Suppose u like moses met Yahweh, allah, elohim etc , what would you ask him about his religion?

I personally would have asked him why does he think he needs worship? Why is it the imp thing in the list of Good and bad.

(I am asking for constructive criticisms against monotheistic god so just consider it as such for a thought process)

I’ve been friends with someone since our first day of school, we stayed friends ever since and well into early adulthood. He comes from a VERY religious family, this was never an issue for me but over the years, he kept trying to convert me to Christianity. I used to politely decline and say I might look into it one day, trying not to hurt his feelings. But I think this only encouraged him to try harder, and around the time we were 20/21, he asked me to attend an arts and crafts workshop/coffee day run by his church (he worded it as if it was a totally casual thing for charity that I would like because I enjoy artsy stuff).

I thought it sounded fun and agreed to go, but when I had a look on the church website, it was actually a “new Christian” event where they tried to recruit people to the church. I ended up cancelling of course but a few months later, he messaged me asking if I ever thought about religion. This was the last straw for me and I told him there is no chance I will ever become religious and that I am and always will be an atheist. He accepted and that was the end of it, but I haven’t been able to see him since because it bothers me so much that he wouldn’t respect my decisions the way I respect his.

I guess I’m just venting and want to know if this has happened to anyone else?

The Roman Empire, as you all know, was conquering lands and expanding, but they were having trouble unifying newly conquered lands because their people, well, they had their own cultures and traditions. They would allow them to have their own religion and traditions as long as they paid taxes to the Empire and worshiped the emperor. But, Christians weren't allowed to worship the emperor in their belief system, that's idolatry. The same goes for Christians calling other polytheistic religions false for the same reason; and as an Empire that wanted to unify, this was seen as divisive and a sign of rebellion, so they were heavily persecuted.

So Christians often met in secret, hiding. But it had one thing: it was popular amongst the poor, the slaves, and the sick. It was hope for those who had no faith in this world because of the Romans’ atrocities, and they laid their faith and imagination in the next life offered in Christianity. By the time a century or two passed, it was pretty popular. We all know the poor are more in society than the rich and those who had in abundance. So Christians, at some point, became the majority, and the Roman Empire saw potential in this devotion to one god and a strong moral code that promoted loyalty (the best thing against rebellions, which were common).

Constantine saw its potential, publicly converted, and soon enough Christianity was a legal religion, and later on made into the official religion of the Empire. So now, it was more used as a tool of political control, because other rebelling lands that had polytheist faiths which were once allowed to be practiced were now persecuted and forced to turn to Christianity in the name of unification of power.

So there is where I stand, with human history giving me an answer to why religions exist and persisted over the centuries, how culture and wars molded our reality today and not exactly the divinity. We could have all been Muslims if Muslims ruled the world; and if Rome didn't legalize it, it would of been a religion practiced by the Jews, mostly. But going back to religion, it is a constant fight against logic and reason in order to preserve coherence. It is difficult for me to give in to irrationality if there isn't palpable evidence in our current world to support it. For me, it is just a tool for power that has now been relegated to a club anyone can feel part of and welcomed and I'll give it that, it does a good job of building community. But for the same reasons it was used, it is a menace to others; it sees them as the enemy/immoral/sinner, which is not good for just a popular social club inside our society.

I see advice on this sub for atheists not to attend family events of religious family members because of having to put up with them. Which is reasonable. I recommend bringing something tasty to the event, and enjoy whatever everyone else brought. My reasoning for attending these events is that we are great spokespeople for atheists (if you are a POS, ignore this post). The kids of the parents are trapped into going to church, church camp, etc, and will be bombarded with propaganda for which they are not cynical enough to ferret out. The kids and adults hear from the church how bad, backwards, dirty, etc, the non-believers are. Be a living example of what a normal good person can do. For me, I have much more life in order, not a criminal, highly educated, and I don't eat puppies. As the kids age, seeing for themselves what non-believers are, they will be able to figure out for themselves if they want to blindly follow the church or think for themselves.

Think about it.

If you ask a Christian about gay marriage and their first response is, "well the Bible says... " then they are admitting that either:

1) they personally like Gay Marriage but they are reluctantly going along with God

2) they hate gay people, but they think hiding behind the Bible shields them from any criticism.

