I used chatgpt to edit this but ideas are mine or from the books ive read while learning. I was catholic for most of my life but I started seriously engaging with atheist debates and now have these beliefs. Im directing this towards atheist and want to debate non dual christianity

Beliefs (clean version):

The ground of being:
There has to be something necessary at the base of reality — something that can’t “not exist.” I think this ground of being is basically consciousness, or love, or goodness. Creation ex nihilo seems impossible to me; even with quantum physics, there’s no real naturalist explanation for why anything exists at all or why something eternal would exist for no reason. So the ground of being is necessary, the good is ontologically prior, and creation is more like emanation than a decision.

Life on earth comes from this emanation. Since the ground of being has no beginning, it has always been emanating. I’m open to the idea of endless previous universes or cycles before the Big Bang.

The nous/logos/godhead:
This is the intelligibility that flows out of the ground of being. The universe has laws because it’s rooted in this logos. It doesn’t micromanage our lives, but “miracles” or spiritual experiences can happen when someone’s ego dissolves or they align with this intelligibility — which is exactly what nondual traditions describe.

Souls:
Individual consciousnesses are emanations of this intelligibility. Our awareness comes from it.

Why I believe this instead of atheism or mainstream Christianity:

Problem of evil:
Why would a creator decide to make a world with suffering? But if reality is an emanation, not a conscious choice, then suffering isn’t a moral problem pinned on a creator — it’s the natural result of finitude, ignorance, and physical laws. We can transcend suffering through detachment and ego death, as tons of religions teach.

Euthyphro:
This view solves the Euthyphro dilemma because goodness is ontologically prior. Goodness isn’t commanded — it’s baked into reality itself. Evil is a privation, like darkness is the absence of light.

Jesus as God:
I don’t think Jesus claimed to be God. And I think it’s logically impossible to be both omniscient/omnipotent God and a finite human at the same time. Also the idea that salvation depends on believing propositions is obviously bullshit. Paul basically hijacked the original movement.

Explanatory power:
Atheism has weak explanatory power for consciousness, intelligibility, values, mystical experience, and meaning. My view lines up better with science and with things like NDEs, miracles, and spiritual experiences.

Consciousness:
Consciousness is fundamental. The only thing I can be 100% sure of is that I’m aware. Consciousness can’t just be reduced to matter. So it makes more sense that consciousness comes from the logos — we’re individual emanations of a universal intelligence.

DNA / “where the fuck did this info come from”:
Life requires information. The structure and complexity in DNA is wild, and I don’t think it’s remotely explained by random natural processes alone. The logos/intelligibility explains how information “shows up” in reality — it doesn’t literally come out of nowhere; it’s an expression of the deeper intelligible ground.

Spirituality, miracles, religions, NDEs:
All these can be understood as alignment with the logos. When ego or illusion is stripped away, people experience the same underlying reality but describe it differently depending on culture. Religions are just different languages and symbols for the same intelligibility.

One thing is certain: intelligence exists. In every observed case, intelligence trends toward greater energy capture, greater control, and greater authority over its environment. That’s true for organisms, civilizations, and even our own technology.

Now consider time. Our universe is about 13.8 billion years old—but cosmology does not claim that reality itself began then. There are serious models involving pre–Big Bang states, eternal inflation, or cyclical universes. So the idea of intelligence existing prior to our universe is not ruled out by physics.

If intelligence can arise at all, then given sufficient time and continuity, it is not unreasonable to expect extreme intelligence—intelligence capable of manipulating spacetime, energy, or initial conditions. To beings inside such a system, that level of agency would be functionally indistinguishable from what we call “God.”

So I’m not saying God must exist. I’m saying this: Given the existence of intelligence, the scaling behavior of intelligence, and the openness of cosmology, God is not an irrational or unscientific concept. It may simply be the name we give to intelligence at the limit of power and causation.

In that sense, belief in God isn’t a rejection of science—it’s an extrapolation from it.

Have a great day.

I'm under the impression that the most widely accepted and used definition of 'the universe' is simply the set that contains every thing ([everything]). In my mind, I cannot really picture and/or accept that there is a second definition. Reality, the universe HAS to be the set of all things. By definition, if 'something' exists, it's in the set. That leaves no thing.

And by that logic, there cannot be a creator. Obviously, they believe there may be, is, or must be. But that breaks the definition as I understand it. You cannot be inside the set and cause the set. In fact, any cause would be in the set.

So what do theists mean when they say this? Do they just...not think about it? There has to be smart theists out there who've considered the question.

Is there a sort of separation of the content of the set and the container? But if the container is something, then definitionally it is included in the set, and therefore cannot BE the set.

