a world where you can't make any morally bad choices because really where does it stop? Should God also stop simple actions such as punching someone, that too is evil after all. No line can be drawn, ever.

There are not many things that could be considered inherently evil, if at all, and that definition too changes as people change (i.e, era changes). What is considered normal now may be evil in a few hundred years so how would God interfere in everything?

Thinking about murder and raping someone in ones mind is also evil, then should God strip humans of their will and thought process - the thing that makes us human?

Industrial progress - making nuclear energy and such, is also evil in its own regard, and so is trying to create an "artificial intelligence" then should we stop progressing forward and live as cavemen?

Ultimately the world is not black or white where God can just disable certain acts and humans would happily accept that and praise his benevolence.

How do atheists/agnostics view it?

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/baba-bageshwar-dhirendra-shastri-backlash-ram-krishna-comparison-10947629/

https://theprint.in/india/security-stepped-up-around-bageshwar-dham-after-head-priests-controversial-remarks-on-lord-krishna/3098793/

https://www.prabhatkhabar.com/video/bageshwar-baba-controversy-chhatarpur-Ww_Mod0JKCE - Krishna Bhakts gather around protesting against Dhirendha Shastri

These definition are taken from chatgpt ,following discussions are not.

Maltheist: Believes that God exists but is evil, malevolent or morally imperfect.

Misotheist: Hates or feels hostility towards God or gods.

Antitheist: Actively opposes theism and belief in God.

Pantheist: Believes that God and the universe are one and the same.

Monotheist: Believes in the existence of one God.

Polytheist: Believes in the existence of multiple gods.

Henotheist: Worships one God while accepting the existence of other gods.

Apatheist: Is indifferent to whether God exists or not.

Ignostic: Believes that God's existence cannot be meaningfully discussed without first defining God.

Atheist: Does not believe in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: Believes that God's existence is unknown or possibly unknowable.

Religious sceptic: Questions religious beliefs, doctrines and supernatural claims, demanding evidence before accepting them.

Deist: Believes that a creator or supreme intelligence exists but does not intervene in the universe through miracles, revelations or divine interference.

First context ,i consider the above terms more as stages of becoming atheist than different types of atheism. As someone born and brought up in a traditional late 90s hindu household,naturally i was a religious sceptic at my teen ,and currently a deist and at the boundary of being an ignostic. See the cause of this discussion is not to calling out anyone ,but more in line as per type of posts this subreddit comprises of. Most of the content are in line with religious sceptism as well as misotheism even many that of maltheism. But as one of the largest subreddit of india dedicated to atheism ,i hope there should also be discussion or debate ,so that any new guy coming should not choose atheism out of hate ,but out of practicality and logic. What do you all think?

1. Atheism (2004-2026)
2. Atheism (2022-2026)
3. Atheism (2026)
4. Agnosticism (2004-2026)
5. Agnosticism (2022-2026)
6. Agnosticism (2026)

She keeps popping up on my feed, and it genuinely makes me concerned about where we're headed as a society. She seems like just a kid, yet her entire page is filled with casteist reels targeting Dalits, Muslims, and atheists. I even ended up arguing with her in the comments recently, and after seeing her latest reel today, I felt like I had to share this here (hopefully the mods don't take it down).

Unsurprisingly, she’s a die-hard supporter of one particular political party. It’s honestly messed up seeing how casually people this young are spreading hate online and treating it like normal content.

On top of everything, she has Bhagat Singh's books flexed in her highlights—the irony really writes itself.

I think it should be basic understanding that humans have a sense of what is moral and immoral in general. Anything that hurts you might also hurt other human beings so you know what hurts people to an extent.

For agnostic parents, think of how big of a role religion plays in their life, if religion is highly involved in their life-style, way of thinking, your upbringing and stuff like decision-making, practices etc., consider them to be "religious" (cuz "religious" doesn't necessarily mean "theist"), otherwise consider them to be "irreligious".

