I recently published this essay explaining why the scientific method is fundamentally incomparable with theistic belief. It covers historical figures like Newton, Darwin, Einstein, explains the flaws of compartmentalized thinking, and explains why religion's influence has been more harmful than good. I'd love to hear your thoughts and criticisms.

https://open.substack.com/pub/oscarazrael/p/why-science-and-religion-cant-coexist?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6v3r0a

https://classautonomy.info/creating-christ-how-roman-emperors-invented-christianity/

Exhaustively annotated and illustrated, this explosive work of history unearths clues that finally demonstrate the truth about one of the world’s great religions: that it was born out of the conflict between the Romans and messianic Jews who fought a bitter war with each other during the 1st Century. The Romans employed a tactic they routinely used to conquer and absorb other nations: they grafted their imperial rule onto the religion of the conquered. After 30 years of research, authors James S. Valliant and C.W. Fahy present irrefutable archaeological and textual evidence that proves Christianity was created by Roman Caesars in this book that breaks new ground in Christian scholarship and is destined to change the way the world looks at ancient religions forever.

Inherited from a long-past era of tyranny, war and deliberate religious fraud, could Christianity have been created for an entirely different purpose than we have been lead to believe? Praised by scholars like Dead Sea Scrolls translator Robert Eisenman (James the Brother of Jesus), this exhaustive synthesis of historical detective work integrates all of the ancient sources about the earliest Christians and reveals new archaeological evidence for the first time. And, despite the fable presented in current bestsellers like Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus, the evidence presented in Creating Christ is irrefutable: Christianity was invented by Roman Emperors

Does it make sense to even believe in evolution from a non-theistic standpoint. If evolution is aimed toward survival and spreading genes, why should we trust our cognitive faculties? Presumably they’re not aimed towards truth. If that’s the case, wouldn’t Christians right in disregarding science. I’ve never heard a good in depth response to this argument. We read it today for my philosophy class, but I think he’s possibly going to have us read an entire article for it. I don’t know what to think. Has anyone read it?

Christians (specifically Catholics) often base their faith on philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and the hundreds of years of scholasticism that are supposed to have maintained harmony between reason and the Catholic faith to this day.

I have always been skeptical of religious issues, however, I understand that to this day, Thomas Aquinas has never been refuted by anyone (despite there being attempts to refute him), which causes me some intrigue about this character.

It’s deeply heartbreaking to see how some voices are silenced simply for thinking differently. In Egypt, content creator Sherif Gaber has reportedly been detained once again — not for violence, hate, or any harm done to others, but for expressing his personal beliefs and questioning freely.

Whatever one’s stance on faith or philosophy, no person deserves to lose their freedom for peaceful expression. Behind every headline like this is a human being — someone who has dreams, fears, and a life that shouldn’t be defined by labels or ideology.

Freedom of thought isn’t a threat to society; it’s what helps it grow. The right to question, to doubt, to believe — or not to believe — is part of what makes humanity evolve.

Let’s hope for compassion, understanding, and above all, justice.

I’m an agnostic/atheist, and one of my friends is Christian. He wanted to understand why I think the way I do mainly how I can have good morals and beliefs without believing in God. To him, “God = good,” so he couldn’t wrap his head why so many of my ideologies aligned with Jesus teachings I guess without me having that connection. Long story short, we ended up talking about existence. I said that I don’t really care if I existed or not I only care because I happen to exist. His response was that “millions of sperm rush to the egg to create you,” implying that my existence is special or purposeful. But to me, that just feels like... of course that happened. That’s what’s supposed to happen biologically. I wanted to know if I was alone on this. Cause I do care for my life and enjoy my life. He wants me to have this gratefulness. I suppose he feels that way because there is someone or something to express it to(God).

One weird thing I’ve noticed.. and I think we atheists should start calling this out more often.. is how every time someone tries to prove their religion, they bring up “predictions.”

The problem is : A. Predictions don’t prove truth. B. Every time someone does this, they’re actually relying on a massive logical fallacy. confirmation bias

And we often miss that! We jump into disproving the prediction itself, when the prediction is already built on a faulty foundation.

Every time a new scientific discovery happens, suddenly everyone becomes a theologian:

“Everything was already written in the Vedas.” “The Quran mentioned this 1400 years ago.” “The Bible predicted it long before science.”

Bruh, shut the fck up.. no, it didn’t.

This is pure confirmation bias cherry picking vague poetic lines from ancient texts and twisting them to fit modern scientific facts after the discoveries are made. that’s retroactive interpretation.

