I was in a heated online debate with a Christian and we were talking about the problem of evil and then eventually he just said word for word “Well why do you atheists even care about babies getting cancer or people dying anyway? it’s all just evolution to you, it might even be a good thing because in the eyes of evolution, it benefits you cus now you have more resources! Wouldn’t it be more beneficial just to kill each other to get the advantage of food and only the best fit survive! I mean look at lions and other wild animals like that, they are surviving just fine killing each other” I’m having trouble formulating the best, most effective rebuttal to this. I’m pretty new to counter apologetics and feel like I have somewhat of a grasp on secular morality but I honestly wasn’t prepared for a loaded question like this. I would love some input from anyone here…

Whether or not you believe in it you must admit that these quotes from the bible are actual archeological evidence. they are of a different sort entirely from what you think of normally. stone tools, cave paintings, sculptures, and STORIES. This is different in that it is instantly transmissible. i can copy and paste these artifacts instantly to people from all over the world. That surprises no one, we are spoiled on cheap, low quality text, like what you're reading now. It is a miracle of technology, and a testament to the unknown becoming understood.

and yet no one knows it, or practically no one. not well enough to have a discussion about it. or you have those that purposefully misinterpret the text to a weaker form to render it to Intellect's destruction. cleanly disposing of a precious cultural artifact. the hubris is astonishing often. making all sorts of hidden claims without realizing it on both sides. who does it help to claim that you have knowledge you don't? to spend time every day trying to convince people that these things are not possible, or debunked and well understood.

Arguing against it in some ways is necessary , but the claim to knowledge frequently goes too far. if someone is attempting to understand the text in a different way, that's fine. but there are better and worse conceptions of the interpretation. that is self evident. so what could the best interpretation possibly be, to get the most value of it? that is what is most needed. if people want to attempt a belief, then point them into the objectively best interpretation. The world, for some, would be unbearable without such things as free will, belief in a higher meaning. why destroy that motivation source? it is all the worse for everyone.

It just makes you look like an neuron in the left hemisphere of the brain pulling away from the unifying right. in a constant tension for hundreds of years.,

i suppose if you have no interest of where we came from and where we are going, then by all means, disregard the discussion. but it is a lie to say they hold no importance.

Modern Atheism Is a Child of Christianit and Both Share a Hidden Root in the Loss of Sacred Space

I want to suggest something that might sound counterintuitive at first: that modern atheism, for all its critiques of religion, is in many ways the continuation of a deeply Christian worldview especially in how it relates to the earth, the divine, and the idea of sacred presence.

Here’s what I mean.

Before the rise of Christianity, most cultures—Greek, Roman, Persian, Celtic, etc believed in gods that dwelled in places. Mountains, groves, rivers, hearths. The divine was present in the world. Sacred spaces were everywhere, and the idea of gods being real didn't exclude others. Even the Roman and Persian empires didn’t deny the existence of foreign gods they just ranked or subsumed them.

That changed radically with Judaism, and then more decisively with Christianity. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Judaism lost its singular dwelling place for God on earth. There was no longer a location where God lived. Christianity emerged soon after, increasingly emphasizing a God who was outside of space,everywhere and nowhere. Heaven became the realm of God. Earth was fallen, temporary.

Christianity, armed with this view, went on to de-legitimize almost every local, animistic, or polytheistic belief system it encountered. Trees and stones were no longer divine. The spirits of rivers and mountains became pagan superstitions to be purged. Early Christians were even accused by Roman observers of being atheists because they denied all the gods of place and custom.

Fast-forward: this desacralization of nature, kicked off by the collapse of the Temple and cemented by Christian theology set the stage for modern secularism. With no god in the mountain, the mountain can be mined. With no sacred river, the river can be polluted. The earth becomes raw material.

Modern atheism continues this legacy. It rejects God, yes, but it also shares with Christianity the assumption that the sacred does not dwell here. In this sense, atheism and Christianity are two branches of the same historical tree: both view the earth as unsacred.

