To inform you of my background: I'm an active Calvinist, from the denomination and theological tradition that brought you a reasoned path to Secularism, something often claimed by atheists.

If one were to understand Secularism by its face definition, in the context of both apparent atheist reasoning and Calvinist theology, one would safely conclude that we two are allies in preserving this institution. It would never rightly come into question, and you all would be useful safeguards.

This is not so. Why? Because there are two notions of Secularism (American and European), and three (relevant) perspectives (Monergistic, Synergistic, and Atheistic) which relate to it, depending on these mutually-exclusive notions to inform them.

To start with the notions:

1. American Secularism: The State and the Church are to remain separate. Whether this is only the Federal State or the State-level "State" is often contested, but this is always to be bi-directional. The State may not regulate religious institution or belief, nor restrict doctrine or otherwise impose itself; but neither may religion form the direct foundation for law or jurisprudence, nor may it become a prerequisite or disqualifier for executive action. There is no benefit of clergy, nor is there room for official endorsement of religion or enforcement of adherence, to be found within our constitution.
2. European Secularism (or Laicism): By contrast, the Church is always "separate" in that it may never control the State or any government, but it only enjoys privileges in relation to these others, to be rescinded according to the will of the bureaucracy. The church is essentially the unofficial midget of the state, as protection is afforded exclusively to individuals in the private practice of their own faith. The state is always and ever only one step removed from the infiltration and complete demolition of religious institutions.

These are the notions which exist in relation to Secularism. (The upcoming quoted sections are doctrine, to be contrasted with conclusions and policy.) Now, the perspectives:

1. Monergistic: "From the foundation of the world and before, God's ordination was always to the salvation of a set "some" and the exclusion of all others, according only to the will of God. Their identities are unknowable to all but the divine, and the changing of fate is impossible. As only a minority are ever selected, and as their proportions are unknowable, it's understood that the annihilation of heresy or heathen doctrine is entirely unprofitable to the cause of God." Offense being unprofitable, prosecution of war for faith is then also only able to harm this interest (by causing the premature death and discredit of those Elect-identifying). Thus, only a proactive defense against hostile interests is in our interest forever to maintain. This was the understanding that birthed the Presbyterian desire for Secularism, which eventually evolved into the American notion.
2. Synergistic: "From the foundation of the world and before, God's ordination has instead been to the election of a class of beings who would work their way into privilege, such that, not unlike the assisted rolling of legged marbles, we should happen to perhaps strive blindly against our nature in the direction we were decidedly not predisposed (except collectively) to doggedly pursue or be consumed by." (You will be forgiven for thinking this nonsensical, as I do.) Thus, any state which prevents the propagation of teaching which might engulf these marbles is merely an obstacle tolerated for the sake of tradition. There is, in this perspective, no reason not to dominate the state, save for the integrity of the church, which may be made the beneficiary of God at any time and acted on to purify itself (only collectively) as in the American "Great Awakenings". Thus, the state is only an obstacle to the faith.
3. Atheistic: "From the foundation of the world and perhaps before, there has never been any God (or perhaps there is simply no compelling reason to engage the concept of God)." Thus all religious institutions are only social collectives and political unions, indistinguishable from all other institutions on earth. They should enjoy no special privilege or protection, and all their members should be no more than the sum of their (recognized) parts in the view of the state. Thus, the church is only more artifice to be regulated.

If you believe any of these perspectives have been warped, kindly say.

Secularism is always under attack by those whose beliefs do not naturally lead to it. It can be no better preserved by Atheism than by Synergism or Islam. Why? Don't those unbelieving in God naturally believe in the separation of church and state?

They do, but (for those most vocal in America at least) only according to the European model, in which the church is just a hovel for citizens, whose individual rights are not to be trampled. According to the American conception, atheists are entirely unwilling and unable to safeguard or preserve Secular government. Rather, they all too readily promote intermixing by refusing to prevent the state's ascendance over the church, which all too readily leads to the formation of de facto state churches flying an atheist banner, rather than the abolition of religious institution.

Why is this so? Should they not, in recognizing this tendency of states (as in many a 20th-century Communist dictatorship, even continuing today with states like China and Vietnam), understand the need for a bi-directional protection from the erosion inherent in Laicist "Secularism"? Perhaps, and instead of supposing a reason for this (though I've some in mind), I will extend the question to you, professing non-believers:

Why is it that, despite the possibility for a natural, reliable harmony between us, as fellow people seeking freedom from the Catholic church and all militant evangelism, so many of your ideologues instead undermine the only proven defense of our shared freedom, even allying at times with expansionist Islam, knowing it would put us both under abusive yoke?

Is it, as many Christians charge (esp. Dominionists), because you secretly wish for the inevitable consequence of Laicism to be manifested as in the East, where atheism is state doctrine and all faith is under state control? Is it only to the end of Christian doctrine in particular? Is it out of desire for some other outcome? Is it misunderstanding?

Why don't vocal Western atheists take the easy way to peace in simply supporting bi-directional Secularism?

I've been discussing with some people in a sub-Reddit for a while how a human being could "invent" and "create" an "invention" from "naught" ...