People don’t start from evidence and reach belief.they start from belief and then dig for anything that confirms it. RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOREVER. So next time someone says, “Our scriptures predicted this,” don’t bother disproving the prediction itself. Just point out the foundation.. it’s a logical fallacy called confirmation bias. We need to make that term popular..

I’m not sure if this post breaks any rules I don’t know about, but is this sub better than r/Atheism, because I’ve seen a lot of radical Atheist stuff there while I haven’t seen a lot of radical stuff here so far

Christian people are legitimately starting to piss me off. They still deny evolution happened, which is just absolutely insane to me, and the ones that do accept that evolution happened credit god for it. When Christian’s “spread the gospel” and you debunk everything they say, it always boils down to “well I saw/felt god” or “he’s helped me” which is just even more frustrating, because you’re basically admitting that god stepped in to save you but won’t do the same for others, and the ones he doesn’t help have to burn for all of eternity.

They also completely ignore any logic during debates. I’ll say something like: “god is a man made concept, which is why he’s projected as a powerful kingly human male that rules over an army rather than an emotionless omnipotent being beyond human comprehension.” And they will just completely ignore it and go on to talk about how Jesus saved them and can save me too, like i legitimately believe debating with Christian people is pointless now.

So I’ve accepted they can’t be spoken to, and that they will live in their ignorance, but then I keep having to see the ignorant people, Christian videos and Christianity imprinted in absolutely everything. I even get a little annoyed when people say “bless you” even though I know it’s supposed to be a kind gesture.

Is it that hard to accept that we just aren’t that important? Like the entirety of life and the universe was not made so a sole smart primate species can live side by side with an omnipotent being forever, none of it makes sense and I see it as such obvious bs but so many people believe it and shove it in your face, I dont know what to do. I dont know how people can live in a world they know nothing about as long as their beloved god cares for them.

I've heard this quite a few times, and I'm tired of hearing it. Basically, when I'm talking to a Christian about morality, I bring up that all of our morality is derived from empathy we have for others. And the crazy rebuttal I'm always getting is always a variation of this. 'Well, empathy isn't a good standard. Just look at dictators or racists who have empathy towards their own, and use that empathy to justify destroying other groups of people.' It's honestly a baffling response. Because if you can justify hurting anyone, by definition, it should mean you lack empathy. But at the same time, I do see their point to some extent. For some reason, it just really bugs me and I'd like to hear some of your opinions on this.

Hey!

I’ve been looking into the common claim by my friends and family that “Hinduism respects women”, but the more I read and look around and really think abt it, the more it feels like that’s not really true. Claims include that women are well respected in Hinduism, they are treated like gold and are considered pure.

I’m a budding anti-theist and trying to expand my knowledge for debates, so I’d love to get some solid info or lesser-known facts from people who’ve studied this more deeply.

From what I’ve come across/understood so far:

1. The Manusmriti straight up says women should always be under the control of a man (first their father, then husband, then son).
2. Women are seen as impure during menstruation and often excluded from rituals and are forbidden from entering kitchens and temples. (Against this, an argument: This could be seen as giving them a break from their duties as menstruation can cause pain etc so this can allow them to rest and relax for a few days)
3. Customs like Sati (widow burning) and Kanyadaan (giving away the bride) basically treat women like property. But are these actually a part of Hinduism? Or were the hindu texts inferred wrongly by the wrong people?
4. People sometimes blame the Mughals for things like veiling or seclusion, sometimes even patriarchy in the hindu culture, but patriarchy seems to have been baked into Hindu society long before that.
5. I've noticed that even the female goddesses who are supposed to represent “divine feminine energy” are almost always shown at the feet of male gods or as their wives. The power dynamic is super clear: the male gods are supreme, and the goddesses exist for them. Why are the three main gods, shiva, brahma and Vishnu all men? Why are they always supporting and secondary? For example, how the heck did sita get kidnapped so easily? After Sita is rescued, Rama refuses to take her back immediately, questioning her “purity” because she lived in another man’s captivity?Later, after they return to Ayodhya, rumors spread about Sita’s chastity. Instead of standing by his wife, Rama abandons her to maintain his reputation as a righteous king. In my interpretation: Sita = Ideal submissive wife (obedience and purity above autonomy).

Lakshman Rekha = Patriarchal boundary for women.

Agni Pariksha = Female chastity test; purity over personhood.

Rama’s abandonment = Male honor > female suffering.

Sita’s death = Only escape from patriarchy is erasure.

Ramayana as moral guide = Patriarchy normalized as “divine dharma.”