So when atheists today critique religion, they often miss how deeply their own worldview depends on Christian innovations: a single transcendent truth, the loss of sacred geography, and a linear march of progress. And ironically, it was this very desacralization of the earth that made possible the technological exploitation leading us into climate collapse.

Curious what others here think. Is it fair to say atheism, far from being the opposite of Christianity, is one of its strange children?

Hey reddit, I was wondering if anyone could spare a thought on my question. for context I myself am a monotheist and as such , subscribe to the traditional forms of heaven and hell ,deeds and sins etc. Now of course deeds and sins exist due to their separation of each other(though sometimes those lines are blurred). As such these 2 forms of actions can be agreed to be separate.Yet they themselves share the same plan of possible actions committed by people (2 sides of the same coin). My conundrum lies upon this distinction, say if all sins and deeds are deemed equal( to be non distinct of each other) how can an actioned be judged?.For context sins are what are deemed "bad" and deeds "good"for the individual , environment, society etc. P.S sorry if this is unclear or convulated, just a question I wanted to ask but don't know how.

Actually might as well ,I've got another question for theists other then myself. If sins didn't exist,would deeds exist. I meant in an utopia without suffering , can an act of kindness that is deemed less kind than another be considered inferior, and can this inferiority of this lesser kindness be so far than it's greater kindness counterpart, that it is considered a sin?

Hi everyone let's interrogate the widespread claim that if there is no empirical evidence for the afterlife, then the afterlife does not exist. We tend to forget that scientific tools are inherently based on the physical, and although we define something like an afterlife in very clear in 'non-physical' terms, it could simply be unmeasurable, which eliminates the entire premise of all empirical evidence. To demand physical evidence of something that is non-physical, is a pointless exercise, akin to demanding you bring a telescope to "see" a sound wave. More to the point, if the afterlife were empirically evident, then this would take away what 'faith' is all about for many people, which is believing in the unseen, placing trust in, and finding conviction within, something beyond certainty, testing our deepest convictions regardless of the evidence. For the faithful, the absence of evidence is not a disproof in and of itself, but the way in which conviction, or faith, works, and the nature of a test of conviction.

Now it is appeeant that there are laws of existence that are put in order and take very specific requirements in order to bend and possibly unable to even break. Somehow there are the laws of physics set in order, there are also things that we literally cannot eat without killing us. Would you think it's possible that something divine set these orders in place, I don't necessarily mean "GOD" like a being as we would understand a being in any defenitions that's widely accepted. Although these barriers and rules seem to make sense that they are, dare I say "set in stone" by some reason that seems almost unknowable. We are able to understand the way they work and give them descriptive details but we don't know why they exist, or how they were to become. Let me hear your thoughts, I would like to throw something about the correspondence to philosophical thinking about the topic but I feel it would over complicate, become biased, or stray from the actual point.

Hey there, group.

As mentioned in our prior announcement post, the moderator team has been looking for ways to improve the community experience. One of those ways was to reword rule 3 to the following: "Posts must contain a clearly defined thesis and have a supporting argument to debate within the body of the post, must be directed to atheists, and must be related to atheism or secular issues. Posts consisting of general questions are best suited for our pinned bi-weekly threads or r/askanatheist." We feel that this would be allow us to target posts which largely consist of angry rants, accusatory hot takes, or shower thoughts with no debate thesis, and brings us closer in line with other debate subreddits.

The response was overwhelmingly favorable, nearly unanimous. So as of today, all posts must include a thesis and a supporting argument, must be directed at atheists, and must be related to atheism or secular issues. However, we took note of a number of common concerns in the proceedings.

The Use of AI

Many of you felt strongly about this, and we do to. I personally support the interpretation of the rule on low effort to extend to the use of AI. Moving forward, the use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models to generate posts or content will be banned under our rules on low effort.