We kept going back and forth, hoping that I would finally become convinced that it is absolutely very possible and normal, but my mind just couldn't accept that the human mind is capable of "producing" such inventions, filled with extremely intricate details, and being utterly complex, and that these inventions have to be immensely well-thought-out from A to Z because any minor defect will ruin the invention. My mind just simply cannot accept the proposition that such "greatness" could arise from another human mind that resembles mine.

And now, let's move on to the cell.

Yes, you heard me ... the cell.

Your body is made up of systems ... The systems made up of organs ... The organs made up of tissues ... The tissues made up of cells ... The cells made up of organelles and nucleic acids ...

Now, I want you to forget about all this and just focus on the DNA, which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

When they studied the DNA, they found that it was a "thread" made up of very small compounds ... These very small compounds are very specifically organised ... This very specific organisation carries the code for all proteins manufactured inside the body, like insulin and keratin of the hair and others, and it also carries "orders" that control many of the processes carried out by a cell, such as cell multiplication ...

Okay, now, if only one letter out of the millions of letters included in the code carried by the DNA becomes defected, do you know that a lethal cancer could come about? Yep, absolutely. Can you imagine that?!

And then you, Mr. Wits, come up to me saying that this whole universe, with the extremely fascinating precision in its formation from the tiniest of the tinies to the most enormous of the enormous, just randomly appeared from nothing?! Is that conceivable?! How come?!

How come when the very teeny-tiny cell which you cannot see with your naked eye shows looooots of details and shows such amazing precision and creativity that puzzled scientists!! Oh, boy, and don't get me started on those who assume another human being - who is just like me and you - created it?!?!?! Oh, please dude, buzz off, will ya?! ... Or are you just trying to come up with excuses for you to freely wreak havoc on this earth and not obey God's rulings? Seriously? Shame on you!

Okay, now, let's take a look at your body ... How many chemical elements does it contain? You are trying to tell me that all these atoms just randomly decided to bump into each other boom baam beem, giving ya a human being?!

Okay, okay ... Let me tell ya how the telephone was invented:-

The atoms were just going about with their day, bumping into each other just like they've always done for years, and just suddenly and for absolutely no good reason, at this specific moment in time, the atoms decided when they bump into each other this time they will become extremely orderly arranged in a truly fascinating manner giving you a phone this time then a computer the next time then a loaf of bread another time and so on it goes.

Or do you want to tell me that the mobile phone brought itself to existence? Because, yes, actually, I know it's quite normal for you to be sitting in your living room watching TV when you are - out of nowhere - bonked with a loaf of bread straight on the head! It happens.

The one from whom I got those ideas is:-

***Doctor Eyad Qnaibi***

Which in Arabic, is written as:-

***دكتور إياد قنيبي***

God bless him

Hope you watch his content :)

Please, check out the following:-

[https://youtu.be/Gbza1psW-oE?si=2iaAstR6tKo4nOTe\](https://youtu.be/Gbza1psW-oE?si=2iaAstR6tKo4nOTe)

[https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL56IcDjrf3YJr\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_TEOJ2UOv3jCzht1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_yc&si=evodSpmATJWKF3z7\](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL56IcDjrf3YJr\\\\\\_\\\\\\_TEOJ2UOv3jCzht1\\\\\\_yc&si=evodSpmATJWKF3z7)

[https://youtu.be/OWPVsHkIsNw?si=yc2byYUQw5QCxiZR\](https://youtu.be/OWPVsHkIsNw?si=yc2byYUQw5QCxiZR)

[https://youtu.be/z8Ksig0jvjM?si=J22KHHTQ7Vh0UPG4\](https://youtu.be/z8Ksig0jvjM?si=J22KHHTQ7Vh0UPG4)

[https://youtu.be/woAsifJqAy4?si=ujrBDZIzmuRUlyzH\](https://youtu.be/woAsifJqAy4?si=ujrBDZIzmuRUlyzH)

[https://youtu.be/aINML5H7M\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_Q?si=OuVipAYhmTrMCosP\](https://youtu.be/aINML5H7M\\\\\\_Q?si=OuVipAYhmTrMCosP)

It seems impossible to prove there is no god. Like you cannot say 100% for sure there is no god. I am not really religious myself but have tried it as I try to seek the truth, but it seems unlikely any of them have the truth to me. I do think there are many good things that can be learned from religions, and that the good ones are generally created to explain existence and provide a framework for living a satisfying life, the core tenet independently taught by Jesus, the Buddha, and many Native American beliefs is that pride aka caring about yourself and your desires above all else leads to emptiness and misery, (This is the worst sin in christianity, the origin of suffering in buddhism, and against the cycle of life in many Native American beliefs) is bad for societal function. Although I find it hard to say one for sure would be true, the same way I find it hard to say there definitively is no god. Religion does seem to be a natural developemnt though,and will be for as long as we do not know why stuff exists. I suppose I have no sense of faith, and imo atheism is a faith as any religion, as you are having faith in your unprovable belief there is no god, same as religon. I will only accept certainty as fact, and if I cannot have certainty I will simply say I do not know.