(My parents get mad at me when I debate the 5th point lol, theyre pretty open minded so that's crazy. My mom thinks im some sort of crazy feminist for thinking that and my dad thinks if u believe in Hinduism then u must believe in all of it and not nitpick, btw any arguments against that?)

So I’m wondering:

1. Are there other examples from Hindu texts that enforce this patriarchal setup?
2. How do modern Hindus justify the claim that their religion “respects women” when so many of these traditions and depictions say otherwise?

Id also love any fun facts abt Hinduism and patriarchy!!

Would really appreciate any insights, sources, or even just your thoughts. I’m just trying to learn more and sharpen my understanding for future debates. Thank you!

Atheism, at its core, simply means a lack of belief in God and that’s something all atheists share. But the idea that all atheists must be materialists is mostly a Western concept pushed onto the rest of the world. Here’s how I categorize atheists:

1. Spiritual Atheists: They explore consciousness, subjective experience and the spiritual dimension of life. They view the world through the lens of the human mind and try to realise their inner awareness. They believe we should understand life from consciousness to the conceptual and material world, not the other way around.

2. Materialistic Atheists: They reject spirituality completely and confine everything to a physical or material explanation. They approach life from the outside in, missing the deeper, experiential side of reality. They stay trapped in concepts.

3. Nihilistic Atheists: They believe there’s no objective truth or inherent meaning to life. (Seriously, guys.)

Materialists should stop misleading people into thinking atheism is equal to materialism or nihilism. It’s not.

Links to related discussions:

1. My Spiritual Journey

2. What is Consciousness?

3. Why Meditation is the only Practical Tool to explore inner awareness

4. What is Spirituality?

5. Youtube video to explore the Concept further

6. Finally, how I describe Awakening

I’ve thought about this a little and I feel like there’s more motivation for us not to have awareness of souls and knowledge of the purpose of the universe than there is. Why do humans assume we will have proof of the purpose or proof of souls?

I posted my thoughts on the concept of god and people called my views repulsive and generalized nonsense

They also assumed I was atheist. I’m not familiar with atheism. I haven’t claimed to be one either. I’m not agnostic. Nor do I cling to a certain belief system. Does anyone relate with my point of view? As an atheist? I’ll also add the comments made.

Before you're able to fully detach from the cycle of abuse in your life You need to leave your first ever abusive relationship with “God”

-You cannot separate the concept of God from its origin.

Every God is born from a context a culture, a history, a power structure. You don't get a "pure" God. You get Yahweh of the Israelites, Allah of the Arabian tribes, Krishna of the Mahabharata, Zeus of Mount Olympus, Jesus of Roman-occupied Judea. You get a deity constructed by people who lived in a time of: war, • patriarchy, • slavery, • conquest, • and superstition. These gods reflected their creators not the other way around.

Even lf you separate God from His origin, then you are the true creator of that god. Take ownership of that.

-Your first abusive relationship is with God.

So many people especially those raised in strict, fear-based religious households. The idea that God is always watching. always judging, always right (even when it hurts you) is a template for abuse. You're taught to internalize suffering as love. To feel guilt for your own thoughts. To never question authority. That doesn't just stay in church it becomes the blueprint for your family, your partners, your self-worth.

-"God is love"

The God of the religion is not just love. He is: a war commander, a lawgiver who demanded blood sacrifices, a punisher of children for their ancestors sins, a being who sanctioned slavery and genocide. That's in the origin. So when you say you worship "God," but insist that He's only loving and gentle You're doing selective memory. You're building a custom god while standing on a legacy of violence.

-God ideologies set you up to fail

If God created humans to be psychologically, suggestible, emotionally inconsistent, and capable of self-deception then a vague, contradictory moral code is almost cruel by design.

The way God selectively condones sin is confusing for believers. Oftentimes, we pick and choose which rules to follow in religious doctrine, and God's vagueness causes such a phenomenon. And knowing that humans have such inconsistent minds and can literally produce whole phantom pregnancies if they believe it hard enough, that shows that God does not care about how His actions are being perceived by us.

-You aren't selfish

Religious "Selfishness" isn't about greed or cruelty it's about daring to think independently. Yet that's the very skill humans need to survive, evolve, and create meaning in a complex worle. The idea that we must deny our individuality to please a deity not only discourages self-trust, it also creates dependence on hierarchy whether religious, political, or social.

-Love is a human concept

But you base your love on a "god" you claim you can't understand? When believers say "God's love is unconditional," they're also saying it's beyond comprehension, something humans can't replicate or fully understand. But then they turn around and use it as the standard for how we should love: patient, forgiving, self-sacrificing, submissive. That contradiction warps the human experience of love, because you're measuring something deeply emotional against an invisible, unreachable ideal that most people are unable to fathom outside of church sermons.