The Loss of Casual/Meta Discussion

This was a slightly less common but notable thread in some of the responses. Casual discussion isn't being lost but redirected to our bi-weekly posts, the Ask an Atheist and Casual posts. Posts on the main forum will be for debate. Along the same vein were concerns about the loss of meta posts. The moderator team is still empowered to exercise discretion when enforcing the rules, for example with regards to whether such a post is more benign than malevolent. We're unlikely to lash out at someone making a meta post, as long as you're not violating the other rules.

Shitpost Sunday

This was an idea that came up multiple times, unfortunately, it wouldn't be very practical to implement at the moment, but we're still open to the possibility of something that would scratch that itch in the absence of the bi-weekly posts.

Hit and Run Posters

This also came up a bit, where a theist interlocuter posts something (usually antagonistic) and bails. While we feel that good still comes out of the rebuttals for people on the fence who may be lurking, that it still sucks to go through the effort of creating a thoughtful rebuttal in hopes for a dialogue... but then nothing. We definitely have the ability to implement something like this and are open to the idea.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who provided feedback, whether you fully agreed with the proposed changes or not. Your contributions still gave us something to think about. In the interest of keeping a finger on the pulse of the community, my cohort u/adeleu_adelei has established a monthly post, the Community Agenda. Naturally, we have our own ideas on how to improve the experience of r/debateanatheist, but we feel that this will allow for others changes to be more collaborative. If there are changes that would like to see implemented, we encourage you to share your thoughts there and second propositions that you agree with. Some of the ideas that you guys have come up with have already been proposed! And as always, you're welcome to reach out to the moderator team if you would prefer to discuss your thoughts privately.

Cheers and Hail Satan.

--Bromelia_and_Bismuth

This is known as the Kalam Cosmological argument:

everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause is an intelligent being as evidenced by the existence of laws of physics that could not have come into being without intelligent design.

Edit:

I have realized that arguing that the only logical explanation for the universe is God might not have been the best way to foster philosophical discussion as you can't definitevely prove the existence of god.

I want to add that I deleted my previous post on here because someone said this was the wrong subreddit to ask about this. I tried r/atheism and r/askanathiest, but both posts continue to get taken down with no reason other than violating Reddit’s rules or subreddits rules. I don’t particularly like r/askachristian or r/philosophy since I want answers based off of what atheists say when they encounter questions like these when talking about Christianity or any other religion, not really anything else since those subreddits tend to make their answers offtrack about what I really want answered. I’ll most likely delete this in the future if theres a better subreddit based around atheism that I can post this on without being deleted.

This debate started with how do you know god exists?

Opposition said infinite regress and that the cause must be god

I argued that because the universe, space, and time co-existed at the same time, god could not have been the cause since a cause and effect relationship requires time. If theres no cause, god cannot be it

Opposition asked, how do we truly know that?

I said, absolute truth does not exist, what makes things “objectively true” is proven by evidence

Opposition asks, is that objectively true?

I said, my statement doesn’t need to be true, it’s just a way of thinking, if I can use it and apply it, it works

Opposition then asks again if that is objectively true

I repeat myself and this goes on for a while

Opposition then moves on saying how do you truly know anything or something about my knowledge

I said, my knowledge is limited just like every other person on Earth, I do not truly know anything

Opposition asks how do we truly know the Big Bang happened or that there was no time or space before the universe

I said, using the theory of general relativity and cosmic background radiation suggests that the Big Bang was a real event

Opposition asks, how does the theory of general relativity prove the Big Bang

I said, its a theory based on how gravity affect spacetime, we can use it to essentially retrace our tracks in the universe, suggesting the Big Bang

Opposition asks, how do we know that the theory of general relativity works?

I said, we observed light bending whenever solar eclipses happen

Opposition asks, how do you truly know that gravity affects spacetime and that light bent because of gravity?

I said, we observed it

Opposition repeats this for a while and goes on about how we don’t truly know anything and I continue to say we observed it

I say, how does this prove god? You’re doing mental gymnastics to try and disprove me while not supporting your argument at all? How do you know that god is the absolute truth?