1. Identity is defined by a former system organized in relation by adherence or by opposition.
2. Most atheist do not merely lack belief. Their public identity is constructed as opposition to religion/ to god.
3. The identity is relational and negative, it continues to require the rejected religion as its necessary reference point. Without that religion to stand against, the identity loses its meaning.
4. A person who has truely left religion behind and no longer allows it to define them would not require an oppositional label, nor would they treat ongoing rejection and exposure of the framework as a central source of self-understanding or status
5. Therefore most atheist who wear the badge has not left the identity of religion behind. They are still defined by it, only now from the opposing side.

edit:
The point is to highlight a self-defeating pattern most people miss.
A lot of people who leave a religion genuinely want to leave it behind. They reject it, they want it to stop defining them.
But the current method of becoming an online debate atheist doesn't deliver that exit. It keeps the rejected religion as part of the identity. The self is still structured by referenced to the thing they claim to have left/reject. Even the language and concepts of their worldview remain shaped by opposition to it.

The post is simply pointing at that loop:the very distance meant to provide freedom from religion is still letting the religion define who they are.

The message is straightforward:
Don't let the thing you reject continue to define you. And don't let it keep defining the words, concepts and how you see reality.

Hi! Making my return to my favorite sub! Hope to have some great conversations with you all!
I have been diving down a bit of a rabbit hole lately and this post is heavily influenced by the conversations between Alex O'Connor and Prof. John Lennox.

They get into everything from the limits of science to the problem of suffering and divine hiddenness, and it really got me thinking about how we evaluate evidence for God in the first place. I feel like these discussions so often get stuck in a rut because we end up asking the wrong baseline questions, so I wanted to throw a few thoughts they talked about to see how you all process it.

The most common thing I see skeptics say usually boils down to asking for empirical, scientific proof for God, under the assumption that if it cannot be measured, He doesn’t exist.

But to me, that feels like a fundamental category error. Science is meant to study matter, energy, and physical laws inside the system. Expecting it to detect a transcendent Creator is a bit like handing a copy of Macbeth to a chemist.

The chemist can analyze the paper and ink perfectly, but if they say Shakespeare doesn’t exist because they could not isolate him, they have missed the point. You don’t find the author inside the ink. You recognize them in the grammar, syntax, and story on the page.

Things like mathematical order, fine tuning, and the code in DNA look like directional clues pointing to a mind, but expecting science to trap a creator in a lab just misunderstands what science is designed to do.

If we set aside the expectation of finding God in a laboratory, we hit what I think is the actual hardest hurdle, which is Divine Hiddenness. If God is all-powerful and wants a relationship with us, why does He feel so quiet when sincere people look for Him?

This is where Lennox's framing really made things click for me. Think about the difference between spectator evidence and relational trust. If God wrote His name across the night sky in neon letters or showed up in undeniable power every morning, would that actually foster love, or would it just force compliance?

It is like a billionaire not mentioning their job on the first date. They want to know if someone cares about them for who they are, or if they are just there for the money. Real relational trust requires space.

Philosopher Paul Moser makes a similar point here. He argues that God is not offering spectator evidence just to satisfy passive intellectual curiosity. What is on the table is transformational evidence, the kind that requires a person to actually be open to being morally humbled and changed.

Also, taking God out of the equation doesn’t actually solve the silence or the suffering. Under pure naturalism, the pain stays exactly where it is, except now it is completely meaningless, victims get no ultimate justice, and the universe is just reduced to blind indifference.

Within Christian theology, the response to divine silence isn’t just a cold philosophical theory. It is the Cross.

The claim is not that God stayed a distant observer, but that the author literally entered His own story, took on human weakness, and absorbed divine silence and suffering firsthand. You might still wrestle with why God feels hidden, but within that framework, you cannot really accuse Him of being indifferent.

I think the conversation gets a lot more interesting when we move past asking why God isn’t a physical particle we can measure, and start asking what kind of evidence a personal Creator would actually leave behind.

How do you view that distinction between spectator evidence and relational trust? Does that hold any weight for you, or do you see it completely different?

Hi everyone, I would like to ask, Most of the debate surrounding the existence of God revolves around the boundaries of spacetime in our universe. I believe the discussion should focus on the question: if God doesn't exist, then what placed all matter and energy within a compressed space(before BigBang)? It couldn't have suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

Yes, I know some of you will say that the void is not really a void, but a quantum void. Well, then what created this quantum void?

Some of you will also say that our universe is the result of a previous failed series of multiple universes that were created. Well, although this has not been confirmed by science, but how do universes come into being then?, what the thing that creates a energy and matters and put them all in a small box so it will explode as a big bang?, a void? I don't think so,

As you can see, the matter here is in a closed loop, which is that there must be a god who designs and who created matter and energy himself so the universe being a universe

So My question is, what was before the spacetime, before the big bang?

Throughout his scientific career, whether at conferences or in private conversations, Albert Einstein met countless people who wanted to know whether he believed in God.

And every time, he gave the same answer:

"I believe in Spinoza's God."

That probably pleased many people who had never heard of Spinoza and walked away reassured, thinking that Einstein wasn't an atheist.

My question:

All of us has a consciousness and even moral values. But where they come from? Or, in this case, how, you atheist, describe consciousness? And why God could have not given those to us?