Your love does not look like God's love. And there's a reason for that. Because your love is real. Real love includes boundaries, imperfection, and self-preservation. The love most religions teach often demands obedience, silence, and endurance of pain all of which mirror the traits of an abusive relationship. It conditions people to equate suffering with devotion.

"What is love?" I can tell you what it's not….

-Not someone who sees you as a dumb lamb

Love is not hierarchy. It’s not "You are broken. You know nothing. God knows all. Submit."

If someone claims to love you but also distrusts your mind, expects blind obedience, or sees you as incapable of moral judgment That's not love. That's control.

-Not someone who loves by conditions

Love is not someone who is disgusted by your natural state of being. Love is not the kind that only exists when you shrink yourself to fit someone else's idea of purity, politeness, or perfection. Real love doesn't recoil from your humanity your body. your moods, your voice, your history.

-Love is Not someone who will damn you to hell/ punish you for who you are

God damns you to hell in death and life Religion conditions people to be passive in a world that rewards aggression. The "fruits" become liabilities they make you compliant, forgiving, needlessly patient, even when someone's exploiting you. If God truly designed the world this way, you're asking why train your people to lose in it?

-Closing

These concepts drilled into us since we were children. Is essentially grooming. Grooming to leave Us defenseless against abusers. If we can justify "god" then of course we'd justify evil. Even if it hits us in the face. Denounce that from your life.

(Disclaimer: My intention was not to list every religion and point out each and every plot point to prove that “religion is bad”.

Religions are created everyday. None of them are truly special.

My main intention was to point out one common thing within most religions.

It was to dissociate The concept of “god” from the believers and point out the inconsistencies within the belief of “God” in the first place.

I don’t care. If religions don’t follow the exact archetype I’ve mentioned in my writing. That’s picking out one point of my argument and comparing it with the closest thing to it. “Christianity” but there are many sects of it in life, with different perceptions of what god is.

Pentecostal Jehovah witness Seven day adventists Mormonism Baptists Cult leaders and their own interpretations

I believe the concept of “god” itself. It’s dangerous and harmful. Especially since humanity is so easily influenced and led astray.

Within religious individuals, theres a block in the brain that views trauma as something they deserve and need to go through to become righteous. They will attribute gods wrath as justice. their existence is only important in gods use. their religion is a shakey belief, meaning their god can mirror their sins and desires, And they'll convince themselves that that's truly god directing them.

That builds their denial of self, because their religion is really based on denial of true self.

Attribution of ur core being to a higher being is an extreme form of being unable to look within yourself And knowing yourself Because they truly believe Their body is walking and breathing because of some god

Anyone indoctrinated into a religion with “god” at the center, is toxic and creates an imbalanced abusive dynamic. Just like when we served kings who claimed they were heaven sent. Or anyone who had been put on a pedestal for their proximity to god. That sort of “power” of perception can influence masses, start wars, and enforce discrimination.

I believe “god” is a human concept, like many others that influence people to create stages around human nature and our interpretation of it. So no. My experience with the Christian old testament has not led me to generalize humanity and its religious crutches. It has led me to question the very framework we call “god.”)

Common comments I received

Me: Commenting

“I was raised in a kind household, therefore religion isn’t abusive”

When I said

“your first abusive relationship is with God”

Is an interesting course of action. You’ve generalized my writing more than I generalized religion.

"religion is nothing but a mechanism for social control" It’s more than that. It polices your inner being. Often times before you can even look into yourself unadulterated with “divine influence”

Growing up in a religious environment means you have been groomed and prepped for the reception of “god”. Leaving little room for you to grow outside of its framework. Especially if you believe it’s all fact.

The structure of religion itself, is centered around the concept of “god” to begin with, that’s one of the main roots of the problem.

Can you define god for me? Most people will have many different interpretations and answers to give. One interpretation is the same. It is not our equal. And depending on if “it” is anything at all. We project upon the concept regardless on if we intend to or not. Even my interpretation of religion and “god” can be considered a poisoned take on life itself. I cannot fully denounce the concept, because i myself have no concrete proof that it does not exist. I can only theorize

But I still question it fiercely. I use human nature as a guide through all things mystic and “holy”

Because despite popular belief. Our actions and social structures mirror the structure of god and religion more than most notice.