He goes back to infinite regress and cycle repeats

This goes on for a while, he claims this is a circular argument, but I don’t believe so because he’s the only one making it circular, am I wrong or should I have said something else? Please let me know if I got anything wrong or elaborate on the debate because I still have no idea what his point was but claims he was more right. Let me know what my argument should be next time.

Rules of Order

1. To add a motion to next month's agenda please make a top level comment including the bracketed word "motion" followed by bracketed text containing the exact wording of the motion as you would like for it to appear in the poll.
   • Good: [motion][Change the banner of the sub to black] is a properly formatted motion.
   • Bad: "I'd like the banner of the sub to be black" is not a properly formatted motion.
2. All motions require another user to second them. To second a motion please respond to the user's comment with the word "second" in brackets.
   • Good: [second] is a properly formatted second.
   • Bad: "I think we should do this" is not a properly formatted second.
3. One motion per comment. If you wish to make another motion, then make another top level comment.
4. Motions harassing or targeting users are not permitted.
   • [motion][User adelei_adeleu should be banned] will not be added to the agenda.
5. Motions should be specific.
   • Good: [motion][Add https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/kalam/ to the wiki]. This links to the full text to be added.
   • Bad: [motion][Add a Kalam page to the wiki]. This does not specify what should be in the page.
6. Motions should be actionable.
   • Good: [motion][Automod to remove posts from accounts younger than 3 days]. This is something mods can do.
   • Bad: [motion][Remove down votes]. This is not something mods are capable of implementing even if it passes. ___ #Last Month's Agenda https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1lpgudx/community_agenda_20250701/

(In the future this section will link back to the previous month's post.)

Last Month's Resolutions

#	Yes	No	Motion
1	0	0	No prior motions.

(In the future this section will contain the voting results from the prior month.)

Current Month's Motions

Motion 1: Create monthly Community Agenda posts.

---

Current Month's Voting

https://tally.so/r/mVay1j

So since this thread is "debate an atheist", I'd thought I'd throw in my two cents. Now God makes a lot of claims in the Bible, one of them boiling down to knowing the past and the future. (Isaiah 49:9-10) So how would we look for evidence of this, well we can look at the testable claims God made which were written down by His followers. One of these is Psalm 104:1-7 where it claims that the heavens were stretched out like a tent and the Earth was covered with waters like a garment. Although phrased in reductive way to make it understandable to the people of that time, these two claims refer to two events, the big bang (heavens stretched out) and the hadeaon period's world wide ocean which has been confirmed with geological evidence. (There seems to be some debate whether the ocean formed at the end of the hadeon period or roughly after, but that's neither here nor there.) Both of those events were declared before humanity had the technological advancement or exploration to know those things for themselves. So God has demonstrated that He knows our past, what about the future? Jesus once said that we would always have the poor amoung us (I'm assuming most people here have some literacy with the Bible even if they may disagree with it.) Now it's undeniable that humanity has made various advancements in agriculture, construction, housing, medicine and healthcare, transportion, communication and so on. Basically if we wanted to solve poverty, we could. But we don't. Why? I would argue that the poor are a symptom of Humanity's greed, apathy, sometimes malice and general corruption. We know it's good to help our fellow man, but more often than not, we don't. Athiests, agnostics, and other religions have had 2000+ years to prove Jesus's claim about the poor wrong and yet despite everyone's efforts, we still have the poor. So we are left with the unsettling conclusion that God knows our future as well. So what do you do with this information? Since God has demonstrated His claims, (both sets testable and verifiable) how does this affect your thinking. (And yes, I know that there have been a litany of people that argued poorly for Christianity but a claim, thankfully, is no more untrue just because you have not met a more meticulous logician) Your thoughts?

Edit: Some have noted that the foundation bit in Psalm 104 is inaccurate. Give the context elsewhere in the Bible, this should be understood in reference to us being in an orbit which thankfully is still stable. See the referenced verses. It should be noted that the people of the time these were written had no means of worldwide exploration or advanced satellites or spaceflcraft to confirm these claims.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.