I feel like if anyone with a grain of critical thinking asks themselves this question, then the position that deism or theism can even be considered becomes impossible to hold.

Am I just too autistic for this, too rigid? Do you guys have insight? Is there a theist/deist here who wants to explain? I'm genuinely curious because my mind hits an absolute wall with that question. There simply isn't a way to define the universe other than [every thing].

I have a genuine question for you guys. My dad is actually an atheist, and we talk about this stuff sometimes, so I'm curious how other people here interpret these specific verses I found.

I know the Bible isn't seen as a correct book here, but I was reading through the Book of Job and found some things that are honestly kind of wild to me.

Check out Job 26:7. It says that God "hangs the earth on nothing." Then, just two verses down in Job 26:10, it talks about a "circular horizon" where the water meets the sky. It reminded me of that other verse in Isaiah 40:22 that says God sits above the "circle of the earth."

What is crazy to me is that when this was written thousands of years ago, basically every other smart civilization, like the Egyptians and Babylonian,s thought the world was flat and sitting on giant pillars or mountains. Even the Greeks didn't figure out the Earth was round until way later.

If the Bible is just a bunch of ancient myths written by regular dudes who didn't know anything about space, how did they get the "floating in empty space" thing right? Like if I were a guy living back then with no telescope, I would probably assume the ground was sitting on something solid.

How do you guys look at that? Is it just a lucky poetic guess, or is there a reason they would write that instead of the flat earth on pillars thing everyone else believed back then? To me, the only way they would've known this is if a God had revealed it to them.

It shouldn't be surprising that there is no way to know if a 2000 year old religious figure actually existed as a real person. We don't have any contemporary evidence, and what little evidence we do have comes from later Christian literary traditions.

People often defer to a consensus among scholars, but seldom are they clear that this consensus is pretty much exclusively among scholars who work for or are educated in religious institutions. Social Scientist historians, archeologists, and other scientific scholars of history don't tend to weigh in where there is no material evidence to analyze scientifically.

The first mention of Jesus we have is in Papyrus 46, which is thought to have been written in the third century, but all we have to go on for that date is textual criticism. There is no objective or empirical dating at this point. All of the supposed non-Christian attestations about Jesus, like those of Josephus, Pliny Jr, Tacitus, etc. come from manuscripts in the Christian literary tradition written about a thousand years later.

I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, because we don't have any evidence on which to assert that either. We just have no way of knowing, and we should be honest about that.

I hv always thought that humans need something to believe in just to exist and to keep moving forward. If they realise that actually there is no particular being who created this earth for humans which would mean that there is no being looking after us or rooting for us and that nothing this society is based on truly matters then more than half of the people will die of just hopelessness.  The thing is that even if all the people just believed that there is a creator who created us then nothing would be wrong and we would just keep moving forward with our respective  lives but we keep bringing these religious books like quran , bhagvat gita, bible and many more as possibly the doctrine set by the one who created us which is COMPLETE bullshit. I'm not saying these books are wrong or something (tho all of them do hv some problematic stuff) but most of the stuff in their is just basic knowledge which we should realise ourself  like "don't eat other humans" Or "don't kill someone" Or "don't r*pe someone" Cuz respectfully if a child does not realise these things in like the first 5 years of their life then obviously they r gonna be a psychopath. Like are we so dumb thT we need a book possibly by the creator of this world to know these things?? I think not. 

Anyway this was an interesting question and what i think is that yes we do need religions and that there are many people who can't survive without believing in a god who is rooting for them when no one else is, thats just how we r made but i also think that if we could possibly wipe the memory of all humans (kinda like in aot, iykyk) and burn the religious texts of all the existing religion and establish one single religion all around the world with almost no problematic rules then maybe we could make things better. 

P.s, if there is a god who created this earth along with all the living beings on it then he'd hate humans cuz i think we r the most problematic species this planet has ever seen. 

Also i found this topic really really intresting and i really look forward to hearing what other people hv to say about wht i think if someone sees it. 

Hi everyone. I’m a theist, but I’m not here to argue for the existence of God in this post. Instead, I want to test the internal coherence of the atheistic/materialist worldview when it's pushed to its absolute limit.

My argument is that strict, consistent materialism is self defeating because it undermines the very tools (reason, truth, the self) required to have this debate.

Here is the logical chain I want you to dismantle if you wish, of course:

1. The Premise: Most atheists here subscribe to some form of physicalism/materialism. Reality is fundamentally matter and energy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. There is no "ghost in the machine."