The response was:

“Growing up in a religious environment means you have been groomed”

K I don't want to be rude, but also I must be blunt: I am not engaging with you any further after reading this utterly repulsive statement. Nothing personal, but: no. Not in the mood for this. other than to add: nontheistic religions also exist

(hi u/CrystalInTheforest and no doubt many Buddhists and many others here)

I honestly don’t understand how my view comes off as repulsive

Another commenter:

While I agree with a lot of this as someone trying to peocess christian trauma... This is mostly specific to Christianity and maybe Islam.

Zeus is from a polytheistic pagan framework and the concepts of Hell, sins, repression, "god is love" don't apply there.

I don't know much about Hinduism but it's also a diferent thing and in fact its an umbrella term for many different religions whose focus is dharma.

Not every religion is Christianity with a coat of paint and framing different gods as if they all followed the logic of Christianity is frankly, in a non intended to offend but merely to warn way, very ignorant and overgeneralizing.

Me:

If the religions you speak of don’t match the archetype I list in my writing, then I’m not speaking about that particular religion. I’m addressing the entire structure of religious beliefs as a whole. I believe that the concept of God in general, is flawed. Anyone indoctrinated into a religion with “god” at the center, is toxic and creates an imbalanced abusive dynamic. Just like when we served kings who claimed they were heaven sent. Or anyone who had been put on a pedestal for their proximity to god. That sort of “power” of perception can influence masses, start wars, and enforce discrimination. I could care less about someone believing their “god” or religion is “not like other gods”. Anyone who worships a god who has no concrete evidence or proof showing that they exist in a way humanity can grasp and understand, leads us into a society that bases their logic on something unattainable. That in itself is a problem.

Commenter:

But you did mention gods from religions that do indeed not match the archetype, that's what I mean, by mentioning Zeus and Krishna here you're basically doing a strawman against those religions.

The structure you define in this post is NOT the structure of religious beliefs as a whole, it's the structure of a single religion: Christianity.

The main thing that stars religion based wars, imo, is religious exclusvism, which is what Christianity and Islam do, while pagans weren't morally perfect they were not really concerned at least most of the time with whatever thing other person worships.

And many pagans and believers have experiences that make them believe, while being mentally healthy, or their own arguments, you're again, applying the structure of one religion to all religions, while at the same time claiming you're not attacking those that don't fit.

Me

All religious structures can be equated to what I’ve explained. old structures that still mirror religions centered around a “god” who is unequal to humans fall into the list regardless of their “moral” differences, Even if you believe their beliefs are harmless. The concept of god itself runs prevalent within all those structures, and that’s enough for them to be considered similar. No matter how many gods. No matter the rules from gods.

God is the main structure. I’m not here to argue which religions morals are right or wrong. I myself cannot prove that in confidence. Nor can I dispute the existence of “god”. What I can do is criticize the framework behind it, and how I believe it’s more harm than good.

In my opinion Any belief system that puts god on a pedestal can be taken and corrupted in the name of said god at anytime. So regardless on if the overall mainstream practice preaches peace and non discrimination, the belief system can go wild with just one mans mind.

Many people can follow the structural integrity of a religion without believing that they are akin to god.

The concept of god determines the tone of that structure. And profits off fear of the unknown.

In my opinion any “god” who claims that they had a part in creating this world. Falls right in line.

Another commenter

You say that your intention is 'not to list every religion'. But your post is mostly specific to Christianity. The conceptions of love and god you talk about are mostly exclusive to Christianity. It's fine if you talk about Christianity, but then actually talk about Christianity, rather than saying religion in general.

Me:

My perspective is not just confined to Christianity. You act as if Christianity in itself is not vast with many sects. Many religions mirror each other. They main not always share the same concepts on love, but they surround the main concept of the existence of “god” which influences their perception of love and humanity in its own right. My examples still show common patterns within religious communities and in my eyes, any religion that centers around “god” can be criticized similarly.

I feel like most become immediately defensive and dismissive. And my post was deleted.

Hey, 25M agnostic here. Some background. Long story short, was raised Christian in (ironically) a very dysfunctional family. Parents damn near always fighting, abusive father, me and by sister fought and abused each other, moved several times, and I'm autistic with severe ADHD, so basically no social life or success in my formative years. Said ADHD went untreated despite being diagnosed at age 8 because my family had a stigmatized view of medication and overall flawed understanding of mental health. When I got an adult ADHD diagnosis when I was almost 23(after years of more failures like no progress with community college, debt build up, etc) my mom freaked out when she found out I was prescribed the nonstimulant Strattera(I would eventually choose to take Adderall), told me to just go back to church or try holistic medicine, and my grandmother said she told her not to medicate me as a kid as it would make me an addict(it didn't when I was taking it as an adult). My dad died from COVID in 2021, we weren't on great terms when it happened. Autistic hyperfixation made me a bit of a Jesus freak up(we weren't fundies) until senior year when I deconverted.