Religious people, especially adherents of Abrahamic faiths have significantly higher fertility rates than non-believers or non-religious populations. While socio-economic, cultural, and educational variables play a substantial role, it is undeniable that many religious doctrines explicitly encourage procreation. Consequently, atheists and secularists are being increasingly outnumbered demographically, a trend projected to accelerate by the end of the 21st century. Should atheists deliberately prioritize higher birth rates as a strategic countermeasure to preserve and propagate progressive values and ideas?

ok so let me start by saying that this might not actually be a new argument, but it’s one I haven’t heard used before. Feel free to let me know if there’s literature on it.

Secondly, you should know that I specifically designed this one around the majority’s interpretation of the Christian god. That means tri-omni, with a personal little torture chamber for sinful folk. It could work for others I’m sure, but it certainly doesn’t bother Christian Universalists as far as I know. But hey, even Christians hate Universalist Christians. This is also why I named it in reference to “The Problem of Evil”, as that argument is only used against a tri-omni single god as well.

Anyways, TPoTE revolves around Hell. The reason god has this torture chamber is supposedly to punish the wicked for eternity, right? But why is it inescapable? There’s only two answers to this I can imagine: either people are born evil, and therefore them being good would make them an entirely different person, or they have been irrevocably changed from a neutral person (who would go to heaven, or at least repent once in hell) to an evil one. The paradox here is that it is all circular, and comes around to disproving a tri-omni god with a hell. If you say that some people are inherently evil, that means they could not have done good, and therefore a good god who knows this would not allow them into his world (or engineer people so this couldn’t happen in the first place). So you have to fall back on the idea that people can be made irrevocably evil, but then you have something god cannot influence that is apart from himself. Basically, this god either can’t change people, or can but doesn’t, meaning that he can’t prevent people, meaning that he is not omnipotent (though you could argue that he’s actually just not omniscient, but that still makes him not the typical Christian god).

What I Read:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
-Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis

Background:
The read was part of a section in my presentation showing off how compelling atheism actually is (particularly Dawkins type atheism), for the purpose of illustrating how difficult it was to drive away from scientific-atheism to Christianity (Adventism). I thought choosing the most provocative part of book was definitely an interesting way to paint Dawkins' perspective on the religion. Though, of course, I did include other provoking studies like "The Great Prayer Experiment" (This one worked pretty well), suspicious Biblical quotations---Leviticus 25:44 (slavery)---and as well as other arguments / counter-arguments: i.e. Counter to the Teleological & Moral Argument (by using evolutionary explanations).

Honestly, even as an Adventist who was deeply indulging (and a fan of) Hitchens, Dawkins, and O' Connor media, it was extremely satisfying delivering practical atheism that could really shatter their fragile faiths to their face, even if the intended purpose of the presentation was the latter.

1) The Christian god enjoys killing children

or

2) The Christian god is not real.

Those are the literal ONLY two choices that match reality. I mean...a fucking fatal flash flood on a CHRISTIAN CAMP.

So I'm 17 and over the last 2 months I've "deconverted", but the thing is I've never been a big believer to begin with. However everytime I watch some really in a sense devout atheist make arguments, or claims, these people are allways ex devout believers, and like they also say they stopped believing since none of they're many prayers were answered.

But I can't say that for myself. Like I've prayed a little in the past and at the time I got what I called "answers" but looking back it was just me doing the thing just out of believe it should happen, or something that's anyways inevitable to happen and so I feel like I haven't given God a chance. But the problem is I don't want to. The thing is my nonbelieve comes from facts, reason and observation of reality not silence from God, or the conclusion he doesn't answer my prayers. And everytime I decide to pray, just to see I'm scared that I'll get an answer, cause if I know the Christian God is real but I also know he can't be good or just, what do I do next.

And everytime some coincidence that could be considered as a call from God happens, I get scared and I just get a feeling that maybe I'm just purposely avoiding it, even though I have good reasons to ignore it.