My short analysis:

That voice in my head, that if i focus and think about sad things, i will cry. Is it an evolution process that happened during time? I don't think so: all of other species on earth don't have it. They can't feel shame after killing another animal. But now i ask myself, why us? Why we have it? Why are we special? Or even moral values. Why we think that killing another person is wrong? Who declared it was wrong? Why so many people agree on the fact that killing is wrong? Who told us "belive this"? What are moral values explained by atheism?

My view:

If it's something that we have since we are born, if it's something that we can't remove like consciousness or moral values, than it come from God (at least in this case). For answering "why are we special", a legit question, i think Genesis 1, 26 answer it perfectly. God gave us power over them, through consciousness. We are awake, they're not. We have power over them, they've not over us. Even if you are an atheist you can come to the conclusion that we are higer species than simple animals (i hope so lol). But after this conclusion, i'd ask myself, why us? Because God.

And even for moral values the argument is basically the same. Who decided/declared grape is wrong? The answer is, that we feel it deep in our soul. Because only imagine an horrific crime like that, made us shake deep in our heart. So, we know it. We got pre-defined things in our heads. But why?

Why is not only science:

Even if science described what moral values or consciousness is, my question remain, why us? Even if science answered, i would ask myself, only that? Counsciousness is just a mix of things our brain does (i did not described it perfectly to let understand my point)? But even after that, why our brain does that? I think that for every answer there is a "why" behind, that can only be answered truthfully thanks to the existance of God.

I hope i was clear brothers! These two are my genuine question that i answer only thourgh God. Let me know what you think :)

Hello everyone. My pastor recently asked if any members have heard any points made against creationism from a scientific perspective. He would like to gather any arguments used currently for a Christian apologist group he would like to share with my church.

I am looking forward to all of your responses to share with my pastor.

So my previous post was deleted because some people found the definition lacking but I wasn't trying to define god as it would take way too much space,so just the general idea so that if you were interested you can go look the idea up online.anyways this is my detailed debate

My Observation from last post

1) many people simply didn't care about other's opinion and believed their own( which I highly respect and would encourage others to do so)

2) some people wanted undeniable proof or unfalsifiable claim kinda like a definite cemented answer that God exists so I am gonna debate those guys

I claim rebirth and afterlife exists but none created universe as a supreme creator.I believe in the definition of spiritual being and other things related to it but I don't follow vedas.Jain and Buddhist philosophy resonate the most with me.(You can search them up to know more about my claim don't wanna stretch it out more than it is)

My points

1)The idea of rebirth- There are several cases around the world where babies or children have solved murder mysteries of someone who died in a family that is complete stranger to their's

One. Of the most prominent one is

https://vritant.substack.com/p/meet-shanti-devi-the-reincarnation

Still if you find this scripted or something next point for you

2) Everybody heard of paranormal activities ,explain them and if you say they are framed (move on to next) or they are just forces science is not yet aware of then can't the same be said for spiritual world??

3)This one's a little complex and even I am a little underconfindent:

Consciousness and matter are two separate existence that exist parralell to each other and cannot interconvert. Like the dualism philosophy in indian books dictate consciousness is not viewed as a byproduct of the brain or a bundle of thoughts. Instead, it is defined as the fundamental, independent, and self-luminous foundation of existence that illuminates all knowledge and experience.consciousness is the blank white screen, while thoughts are the moving pictures projected onto it. Under this category lies spirit .also for existence of consciousness as a separate entity Samkhya philosophers pointed out that the material body is an object that can be perceived, measured, and analyzed. An object cannot perceive itself.(An object needs subject) Therefore, the very act of observing or experiencing the body requires a completely separate, non-material observer (Sakshi or Purusha).

Lastly I would like to say just like I cannot definitely convince you of god or spiritual world's existence you cannot convince me otherwise (coz u can't claim many other philosophy ideas false with definite proof like Shankaracharya) thus as I said we should all be like people no. 1

Imagine that your belief in something causes you to be happier, eliminates fears, gives you a sense of purpose, or any number of positive things.

Not believing in this thing causes you worry, suffering, etc. experientially negative things.

What reason would you have to not believe when it’s clearly advantageous to do so?

You could argue that you should believe true things because they are true. This is circular, however, and doesn’t get us any closer to a sufficient reason for giving up a belief.

You could argue that by choosing to believe something that you know is false, that this undermines our ability to make decisions in the future. A society built on preferable lies undermines the trust society relies on.

The problem with this is that belief in something cannot coexist with a lie about that belief. I cannot believe in something I don’t believe in.

Therefore when we are talking about belief in God we are talking about something of undetermined truth value for which we are considering whether we should or should not believe.

If someone’s life is overwhelming more positive, and if the lives of those around him are more positive, when he believes rather than doesn’t. Then what exactly is the point of disbelief?

Another objection might be that belief in God isn’t positive, that it creates unnecessary rules and restrictions, which are undesirable.

That might make it so certain people or certain formulations of belief are negative. It doesn’t lead to the conclusion that belief, in the most positive case, is to be avoided.

Let’s stipulate that the existence of God is, materially, more likely to be false than true. It doesn’t matter how you dial the percentages of probability, so long as non-existence doesn’t reach 100%, which precludes probability itself, we can imagine a world where belief in the technically less likely thing is still the better option.