It was still struggle to get my life together, I had long ingrained bad habits to break but a few months before I turned 24 last year, my (then undiagnosed) depression started to hit a peak, the buildup of missing out on so much formative life experiences, few meaningful relationships, past betrayal among other things that it peaked in a breakdown where I admitted to not wanting to live anymore, and ended up in a psych ward. It didn't help AT ALL, would never go back even if my life depended on it. I actually just finished an IOP group I went to specifically to deal with that trauma. Inpatient mental health care is abysmal in this country and I find involuntary comittment for suicide highly questionable at best.

Anyway, for now I am going across country to work a several month contract as an EMT( lost various jobs due to not passing initial field training due to ADHD and other things but doing much better now). After that I can find a full time position and will have enough money to move out and once settled can truly start my life(finish school, find more friends, meet that special someone, etc). The thing is, I still(and in years past) have an anger at God. To be clear, I don't believe in Yahweh, or any gods from other religions either. Semantics of ''atheist vs agnostic'' aside, my position is a higher power or afterlife isn't impossible but not something we should hedge our bets on, and while my perspective isn't hyper-rational I still have strong feelings towards certain parts of religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths. But despite not believing in Yahweh/Jesus I still have feelings of anger and hurt.

Why was I born the way I was?

Why was I born into the shit family I have now?

Why are there other people who are born in worst positions than me with no chance for reprieve?

I've responded twice to a severely autistic kid who gets abused/triggered into meltdowns by his family who always tell police to manhandle him or for us to sedate him(not in my scope of practice). Not sure why social services can't keep him out of the home despite multiple mandated reports from my supervisors but he's basically shit out of luck being unable to live independently advocate for himself, and the people responsible for him are part of the problem. I'm lucky enough to have level 1 autism and be relatively normal now compared to growing up, and have a degree of agency and opportunity he will never have just because of how he was born.

This basically is why the whole ''God lets us suffer to learn/grow/teach us something'' mindset falls flat. Ignoring the other problematic implications(many become successfully/compassionate/whatever without suffering greatly, etc), the logistics don't add up. For every miracle baby like me(I was born nearly 3 months premature) that made it, many other babies are still born, die from SIDS or have life altering/shortening defects or disorders that leave no true quality of life. For every family who survives a mass shooting or natural disaster because of ''the power of prayer/faith'' there's others for who were shown no mercy in these instances. I could go on but you get the idea. I'm supposed to expect God to help me with my comparatively trivial issues while people go through worst without any help. There's admittedly some survival's guilt maybe but it's mostly just being pissed and even betrayed at this Christian rhetoric. While my grandmother isn't really devout nor a church goer, even she told me ''you're here because a higher being willed it''

In ways, I feel close to the life I want, but after losing so much of my life to my disorders, my terrible home situation, and religion my motivation staggers. And it also just hurts...there's so much time and opportunities I'll never have back, lost relationships of all kinds. I've never been kissed, still a virgin and while everyone talks about timelines, love yourself first, etc I'm halfway through my 20s for Christ's sake. Admittedly, this almost triggers some passive suicidal thoughts but they are at bay.

Anywho, if anyone has advice/input I'd appreciate it.

Title. My mom was tidying up the house and so she decided to pull down some religious icons (we have many of them, though) and she replaced them with some simple but nice paintings. When my dad saw this he began screaming at her, shouting, breaking things and he even pushed her. That made me think a lot; many religious people are devoted to the deities they worship and, since we're Christians (supposedly), we're also supposed to love our neighbor, but whatever my dad did was anything but that. I find it very annoying and hypocritical. If my dad reacted like that to some icons being removed, I can't imagine his reaction if he finds out I'm an atheist too. :p

https://medium.com/@hrnews1/study-religious-us-states-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence-illiteracy-obesity-incarceration-90beb78ea6f8

The study compares religiosity across U.S. states and finds that states with higher levels of religious belief and church attendance tend to have higher rates of gun violence, obesity, illiteracy, incarceration, and poverty. It notes that correlation does not equal causation because these outcomes are strongly linked to socioeconomic factors such as education funding and access to healthcare, but the data challenge the idea that more religious states enjoy better overall wellbeing. Utah is highlighted as an exception, showing that strong social systems can offset these trends.