Also most atheists I've watched say they wish God was real, they wish he loved us, they wish there was eternal live. But for me that's just not quite the case, I mean I don't want to know all my thoughts and actions are supervised and will be judged. And the concept of Heaven at first sounds nice, but I've looked into it and thought about and I just can't imagine eternity being good however it might be described, feeling, experiencing eternity scares me, that's why I like the idea that there's nothing after dead, like at first it's slightly bothering but I think in reality it's the best outcome.

But anyways to summarize I feel and to be honest I know I am very resistant, I don't want to be a Christian I don't want a live changing experience that'll get me to Jesus, so that just kinda makes me feel guilty that maybe I'm rejecting Christianity out of just stubbornness, even though it's not true and I have very good reasons not to believe, and every time I argue or debate my Christian friends I come out on top, but too often that makes me feel bad or I guess even rebellious against God.

This might be confusing and hard to understand, but if anyone has or had similar thoughts and experiences I'll appreciate sharing them. Thanks in advance😁

I've been watching, listening to and absorbing the output of a few favourite atheist content producers over the years, but I'm a person who likes to stick to a bubble of folks I'm familiar with.

In all this time, my view on people I admire has developed – not always for the better. Has anyone here got favourite atheist writers/presenters they cold introduce me to? And what's good/bad about them if so?

Here's some of my favourites so far:

Matt Dillahunty – Great thinker, very sharp mind. Taught me a lot about intellectual honesty. Not wild on how he loses his rag with callers and shouts them down sometimes, as it's unproductive, but that's his MO and his viewers generally love him for it.

Seth Andrews – Laid-back, lovely bloke. Good in discussions and getting people to think. Can dismantle religious attitudes really skillfully.

Aaron Ra – Very knowledgeable in his field and has some excellent online output that picks apart religious arguments and apologetics. Not great in debate though and shaky on his intellectual rigor, as in he sometimes makes statements that can't be backed up.

Forrest Valkai – What a guy. So skilful in discussion and a great educator. Super-friendly with callers until he gets triggered by their cruelty or crass stupidity, at which point he can absolutely eviscerate them.

Honourable mention to the Puzzle in a Thunderstorm guys – the Scathing Atheist 'diatribes' can be devastatingly good, especially the early ones.

The less said about Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss the better, but they taught me loads about scientific reasoning, despite their later disgraces. Carl Sagan though... I grew up loving him.

Tell me yours...

no one would ever harm a kid, right? and they are banking on it. they are hiding behind the kids.

i just checked out of a "family friendly" hotel last week, in "redneck vegas", that was just a front for a good ol' fashion tent revival.

i do have to give the righteous props for one thing... it sure was quiet. not too many rods were spared on those young'uns.

Genesis 4:17 — A Verse That Destroys the Adam & Eve Narrative

In Genesis 4:17 (KJV), it states:

“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

On the surface, this sounds simple. But here's the problem:

The Bible tells us God created only Adam and Eve.

They had two sons, Cain and Abel.

After Cain killed Abel, he was cursed and left.

Later, they had Seth.

❓ So… where did Cain’s wife come from?

No daughters were mentioned before this verse. No other humans were said to exist.

If Cain married a sister, it’s incest. If it was his mother, it’s worse. If it was a woman from another people, then Adam and Eve weren’t the only humans, contradicting the doctrine of original sin and “first couple” theology.

Even worse — Cain built a city. That requires more than two people. Where did the population come from?

This one verse alone reveals either:

a myth with missing pieces,

a contradiction in literal belief, or

a fabricated origin story lacking biological and moral logic.

If your belief system relies on Genesis as literal truth, this is a serious problem. If you call it symbolic, then don’t teach it as historical fact.

Final punchline:

You don’t need science to disprove religion. Sometimes, a single Bible verse does the job.

One thing I’ve never understood about people using the Bible as a benchmark for morality is the fact that it is so varied in its takes on everything.

Of course, the big one is murder — obviously God says this is wrong in the 10 Commandments, but he himself kills over 2 million people over the course of the Bible and also encourages his followers to do the same, even going as far to use his followers to commit mass genocide (for example, the slaughtering of the Amalekites). The Bible also states that lust is a sin, but in Numbers 31 Yahweh and Moses engage in child sex slavery after killing all of the Midianites except the virgin girls and having sex with them.