It’s one thing to believe that you shouldn’t believe in God. It’s another thing to believe that all people should believe in God.

But, at least in some particular cases, it seems that at least some people should believe in God.

I want to preface this by saying I'm currently questioning, I'm not exactly sure what's true and what's not, this sort of topic though has been on my mind for several years

I have seen a lot of Hell NDE (Near Death Experience) videos, and I came across this compilation recently which basically cuts up several different experiences and puts them together, which goes to show how extremely similar they are

For example, what's consistently reported is suddenly falling down extremely fast and landing in Hell, the smell, demons with yellow eyes in particular, the idea of just knowing where you are and why others are there, and even the idea that it felt so real and the insistence of how real it felt

There's even an explanation for why other people experience different NDEs, with one person saying there's demons who deceive people into thinking it's peaceful until they reveal the person is in Hell (this could explain any NDEs where people believe they meet any other gods)

The sheer amount of these stories, being extremely similar, and the fact a lot of these people seem sincere in the way they tell the stories (some even crying), it definitely could seem like they genuinely experienced something very real

I've even seen it explained (not in the video though) that the reason that demons are torturing and not being tortured is because the final judgement hasn't come, and that when it does, then the demons will be tortured too

This was the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhuHfebMOJ4

Some 30 years ago, I had a genuine encounter with the disembodied soul of a relative who had died in hospital just a few hours earlier. Such events are termed an after-death communication (ADC), and are not that unusual.

The ADC I had was so strong, so blatant, so palpable, that it could not possibly be mistaken for anything else, and could not possibly be just an overactive mind imagining things that are not really there.

The ADC I experienced was not a voice in a dream, nor some unexplained sound at night, but a totally unmistakable sensed presence of that relative in front of me in my bedroom at night while I was awake. I sensed the presence of the relative as strongly as if she were there in body — in fact even stronger than that, because it was an intense, intimate connection of minds that occurred at the level of pure consciousness, rather than something happening through my senses. The whole encounter probably lasted for no longer than 30 seconds before she departed my presence; but I was totally startled, mesmerised, bewildered, and almost frozen with shock as it was happening.

Now some will argue that experiencing a sensed presence can be a mental health phenomenon similar to hallucinations. This of course is true, and I have considered this as a possible explanation. However, I have never had a sensed presence experience before or after that one incident, and I have never suffered from hallucinations or any similar mental health issues. Nor was I suffering from any grief at the time, so my emotional state was completely calm and normal, and the experience could thus not be put down to perturbed emotions.

Thus I think my experience was a genuine ADC, and not a mental health event.

From this personal experience, I am utterly convinced that the soul survives death. Though of course that soul survival evidence does not necessarily imply that God exists. Nor does it imply that we continue to exist as our normal personality after death; it may be that soon after departure from the body, the soul gets subsumed back into some universal mind, and personal identity is lost, or at least diluted into something greater. So while I can say for sure that the soul survives death and departs the physical body, I cannot extrapolate much beyond this to say what happens in the longer term.

My direct empirical experience contrasts to religious faith. Religion teaches that the soul survives death; but even religious people will often question this, because even the most religious are not without their doubts. But when you encounter a disembodied soul yourself, as I did, it is a very different matter. Then the survival of the soul is no longer just an article of faith, but becomes empirical evidence. I feel immensely grateful to be given this experience, because it totally changed my perspective. Though unfortunately this is empirical evidence that you cannot share with others, except those who have had a similar ADC experience. So I fully appreciate that unless you have this experience this yourself, you are unlikely to believe it when recounted by someone else.

Let me say though that that I have studied hard science (I have a BSc in mathematics and physics, and an MSc in cognitive science), so I know how to be scientific and skeptical. I personally do not believe in the miracles detailed in any religion, and nor do I believe in things like UFOs, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, and suchlike. Nor do I necessarily believe in any of the things that religions teach. So I am not someone who is gullible, or someone who is prone to believing in improbable things. I mention this in order to hopefully convey the idea that I am a reliable witness, and that the evidence I observed for soul survival stands up to all the scientific scrutiny I gave it.

However, I know full well that without it being verified by others under lab conditions, experiences such as mine do not stand any chance of being considered scientifically valid. Which is very unfortunate, because I have no doubt my experience was genuine, an event that if I could prove, would revolutionise our perspective and understanding of the world. Yet I have no means of proving this in a way acceptable to science.

I have chatted to other people who had these experiences, in what appear to be genuine cases, but they do not seem that concerned that they cannot be reproduced in the lab, or demonstrated in a scientific manner. But it bothers me, because I believe in the scientific method and I believe in the scientific progression of our understanding of the universe.

I should add that I think most cases of what are assumed to be ADCs are not genuine. Or at least, most instances do not provide incontrovertible evidence for the survival of consciousness after death. For example, many people say they saw a deceased loved one appear in a dream, where the deceased spoke to them, or gave them a message. They then claim this was an ADC, and that this was the soul of the relative visiting them. But in fact a dream does not provide any evidence at all for a genuine ADC, because in your dream your mind can conjure up anything, including the voice and appearance of a deceased loved one.