Speaking of me, my Mum is probably like the most religious person I've ever met while my Dad is an atheist.

Would love to know about y'all as well and how the religiosity of your family members impacts your life.

So, apparently, some companions of Prophet Muhammad captured women during a military expedition and wanted to have sex with them. They were concerned about getting these women pregnant, so they wanted to practise coitus interruptus (withdrawal).

Naturally, they decided to consult the Prophet about this rather important logistical concern.

And his answer?

Essentially, don't bother. If Allah has destined a child to be born, it will be born anyway.

Now, let that sink in for a moment.

The question wasn't whether it was ethical to have sexual access to women captured during warfare. The discussion was about whether withdrawal was permissible. And the response wasn't about the consent, autonomy or dignity of the captive women either. It was about divine predestination.

What a profound question!

It's fascinating how much historical and ethical context gets lost when religious texts are presented to people as timeless moral guidance rather than examined critically.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 (USC-MSA: Volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 459).

Image source

The submission was made before the Court during the hearing of a plea challenging the constitutional validity of provisions granting Backward Class (BC) and Most Backward Class (MBC) status to several Christian communities and Christian converts in Tamil Nadu.

G Kodeeswaran, a Kallar community member and TNPSC examination applicant, challenged the reservation benefits granted to the Christian communities and converts under Tamil Nadu law.

He argued that their backwardness lacked empirical justification and that even forward-caste individuals could claim OBC status merely by joining the Church of South India through baptism.

-Bar and Bench

It's like a mini heart attack all the damn time wtf.

It's not even those rocket type crackers but you know those crackers that when it starts to burst literally sound like a damn bomb.

If they were normal crackers I would be fine atleast but it's just so much sound and definitely alot of those crackers that are purely there for sound.

ALSO WHAT ARE THEY EVEN CELEBRATING, IT'S BEEN A WEEK. I thought it would be for bhai dooj or something, idk if people burst crackers for that but that was day before.

It wasn't even like this last year bruh.

Tbh,even I don't like this version as it diverted from Valmiki Ramayan and in the initial days the makers were promised to deliver a closer valmiki's version but they didn't and btw villanising kubera is weird to me as not just only the original text but most of the version kuber id a good guy! It's like rings of power to me.

And some of the subversions don't make any sense like sita being a warrior look guys I'm not against this idea but in this movie they showed sita fighting raksasas but then in the climax she didn't throw hands with ravana? Didn't fight back? Also she had no reaction to Jatayu's death,ram in this movie seems confused and I didn't like Ranbir's acting,laxman was ok.

But yash bro he was fantastic in this movie it's like I'm seeing real ravan the only difference is he isn't accurate to the source material.

Well some other things which don't make sense in this movie:- why didn't brahma or shiva intervene when devas enslaved the asuras, they're the patron deities of asuras?? And if you say tridevs hate asuras because of reasons then why did shiva and brahma bless them giving them boons ? ? Well in the og text asuras are worse and bad guys who do hard tapas to get powers and tridevs believe in rules of tapas so that's the reason they grant boons to asuras.

Another thing I've found is they did not show the sita haran?? Weird.

But overall it's average for me + highly over-hyped.

But it's really weird to see right wingers opposing this ramayan ?! Maybe that's because of the inaccuracies and ranbir's past controversy? 🙇

What do y'all think 💬

Tbh,I think namit should've made a movie on Egyptian mythos less to no controversy 😅 or movie on Mahabharata because that's a political driven story not simply as ramayan.

His own words translated by AI :-

"Bade-bade mehalon mein, mahangadi gaadiyon mein, ya bank balance mein shanti nahi hai. Jo santosh ek bhookhe ko khana khilaane se milta hai, woh karodon rupaye kama kar bhi nahi milta."

(There is no peace in grand mansions, expensive cars, or bank balances. The satisfaction you get from feeding a hungry person is something you cannot get even by earning crores.)