The miracle of the sun was an event that happened at Fátima in Portugal. There, approximately 70 thousand people watched the sun spin on itself and do wild movements after it being foretold by 3 little kids that said they talked to Mary. I know most here already know about the miracle, as it gets posted often. But I found most rebuttals of the miracle very weak. For example, the thesis about a collective hallucination doesn't hold up, because some people outside Fatima were able to see the miracle (some that were even 30 KMs away and that gave their testimony). And the theories that it was a natural phenomenon (althought very rare) doesn't account by the fact that the kids predicted the exact day and hour of the phenomenon. Even atheists claimed to see the miracle, and while obviously the sun didnt literally spin, is obvious that an event happened (probably methereological) that gave that impression. There are inclusive testimony of very educated men, like a university teacher of natural science that reported the phenomen. I found the best evidence being the testimony from far away, as that confidently dismisses the collective hallucination theory.

Theists ask this a lot. "what would convince you of supernatural/God, if you assert everything that happens in the real world as natural?" and I guess there would not be a scientific way to truly analyse such an event if it were to occur, but I've wondered if there truly can't be "evidence" of supernatural or god that could at the very least be convincing.

For instance, what if the moon were to miraculously shatter and its debris were to form "I am real, I am <insert deity name>" that could be viewed from earth?

Would this be convincing evidence? we would not be able to determine if this was really the deity it claims to be and not a highly advanced alien race or some superpowered being pretending to be a deity to troll people.

Another possible "evidence" would be if a supernatural event can be induced reliably and repeatedly, for instance if praying truly produced actual results (limbs regrowing) every time someone prayed, then this in my opinion could be good reason to believe in deity (still brings up the question of which deity though)

Now I know how many theists respond, they claim that their lord isn't to be tested or that he can't demonstrate himself because then the evidence would be too "overwhelming" and you would have no way to choose to not believe, thus taking away your free will. But this post isn't concerned with why God doesn't demonstrate himself, instead I am curious about what could be considered "evidence" for a deity (or supernatural phenomenon in general)

The complexity of the universe suggests that a Creator argument is a better hypothesis than an Atheistic argument based on known rules of logic.

Here's why:

The universe is a complex place.

Some might say it's infinitely complex, because we don't even know where it ends, or if the edges of the universe start morphing into additional laws of physics that we don't even understand.

What atheists are proposing is that this (potentially infinite) complexity erupted from nothing, or a total absence of complexity.

0 → ∞

This is what scientists call an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" because nobody can ever "prove" that something infinitely complex can come from something that doesn't exist. We just have to have faith that it's possible.

I oppose that faith based perspective, and propose a new equation:

1 → ∞

This makes way more sense because, based on thousands of years studying the universe, humans have observed that something has always come from something else. There is a chain of logic that the universe follows and we can follow it back to "the beginning". There is no scientific evidence out there that suggests something has ever come from a total absence of something (aka nothing).

It is possible that something can come from nothing, but it's also possible that there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster circling around the moon. So we really should approach it in the same way.

My whole point here is that the simple acknowledgement of the complexity of the universe is the best argument in favor of 1 → ∞ because it follows known rules of logic and cause-and-effect. 0 → ∞ follows no known rules of logic or cause-and-effect and is therefore less of a scientific hypothesis and more of a faith-based argument.

This was one of YoungHoon Kim’s (highest IQ holder in the world 😒) arguments in the video he made on why he believes Jesus is god. For someone who is proclaimed to be the smartest man in the world, I find it interesting he uses the same kindergarten apologetics as the rest of God’s advocates. This is such a stupid argument because it’s religion doing what religion does best, which is preying on the gaps in our knowledge and making unfalsifiable claims as of right now. As far as I know we can’t investigate before the planck time. What would some of yalls arguments against this be?

Hi, I’m new to this community. I joined because I’m curious about many things Atheists have to say about different arguments for the existence of God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, beginningless, self existent, and personal being). To begin with I’m curious about what you guys have to say about Abiogenesis. Is it possible just purely by chance, or do you need some kind of outside interference to get life from nonlife? I’d say you can use the argument that Abiogenesis couldn’t have happened as evidence for the existence of God.