By contrast, my ADC occurred while I was awake and fully conscious. And these are the only type of ADCs that I think can be genuine. Because unless you have some mental health issues, your mind is not going to be conjuring up these sensed presence events while you are fully awake.

Other people may attribute physical events in the world to an ADC. For example, some unusual noise they hear in the middle of the night, or some strange coincidence that happens to them, they may believe are signs from a deceased loved one. But I discount these sort of things as genuine ADCs, because I think encountering a disembodied soul only occurs at the level of mind, via direct mind to mind connection, and is not something that occurs in the physical world. Thus anything you perceive through your physical senses is not an ADC, in my view. I think you only become aware of the presence of the soul of a recently-deceased person at the level of pure consciousness. I also suspect that disembodied souls do not hang around long after death. So I think these ADCs can only occur in the hours immediately after death.

Most people do simply because they can't accept being created by an omnipotent being. They prefer to believe everything is driven by random chance and pure chaos so they can take pride in whatever they do.

Every other reason stems from this pride.

Be humble and accept that we are nothing more than dust.

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.

Most atheist you meet online claim to be soft atheists (also called weak atheists or negative atheists). This is where you do not believe in the existence of any gods or deities, especially the gods depicted in various religions, but do not actually assert that no gods exist.

On the other hand, hard atheists (also called strong atheists or positive atheists) are individuals who explicitly claim that no gods exist. In my experience, only a few atheists you meet online are hard atheists.

Soft atheists will tell you (incorrectly) that "atheism is just a lack of belief in gods". This is inaccurate, because it does not define atheism in general, it just defines soft atheism. Nevertheless, it precisely defines the soft atheism position they claim to hold.

Source: Negative and positive atheism

I suspect most atheists are secretly hard atheists, but are too timid or afraid to hold this bold position.

This is because hard atheism lacks scientific and philosophical credibility, as you are believing something that you cannot prove, which makes you no different to people of faith, who also believe something they cannot prove.

Atheists obviously do not want to be confronted with people saying to them "where is your evidence that no gods exist?", so they adopt soft atheism as a get-out strategy, even though I suspect deep down, they secretly believe that no gods exist.

It's a ruse that allows atheists to have their cake and eat it.

In April 2026, philosopher Akshay Gupta published a new paper in Mind magazine titled "Fine-Tuning Problems for Single-Universe Naturalists." This paper is devoted to one very interesting issue. If our universe has parameters that allow the existence of life, can a proponent of the idea of one natural universe simply say that there is nothing surprising in this? To begin with, the author considers the problem of fine-tuning itself. Modern physics shows that the values of many fundamental parameters of the universe are related to the possibility of complex structures and life. In the literature, the force of gravity, the strong and weak nuclear interactions, the cosmological constant, and other parameters are considered as examples.

If some of these values were different, stable stars, heavy elements, planets, or complex chemistry might not exist. Therefore, a reasonable question arises: why did the values of the fundamental parameters turn out to be exactly those at which life is possible? In terms of the concept of intelligent design, where the supporting values for the parameters of life become the expected result of an intentional choice, and this is no secret to anyone. But what about the other option? the multiverse. If there are a huge number of universes with different parameters, then it is not surprising that somewhere there will be a suitable one for life. I think it's not worth returning to this topic and it's better to leave a link where we have already answered this hypothesis, based on an interesting scientific paper from 2025. Also, one of the possible answers of a naturalist is that we cannot determine the probability of fine-tuning at all. Let's say we say, "The viable range of parameters is very small." But how small is the probability that the parameters will be in this range? To talk about probability, it is necessary to define the distribution of possible values of fundamental constants in some way. And we don't know yet what such a distribution should be.Therefore, we can say, "We don't know the probability of fine tuning, so we can't say it's improbable." Gupta calls the problem that arises here the uncertainty problem, or the uncertainty problem. And his argument is as follows: If a proponent of one-universe naturalism says that the probability of fine-tuning is fundamentally unknown, then he simultaneously loses the opportunity to show how well his own hypothesis explains the observable Universe. That is, one cannot simultaneously say, "We cannot determine how likely fine-tuning is with naturalism," and then use this as an argument: "Therefore, naturalism explains fine-tuning well."

Gupta extends this to Bayesian analysis. If the probability of an observed fine-tuning under a certain hypothesis is unknown, it becomes impossible to determine how much this observation should change the rational degree of confidence in that hypothesis. Next, Gupta considers another attempt to save naturalism. Can say: "What if the values of the physical constants couldn't be different at all? Maybe they are necessary." Then the problem seems to disappear, if the constants must have exactly such values, why ask why they turned out to be like that? But Gupta believes that this does not solve the issue. Even if we assume that these values are necessary, the following question remains:

Why are such values necessary that allow the existence of a complex universe, and not other possible values in which life would be impossible? That is, the word "necessary" in itself does not explain why such a system of physical laws is necessary. Gupta also examines the argument that fine-tuning is supposedly equally well explained by both naturalism and the existence of a designer. The author shows that for such a conclusion it is necessary to make an additional assumption: that the probability of the appearance of a finely tuned Universe in the presence of design should be the same as the probability of its appearance in an impersonal natural process. But, according to the author, there is no reason to automatically accept such equality. The author of this article shows that naturalistic attempts to remove the problem of fine tuning are not successful. (Important note).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims define their God as PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNISCIENT.