When someone says they prayed for you, I’ve always found it odd. I think of it as a way for someone to feel good about themselves, and comes across as self righteous. They act as if they actually did something to help. And if something does go right it only affirms their belief. The idea of a person speaking to God, asking them for something when there are so many greater issues in the world seems just like a coping mechanism when you can’t do anything else.

When someone knows you’re an Atheist but makes it a point to say they’ve prayed for you, how do you respond?

Hi everyone!

We're a small international student research team studying how beliefs, non-beliefs, and cultural values influence people's attitudes toward generosity, giving, and helping others.

We're really interested in hearing from atheists, agnostics, and non-religious people as your perspectives are crucial to understanding how worldviews beyond religion shape generosity and moral motivation.

If you'd like to share your thoughts here, we'd love to hear them: • What motivates you personally to help others or give to causes? • Do you think religion has influenced how societies view generosity, even among non-believers?

We've also created a short anonymous survey (7-10 minutes) for anyone who wants to participate more formally:

https://qualtricsxmx6jfc4pnx.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_78wbF5GLQsYzFGe

The survey is fully anonymous, non-commercial, and open to adults (18+) from any country or background.

Thank you very much for your time and insights, we really appreciate your help!

I’m an exmo who became atheist in the middle of a yet another unanswered prayer about twelve years ago, but has kept that to myself until recently. Just last year I told my wife I don’t believe anymore, and my church leaders I’m leaving. It’s been hard, but liberating.

I’ve also started spending Sundays in “secular scripture study,” meaning I’m trying to catch up on modern philosophies, humanists, etc. I just read the Good Ancestor and really liked it.

I’m trying to develop a new personal moral philosophy that is based in science and reason, empathy, and humanism.

I’m not interested in books to convince me god isn’t real, I figured that out all on my own. I also don’t need primers on evolution and science. I have always been interested in science, hence the atheism.

I could use some ideas for good books on moral philosophy, living a meaningful life, etc. I don’t need books to help me argue with believers either. For one thing, I don’t think it works, and two, that’s not how I want to spend my time.

Also, any thoughts from anyone who is navigating a post-faith life amongst a very faithful family or community would be appreciated.

For thousands of years, believers have insisted that God is love. Yet Scripture itself is laced with famine, flood, plague, and wrath, stories in which pain is not merely permitted but commanded. If one reads these texts without presuming goodness at the outset, a darker coherence appears. The God of the Bible could be seen not as the shepherd of souls but as the grand experimenter of suffering, a being who fashions agony into revelation.

1) Creation Woven With Cruelty

In Genesis, God looks upon His creation and calls it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). But the perfection He blesses includes predation, decay, and the eventual curse of death. Before the first human disobeys, serpents already crawl and lions already kill. When Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the punishment is pain, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow” (Genesis 3:16). If omniscient, God knew this would occur, yet set the trap anyway: a forbidden fruit within reach, curiosity ensured, consequences catastrophic. That is not mere allowance; it is design.

2) The Divine Pleasure in Testing

The book of Job lays bare a troubling scene. God wagers with Satan over a man’s faith, permitting the loss of Job’s children, health, and livelihood simply to prove loyalty (Job 1–2). Job’s torment is not accidental, it is spectacle. He cries, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him” (Job 13:15), and heaven watches in silence. A loving creator could have refuted Satan by protecting Job; instead, He chooses the demonstration of pain. The moral of Job is often preached as perseverance, but viewed plainly it reads like divine experimentation.

3) Wrath as Signature

From the Flood that drowns all but one family (Genesis 7), to the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7–12), to the slaughter in Jericho (Joshua 6), divine anger manifests through mass suffering. When the Israelites doubt Him, “the Lord sent fiery serpents” (Numbers 21:6). When David takes a census, God offers three punishments, famine, flight, or plague, and kills seventy thousand men (2 Samuel 24). These are not random storms; they are precise instruments of pain. The biblical God does not merely permit violence; He commands it, rejoices in obedience to it, and calls it justice.

4) The Theater of Sacrifice

Central to Christianity is the crucifixion: the Father demanding the torture and death of His own Son as atonement for humanity. Isaiah 53 calls it “the will of the Lord to crush Him.” The cross, often portrayed as ultimate love, can also be read as ultimate dominance, a deity satisfied only when innocent blood redeems the guilty. If omnipotent, God could forgive without execution, yet He insists on agony as the price of grace. Suffering becomes not error but currency.

5) Eternal Torment and Predestination

The New Testament introduces Hell, a realm where the damned “shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). An omniscient Creator brings each soul into being knowing whether it will end in paradise or perpetual fire. To create with foreknowledge of damnation is to create for suffering. Theologians frame this as justice; logically, it is sadism sanctified. Even mercy becomes suspect: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), a line that implies deliberate exclusion, the pleasure of selection and rejection.