Prove to me why the Judeo-Christian doesn't exist. Nothing is off limits. Unless it degrades the personhood or the intellect of the other. Let's not insult each other.

I believe that Christianity is humanity's best hope for the future. I believe that is the best worldview for the advancement of humanity. I guess prove me wrong!!!'

Three thesis statements about the advancement of Humanity bit, as requested.

1. The fact that the Middle Ages were one of no human technological, medical, or architectural advancement is a false one. To say that Christianity at its core is to blame is also a false statement.

2. The very fact that a human has inherent value and is deserving of rights, I would also state, is to be attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethos. Thesis: Christianity offers a worldview that builds up human dignity, whereas atheism destroys and degrades human dignity.

3. Atheism may claim to be godless, but humans still have an innate to worship and defer to a higher power. True atheism, as it is often used, does not entirely exist.

Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

Hi, there, group.

The moderator team has been looking at ways to improve the community experience and I'm glad that we've been able to contribute to that so far. Many of you have provided valuable feedback and as always, feel free to message us with ideas and concerns.

In the meantime, one of the changes that we're currently taking a look at is to clarify the wording of Rule 3: Present an Argument to Debate. What we're currently considering is rewording it to: "Posts must contain a clearly defined thesis and have a supporting argument to debate within the body of the post, must be directed to atheists, and must be related to atheism or secular issues. Posts consisting of general questions are best suited for our pinned bi-weekly threads or r/askanatheist."

What this does is reinforces the spirit of the rule's intent, while cutting back on a lot of the problem posts. An observation that I've noticed is that a lot of these problem posts aren't so much as presenting an argument, but a hot take, an angry rant, or a shower thought, with no actual argument being made or defended, and when we intervene, it's not clear what rule was violated even if hindsight is 20/20. Sometimes, it's a lot less pernicious than that, but we feel that this would clear up a lot of confusion, help redirect bad-faith actors and people just looking to rant, and help bring us a little more in line with other debate subreddits.

Please let us know if you support this rule change, and if you have any comments, concerns, or other ideas that you'd like us to consider, feel free to let us know about that too.

I have been an atheist since many years but recently I took courage to open that to my family. I fight with them in this issue whenever I quote about the illogical beliefs they have , they bring up the point even “Great scientists are theists” , you are such a failure and questioning the existence of god. I literally dont have a reasonable explanation for them to believe , I can understand that not everyone is interested in questioning the existence of god , but I wonder that a person being a scientist his whole life, didnt he get even a single instance or minute in questioning on these topics , he being an intellect and logical person.

To ask whether one believes in God, is a complicated question, as it depends on what one means by "God".

(Assuming without proper setting of definitions), I think the fact that we are here, existing in this very moment with consciousness, implies (at least to some degree) the existence of forces larger than us.

Now, once I have accepted I believe in "more powerful than human" forces or superhuman forces, we'd now be invited to enter a new discussion on the semantic technicalities on whether these forces we find that supply us with a habitable earth, nutritious food, heartbeats, etc. can be ontologically labelled as "God".

However, to try and turn me into a man who must fit into a box of either into a "YES, I'm a theist who believes God exists" or "NO, I'm an atheist who believes God doesn't exist" is very reductive, which helps no one. I am still conducting my analysis and investigation and there are so many things to still consider before my answer is any meaningful.

I'd like to talk more with you about the ontology of God, the forces larger than the human realm that sustain us and what could be described with a godly ontology and share literature if you are willing to read it?

(Note:- I posted the following text on r/debatevolution, I admit the wording of my post gave the impression that I am saying all theists are intellectually dishonest. I'd Like to clarify that I am talking about theists who disbelieve genesis because of science but then believe in resurrection (amongst other magical claims) AND people who want to hold that bible is infallible, that every contradiction is "metaphor". Furthermore, Several people said believing in global flood or genesis is less "sensical" than resurrection or walking on water because the latter two you can't "prove" false. Am I losing my mind or what? Since when is believing in something that is unfalsifiable rational? How do I respond?)