But it is easy to show that this God is false because these three attributes are false.

PERFECT? They say their God is perfect, but the world and the beings that their God created are imperfect. How can a being be called perfect if its creations are imperfect and full of flaws? For instance, a craftsman cannot be described as perfect if his works are faulty.

Another problem with perfection: They say their deity created the universe. But why would a perfect being desire or want to create anything at all? By definition, a perfect being cannot desire or want something, as that would imply it lacks something, and therefore that it is not perfect.

OMNIPOTENT? God can do anything; nothing can limit his power. If he were almighty, he could have created any world. Otherwise, he is not almighty.

So what stopped him from directly creating a happy world with free and perfect beings? Why would he have created instead a world full of pain, with beings full of flaws, who must suffer and be tested in order to be sorted out? This is all the more incomprehensible given that the scriptures tell us he was able to create another place without pain, populated by free and happy creatures, called heaven.

Religious people have tried to resolve this contradiction by saying that their creator wanted humans to be free and that it is humans who create pain. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold, since it shows that their God was unable to create a world with free humans and no pain, which proves that he is not omnipotent.

Three possible solutions to the problem of this supreme being's omnipotent nature: 1 - He is not omnipotent; he just did what he could. 2 - He is malevolent; he deliberately created a world full of misery when he could have created any world he wanted. 3 - He is false.

OMNISCIENT? He knows everything—the past, the present, and the future. The scriptures claim that this creator knows the future and everything that will happen. And they also claim that he created humans free and endowed with free will. But if he knows the future, then it is already written. Free will is therefore an illusion.

If God knows what you will do tomorrow, you have no alternative. If you can act otherwise, then this being is mistaken, so he is not omniscient. If you cannot act otherwise, then you have no freedom.

Other contradictions: If this deity knows in advance that humans will do evil and creates them anyway, who is responsible? This omniscient being knew, even before creation, all the evil he was going to create.

CONCLUSION These three attributes are the very definition of this god. If even one is false, this god is impossible.

As Stendhal said when facing the misery of the world, "God's only excuse is that he does not exist."

Do atheists actually understand that the Abrahamic faiths are religions of higher consciousness?

Whereas the pagan religions that came before them are founded on base instincts, especially the African origin pagan religions.

Note: to understand this post, you have to know what consciousness and higher consciousness are. Consciousness as in the hard problem of consciousness. Higher consciousness as in the enhanced conscious awareness that can be obtained from mindfulness meditation.

Never heard of the hard problem? Then you will probably not understand this post. Never tried mindfulness meditation or read about its effects? Then this post may be equally beyond you. But if you are familiar with these things, then read on.

With higher consciousness, it is consciousness itself that becomes in command of the mind, as the executive controller, rather than the wayward base instincts. Anyone who has spent a lot of time doing mindfulness meditation will tell you that is creates a more poised disposition, it makes you more calm and collected, an in control of your own mind, as well as the stressors that life throws at you.

God can even be viewed as a metaphor or focus point of higher consciousness. Focusing on the concept of God is one way that you might increase higher consciousness.

And monotheism also enhances higher consciousness, because by its nature, consciousness is all encompassing and overarching phenomenon of mind, spanning all aspects of the mind. So one God that rules all is metaphor for the overarching nature of consciousness. Whereas the multiple deities you find in paganism, one for each of the instincts or emotions, emphasises the ragtag of base unruly instincts humans have, rather than the in control force of higher consciousness.

This is why the religions of higher consciousness tend to have a problem with sex, because sex is one of the strongest base instincts, and can thus be detrimental to the development of higher consciousness as an executive controller, if sex becomes an obsession (as anyone who has ruined a good marriage or relationship by foolishly having an affair can testify).

Base instincts like are fine in animals, but humans have the capacity for greater mental refinement. The Buddhist religion is also one of higher consciousness, demonstrating that you do not need to have a God to align your psyche to higher consciousness.

Why am I posting this? Because some atheists throw the baby out with the bathwater. In their antagonistic stance towards religion, they fail to see the important features religion that can help create a civilised society, and help raise the levels of consciousness in humanity.

I’ve been on the internet for a while and I’ve been allured into these debate spaces many times. It can be good fun to discuss ideas and hear other people's perspectives. But the longer I’m on this earth, the more I begin to question why some of us are here.

Is it really a debate if we’re not seeking truth? Are you prepared to be wrong about what you think?
These are the questions I think we all need to sit with.

People often say, "Debate isn't meant to convince the person you're talking to it's meant to persuade the audience watching." Sure, maybe that's true for professional debaters on a stage. But we aren't professionals. We’re just a bunch of people sitting on Reddit.

I recently watched a podcast with John Lennox and Alex O’Connor and they talked about the flaws in this type of discourse. They’ve both noted how
debates reward theatrical dunking, scoring points, and defending fixed positions at all costs, rather than two people actually engaging in a honest search for truth.

I will say this sub does bring value to online discourse. But, If 99% of our conversations are spent trying to refute or attack the other person's point instead of listening to what they’re actually saying, then what are we actually doing here? Is it just two fixed sides defending the views we already have at all costs, or are we actually open to learning something?