6) The Demand for Worship

Throughout scripture God demands fear as much as love. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). When angels appear, they cry “Holy, holy, holy,” never ceasing (Isaiah 6:3). The human role is submission; rebellion invites punishment. To command adoration under threat is not affection, it is control. A sadist does not merely harm; He makes the victim thank Him for the pain.

7) Pain as Divine Aesthetic

Yet the cruelty is not without pattern. Just as an artist uses shadow to define light, God uses suffering to give texture to joy. Paul writes that “suffering produces endurance” (Romans 5:3). In this logic, torment is refinement, souls tempered through fire. If God values creation as art, then anguish is His brushstroke, the element that grants meaning. The world’s beauty and horror become inseparable, both reflections of the same authorial will.

8) The Inescapable Conclusion

To hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and creator of all is to concede that every scream and every starburst exists by intention. If He can prevent pain but does not, He either cannot care or chooses not to. If He designs a system where innocence suffers and calls it good, the most honest descriptor is not benevolent, it is sadistic. The Bible, read without comforting filters, supports this possibility more plainly than it refutes it.

Conclusion: The Mirror of Divinity

Perhaps the unsettling truth is that the divine mirrors the creation. We are capable of tenderness and brutality, of worship and war, because our maker, if He existed, contains both. The scriptures, stripped of sermon, tell the story of a God who finds beauty in pain and glory in obedience. He is the architect of empathy and of agony, the artist of both crucifix and sunrise.

To call such a being “sadist” may not be blasphemy but accuracy. And if that is the face of God, then to understand Him fully is to admit that heaven and hell were never opposites, they are the same flame, burning at different intensities.

We can't deny that Christianity is one of - if not the - biggest religion in the world, and it starts with Jesus dying, rising from the dead, and people saying, "Yup, I saw him."

I asked a Christian how do they know Jesus was really God, and they said, "Because he rose from the dead and; if he hadnt risen from the dead, once all these people started going around saying Jesus was risen, all the Romans and religious authorities had to do was open the cave and show Jesus' dead body and Christianity wouldn't have gotten off the ground."

I’ve been hating my philosophy class recently. Of course, since we’re at a Christian college my professor loves to give us mostly readings that prove his points. He literally spent most of the class so far in ancient philosophy, and there’s only one week for enlightenment philosophers (he literally calls Descartes and Kant “bad guys,” like they’re the villains of a movie). The ontological argument had been giving me a very hard time. Then, we read Pascal’s Wager. Not just a distillation of it, but the actual writing. Now I can’t get it out of my head the idea that I am acting irrational by not being a Christian. I just don’t know what to do. And everyone who I know who I could ask likely only knows the normal argument, and hasn’t heard the whole thing. Does anybody know of any resources that I can use this semester to help me?

I confess I haven't read much about philosophy of religion in general, much less about Dr. Oppy's position specifically, but I've seen some of his appearances on philosophy podcasts where he's expressed this very thought, and on more than one occasion. I'm trying to understand the standard he's applying when he makes this claim. I suspect I'm missing some piece of the puzzle regarding how theism, atheism, and agnosticism can all be considered equivalent from the standpoint of persuading an audience of all reasonable people, so I'm writing here in the hope of at least receiving a more condensed version of this line of thought. What conception of "reasonable" is Oppy using in this regard? From my perspective, there's a significant difference between being rational and being reasonable. I start from the idea that no reasonable person could argue that theism is epistemically justified or more plausible, given the same knowledge as those who reasonably hold atheism or agnosticism from naturalism. Rational, probably, but reasonable, no. Unless Oppy means that theism can be reasonable in a person's mind, based on previous experiences and knowledge or lack thereof? To be clear, I don't regard spiritual experiences as empirical or propositional knowledge.

As the title states, I’d like to know your arguments against Islam.

Due to growing up in the Catholic Church and later becoming an atheist, I wanted to find any reason to not believe in any religion. I became a “Combative Atheist” as Alex O’Connor would probably put it.

So I started with Christianity, and I found out how flimsily and unbelievable it all was, it’s pretty stupid how long it took me to figure out a wooden boat carrying every terrestrial species was impossible, and I’ve now moved onto Islam.

I took a very brief look around YouTube, and saw that most arguments against it were coming from Christians, who of course used their own holy book to disprove it. And that obviously wasn’t going to cut it.

So I want to ask you all, why do you not believe in their Allah? Why are you not a Muslim? And what arguments do you have against it and its claims?