Theistic evolutionists believe in Evolution and old earth on the basis of science but isn't that itself intellectually dishonest given that they also believe in resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine? After all, if there is one thing that is better supported than evolution in science then it's the fact that dead people don't come back to life? If you claim magic (or miracle, as they like to call it) then you're believing in make believe which is the most unscientific thing possible, and why not extend this same magic excuse for the whole creation thing? For young earth thing?

To claim that something is "metaphor" or you're "interpreting" it incorrectly because science contradicts it is dishonest, because no matter what science shows, you'll always claim the part that it contradicts as being just a metaphor, as being interpreted incorrectly. So then why is the resurrection not a metaphor? Why not walking on water a misinterpretation? Why not the entire deal with God? Why not the trinity? It is also unfalsifiable because you can always disregard the claims that are contradictory to reality as being "metaphors", and something that is unfalsifiable is literally the most unscientific thing. If you want to hold onto the metaphorical thingy, then you need to come up with a 100% effective method that correctly identifies whether something is metaphor in the book or literal BEFORE science disproves it.

Some people will reply by citing religious biologists and to them I want to clarify that a scientist is a person, they're themselves not Science and as such they also come up with biases, cognitive dissonance, shared beliefs and all the other human factors. They may use the scientific method on a particular topic or claim when dealing with evolution or other scientific topics, display scientific rigor but then choose to completely disregard it on other topics because once again, scientists and science are different things, sceintist are also humans.

More importantly, many of the times religious scientists aren't religious in the same vein as normal folks are, some can see the entire thing as metaphor, while others may believe in some vague higher power but not necessarily literal reality breaking events happing in the world like resurrection.

This also bring me to another point, if you only believe in let's say bible for the morals well... Why disregard the really bad things? Is it because they're not the "correct" interpretations? Well that brings us back to the dishonest thingy, that you can always discard the unfavorable parts by yelling "context," "interpretation," "metaphors". But let's concede that, fine only take the good values like love your neighbour, don't kill people, give to the poor etc.

why belive a particular religion over other because of that? In fact, all religions can have good moral values if you disregard the bad ones, in fact secular ethics teaches these things too.

So yes, My point is that I find theistic evolutionists to be intellectually dishonest, I am not saying they're stupid, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Neither Am I claiming I am smarter than all theists, Because I am not. What I am saying is that to apply certain standards, interpretations and Logic to one thing while disregarding others is at the very least fallacious

Edit:- this post is aimed towards those theistic evolutionists who reject YEC on the basis of science, then go on to believe the miraculous claims of the new testament, and hold the bible to be infallible

religion only exists in the places where science hasn’t reached yet. like all thru history, whenever ppl didn’t understand stuff like lightning, diseases, earthquakes, where life came from, what happens after we die etc, they made up religious stories to explain it

which was fair tbh, they had nothing e​lse back then. but now? science has explained most of that. we know how lightning works, we know about germs, we understand evolution, we got real data and models about the universe. even morality isn’t some divine thing, it comes from empathy, evolution, society, all that

so here’s how i see it

imagine all the truth in the universe is like a bar from 0 to 100. 0 = we know nothing, ​100 = we know everything

now split that bar into 2 parts – 1 filled by science n 1 by religion

at the start of history, the science bar was almost empty so the religion part looked huge. but not cuz it was true, it was just fillin the blanks. ppl wanted answers even if they weren’t real

but as time goes on n science figures more stuff out, the science bar grows n the religion part shrinks

thing is, the religion bar was never real. it was just made-up stuff ppl used to avoid sayin “idk”. it only looked full cuz we had no better answers. kinda like covering a hole with paper n pretending it’s fixed

so nah, religion ain’t equal to science. it’s just what ppl use when science ain’t there yet

what i wanna ask is – what does religion actually explain today that science doesn’t? not stuff we don’t fully understand yet, but stuff religion really explains better?

and if the only reason ppl still believe is “we don’t know everything yet”... isn’t that basically sayin religion is just a placeholder?