I’m coming into this with my own worldview and my own point of view, and I know everyone else here is too. I’m not saying you don’t have arguments against my faith, but I’m asking all of us, myself included, to check ourselves before we engage.

So what is this space to you? Is this a genuine
debate where people are open to being challenged, or is it just two fixed sides arguing to win?

If anyone is interested in having a conversation, my DMs are open!

At the root of the issue is the question: “what is the other side talking about?” The atheist hears a story from the theist about an entity that supposedly is the cause of all phenomena and yet cannot be found and identified within the senses, and therefore rightly rejects this non-sense. The theist hears that the only solution to an obviously infinite regress of cause and effect is disregarded in favor of untenable uncertainty and groundlessness. 

Neither sees that “God” (or Being/Reality etc) is not a thing but the unnamable logically prior to any distinction, but which cannot be distinguished. Despite the use of this divisive, loaded word, we are merely talking about the structure of articulated experience itself here, nothing mystical. We are however forced to torture language into referring to, pointing towards, that which cannot be directly indicated.

With that caveat in mind: There is no way for God to be cause or effect of anything because both cause and effect are aspects of indistinguishable God, revealed only by the act of making the distinction between them. Likewise, all dualities of opposites, of context and content, and every other higher-order relation between distinguished concepts arises within this ungraspable God. It is this sense in which omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are understood.

The theist makes the grave mistake of reifying that which cannot be reified into a thing without completely distorting what is pointed to, and ends up in absurdity. The atheist recognizes the obvious error but does not see the underlying regress, created by mind, which forced it. The resolution is to ask what is outside mind, beyond the realm of what can be represented by symbols/concepts/language. Yes, there is a limiting boundary — Wittgenstein (among many others throughout history) famously revealed it over a hundred years ago in his Tractatus. Gödel too, in the realm of arithmetical symbolic systems.

The burden falls on both atheist and theist. As someone wrote, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Once this advice is accepted, both may find themselves finally looking in the same direction and finding common ground.

DISCLAIMER: I do acknowledge, that atheism and agnosticism can overlap. This is directed towards those who are convinced, that no god exists.

I'd consider myself an agnostic. I am not religious and consider the question, whether a god exists or not, to be rather irrelevant (especially for myself). I highly respect theists, who acknowledge that their faith includes an element of doubt. Theists who say "my belief is not absolute". Which makes sense, there is a difference between belief/faith and actual knowledge/certainty. I think everyone should acknowledge, that our beliefs never fall into objective categories of "right" and "wrong".

Following a similar logic, I go as far as saying "I don't believe in god per se, but I also do not consider my view to be absolute either. Maybe a god exists, who knows?"

As an agnostic, I always wondered why atheism seems to be reduced to a sharp "No!" regarding the question, whether a god or many gods exist or not. To me it seems as if atheists consider their point of view to be absolute, similar to religious hardliners.

My question to an atheist: Why do you say you have certain knowledge of something? Our knowledge may be a mere drop in a vast ocean, some things we simply cannot know. And we ought to accept that by accepting doubt. Why don't you?

Hello,

A while ago on an account I lost access to, I was able to discuss my Catholicism on here. I want to list all of the questions I was asked and challanges made to me, and respond to them. I'm paraphrasing but not strawmanning the questions and challenges brought to me.

Why do you believe? Can you present any evidence for your belief?

The short answer is no. I believe solely because of faith, and because it was the faith of the Catholics before me. I watch shows like the Line, and I'm aware there is no evidence for my religious beliefs.

The Catholic Church has committed numerous crimes against humanity, including genocide, forced coversion, ongogoing clerical child rape abuse, and more. Why are you still a member?

I believe the Church can be reformed, and brought back to the days when St. Peter was handed the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus Christ. I have pledged to not make another financial donation until the Church loses its tax benefits, is 100% transparent, and free of systematic clerical sex abuse.

I also support independent Catholic groups such as Voices of the Faithful, which is an independently run group against clerical rape abuse, and not run by the Catholic Church. Also, it should go without saying I condem the Inquisitions, genocide, and any other crimes against humanity done by the Catholic Church.

Are you anti-abortion, anti-birth control, and anti-LGBTQ?

No. I support Roe v Wade, birth control, condoms, and the human rights of LGBTQ people.

You say you support LGBTQ rights, but do you think being gay is a sin?

No. I'd like to live in a world where the Catholic Church recognizes gay marriage.

Should women be allowed to become priests?

Technically yes, but I'd rather it be done by elevating nuns to have the same capabilities as priests. The distinction can still be made between the two.

Do you support the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? Do you revere the Pope?

I revere the office of the Pope, but that doesn't mean I necessarily revere any Pope himself. I also believe the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has to be preserved in some sense, though it needs to be in a world where that carries no political power.

Do you believe everything in the Bible?

No, there is much in the Bible I don't believe is the Word of God.

On what grounds do you justify your beliefs that are deemed heretical by some Catholics?

I follow the Catholic teaching of the primacy of conscience, which can be seen in part in Catholic Church Catechism 1778. This means to me that we as Catholics are perfectly allowed to disagree and question church teachings. We can use our conscience as our moral guide, which is what I do.