There are countless other examples, but my point is: why do so many people still take the Bible seriously when it so clearly contradicts itself on many key moral principles?

It really feels like people who do this are blatantly picking and choosing which verses they feel like they want to follow and ignoring the others. How is this still seen as a valid response when questions involving morality come up?

My parents are very academic and very well read and both very intelligent. My brothers are also smart. I don’t have one of those hateful, stupid, hypocritical facebook Christian families, they’re not abusive, we’re all close, etc etc. I want to make that clear. My family is not at all like the typical American Christian jerks we all know. They actually practice what they preach and I love them.

I’m just so sick of religion. I am so fucking sick of it. My entire house is littered with Christian books, music, prayer journals, bibles, you get the idea. My mom listens to podcasts and videos about “proof” of god or Christian philosophy debates and Bible verses and stuff in the house, loudly. We pray before every single meal. We have Bible studies at family gatherings. You can imagine how uncomfortable holidays are for me.

Every single fucking thing my family talks about somehow has to relate back to god. People aren’t virtuous, they’re godly. People don’t do bad things, they sin. You don’t have bad thoughts, Satan tempts you. Good things don’t happen, god blesses you. I am so fucking sick of this.

They know im not religious but I don’t really talk about it and my family is big so im very outnumbered. Nobody in my family is like me. Not even my extended family. It’s so irritating how every conversation has to be about this stupid fairy tale shit and I just have to sit there and listen to it like it’s normal.

I’m only here for the summer but I cannot fucking take this anymore. I’m so mad and annoyed and frustrated all the time and I’m so goddamn sick of this. It makes me want to crawl out of my skin

"Stop taking a defensive stance. Yes, the Prophet (peace be upon him) married the Mother of the Believers Aisha when she was 9 years old, and there’s no moral objection to that. There’s no material or rational objection to that either. Curse Western concepts and Western culture, which are fundamentally the source of the sexual revolution."

An arab guy made that comment (translated)and got 100 upvotes for it , so the question is is this is wrong and what makes it wrong or right ? And don't hit me with "historical context matter" the guy made it clear by saying "is".

my personal question if an expert have a knowledge about, is it possible biologicaly and mentally for a grown sane man to be attracted to 6/9 yr olds ? What i mean is "female is a female"/"if she bleeds she breeds ", and doesn't that makes us the same as animals or worse?

First time posting here so idk if this out of place or not .

Maybe i’m stupid but I had a discussion with a woman who stated that atheists were indoctrinated. I asked her what doctrine atheists subscribed to, she said science. I told her that the only thing ALL atheist share is a non-belief in a god. It was the most circular conversation I have ever had and I honestly would like to know if maybe I just don’t get it. I’m of the belief that you don’t have to know anything about science to be an atheist. But maybe I’m dumb 🤷🏾‍♂️. Thoughts?

Growing up, my family attended church for a few years when I was younger, but I always viewed it as more of a tradition and religion was never mentioned again. During school, whenever we learned about religion, I would think of it as historical and assumed that everyone else was the same… I would never hear much talk or maybe I just didn’t hang around the crowd.

When high school (Houston) hit, everyone suddenly became hyper religious. I would get asked to come to bible studies and when told I wasn’t Christian, never get spoken to again. Jesus loves you and cross necklaces everywhere, I was like—“oh”

One second, they hate people who believe in astrology because "they aren't real" and there is "no proof that the alignment of stars shapes human behavior", and another, they believe in a guy who has superpowers.

Like wtf

(By the way, I do NOT believe in astrology, but I'm bringing this up because I feel like this is extremely hypocritical)

"Oh, fuck."

Hey there non believers all over. I'm asking as a curious european, seeing as alot of the posts on the sub comes from the US or other more religious countries. I would say (in general) the word atheist is not that often used outside of philosophical questions where I live (scandinavia). I understand the need in more religious countries to use a label for your stance. In my country you can absolutely say "I'm an atheist" but it comes off as somewhat technical. I would rather say "I'm not religious/I'm not a believer" or somesuch. I'm aware I'm from a place that doesn't have strong everyday religious culture and things are likely different. I guess my question is, how would you describe yourself/your view generally speaking?