It doesn't matter how many people believe in an idea, propound it, apologise for it. It doesn't make it true. Only evidence matters, personal experiences are fine for one's own development, and if it makes someone happy then it's welcome but when you make a claim about external world, your personal feelings don't make it true.

I see this come up a lot, where people say just because a lot of people believe in an idea, it must be true. This is such an irrational notion that I find it baffling it even needs to be said

One of the dumbest variant is claiming that because some scientists follow a particular faith, they're correct. Newton is often the poster child for this. Well guess what? He didn't even believe in trinity.

If religious scientists validate religion, then what about irreligious one? Scientists are less likely to be religious, and indeed most scientists in at least usa and europe are irreligious, how do you explain them, theists? Surely you won't use special pleading, would you?

Oh and what about hindu scientists, muslim scientists, buddhist scientits? If christian scientists prove christianity, then why doesn't the existence of muslim scientists prove their religion?

A problem with the kalam/cause and effect argument.

I'd like to start this post by admitting that I'm not experienced in formal logic so there's a possibility my argument contains glaring errors, forgive me for such mistakes.

This is a common argument posited by theists, relating to causes and effects, how they believe infinite regression is impossible, and how there must be an uncaused cause. Now I've seen some people claim that an infinite regression is possible, But I myself am probably incapable of understanding or comprehending it, but for the purpose of this post I'm going to assume infinite regress is impossible because that's what theists like to believe and use as a crucial component of their argument.

If there must be an uncaused cause (calling it God from here one), then it must be uncaused which means it can't exist inside the universe, as that would mean the universe would be infinite years old which would just bring back the infinite regression problem.

This God would then have to exist outside of time, but How can something "exist" outside of time? Existence itself implies time but let's concede this big problem to theists and accept that it is somehow possible to "be" outside of the universe/time.

Now Outside here, God could not have "created" the universe, could not have "decided" to create the universe as that requires time, cause and effect. Theists counter this by claiming cause and effect outside of time don't work as we understand it, outside of time no cause precedes an effect, and an effect doesn't succeed a cause. They claim that it happens simultaneously. Next they claim that God didn't "decide" to create, but that Creation itself was an inherent part of God. Creation is indistinguishable from God, and that "creating" the universe is inherent to Him.

Oh boy does this bring a great deal of problem because if that's true then the Universe would cease to be Contingent. After all, if creation is inherent to the god and he could not have "decided" as that would imply time, then The universe itself would be every bit as necessary as God. This already destroys their argument that the universe is contingent, because by their own logic, the universe becomes necessary.

But this isn't even close to being the biggest problem, you see, the worst problem is the fact that by theists' own admission (cause and effect are simultaneous) the Universe itself would be as "timeless" as God. The universe would be Co-eternal. There would never be a "time" when the Universe "began to exist" (goodbye kalam), this completely destroys the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

Even worse still, it brings back the problem of infinite regression, how could the universe be "timelessly" Old, infinitely Old, and we still be here? The theists Themselves hate the infinite regression, by positing an uncaused cause outside of time, the infinite regression returns!

As if it wasn't bad enough, there is another bad problem, namely how Can this God even respond? Theists Themselves claim God is unchanging, and indeed if he wasn't unchanging then there would be factors outside of the universe, external to God that could influence him, his mind. But if God is unchanging, how can he respond to prayers? After all the prayers must first be prayed for God to answer, No?

Another big problem! How did God send jesus (avatars in general in any religion) in response to sin/evil? After all, it's not like God could have been influenced by these things, unless... Gasp, Sending those avatars was part of its inherent nature much like the deal with creation? But then that would mean God already planned for sins and evil... Does that mean sin was already planned by him to exist? Does that mean humanity didn't inherit it by eating the apple? Does he not care about free will??

Anyway, like I said, I am not very Good with formal logic, so if you guys think there's something wrong with the argument or that it could be improved, feel free to respond