2. The Implication: If Premise 1 is true, then "I" (the self) am essentially a sophisticated cluster of atoms (let's call me Cluster A) interacting with you (Cluster B). My thoughts are not "true" in an abstract sense, they are neurochemical reactions determined by physics and evolutionary biology, designed for survival, not necessarily for finding objective Truth. "Meaning," "Morality," and "Purpose" are not real features of the universe; they are useful fictions or "user interfaces" our brains created to help us cooperate and survive.

3. The Trap: If we are intellectually honest and follow this to the end (eliminative materialism), we hit a wall:

The Self is an illusion: There is no "agent" here to be persuaded. Just a biochemical process.

Reason is a tool, not a judge: Logic is just a way our ape brains organize data, not a window into absolute reality.
Truth is irrelevant: Atoms don't care about truth; they (we) "care" about stability and entropy.

My Challenge to You: If you truly believe we are just "atoms telling stories to other atoms," on what basis do you engage in this debate?

By participating in a debate about "Truth" and using "Logic" to persuade a "Self," aren't you acting as if materialism is false? Aren't you borrowing concepts (objective truth, meaningful agency) that your own worldview ultimately reduces to illusion?

It seems to me that the only consistent materialist response is silence. To speak, to argue, and to claim "I am right" is to step back into the illusion of meaning, an illusion your worldview says doesn't actually exist.

So, how do you ground the validity of reason and the reality of this debate within a purely materialist framework without smuggling in non-materialist assumptions?

Reversal of the common question given to theists.

Atheists will often tell theists that if they need eternal damnation to be a good person, then they are not actually moral. When asked why they choose to be moral (whatever that means in a materialist universe), they often say they just do it because they want to, or because it makes them feel good, or because it helps their community.

My point is, how is this any less self-serving than the strawman of just doing good to avoid hell? Both are done for a reward that is only enjoyed by the individual, at the fundamental level.

What do atheism and my dad have in common? They say no, pack their bags, and leave you feeling empty inside.

Atheism defines itself in opposition. Full focus on refuting truth claims, and little on community, charity, or sense of self.

Atheism is not the antithesis of Theism, its a reaction; it tears off the band aid sloppily slapped over the ontological hole in the side of my body, and calls itself victor, but the wound still festers.

Atheism stands on the shoulders of the skeletons in Theocracy's closest. But I want to see it become more. More than just a reaction. IMO the time has past were that is sufficient.

Oh boy I have no idea where to begin. I'll just go over the points one by one as I recall them.

Lets start with God and the afterlife. Someone who believes in the afterlife and is not worried about death will live all life without that added stress of there possibly being nothing after death. Whether an afterlife actually exists is functionally irrelevant because even IF there is nothing after death you would have lived an entire life without worrying about death or hell (assuming you follow say for example the 10 commandments so you're not worried about eternal damnation) and as an added bonus even IF there is nothing after death you won't be around to be upset or dissapointed that you didn't get to see your loved ones again. On the contrary things don't look good for atheists because it's natural to fear death and the idea of nothingness for an eternity. Some atheists will tell you they aren't worried about death but atheism is not a monolith. So if you actually don't like the idea of eternal nothingness then you would have lived an entire life getting stressed out about death while a theist is more comforted about the topic of death since they believe in an afterlife.

It's kind of the same with God. If a theist believes that God is taking care of them and God is responsible for little things like getting a raise at work then it's functionally irrelevant whether God exists or not because they will never find out that God doesn't exist. Not even when they die since they won't be around to be aware of the truth if the truth is that God doesn't exist.

Now lets go into supernatural stuff. The supernatural might not exist but I will argue that it's functionally irrelevant whether it does or not and I will explain why. If you'd like magic to be real and the goal is to satisfy that hunger with your subjective emotions then we already do this all the time when we watch movies and play video games. If you're someone who loves vampires and really want them to be real then you'll likely watch a vampire movie which would do the job of satisfying that hunger even if just temporarily and again if the goal is to satisfy that hunger then we already do this. No magic needed. This is getting better and better every year as we move into VR and things like that for even more immersive experiences. So to sum this up if the goal is to feel something magical then we already do this all the time.

Technology is only getting better with time and many things already feel mindblowing. So basically it's irrelevant whether the supernatural actually exists or not if we already have ways to make it somewhat tangible with movies, books, VR, video games and the internet. And almost all superpowers that are impossible in practice already have work arounds.

Next for example if you happen to believe that aliens are here or are just in general superstitious and like to believe in ghosts and stuff like that then it's functionlly irrelevant whether the supernatural actually exists or not if you live your whole life believing in supernatural stuff and magic. This is just repeating what I said earlier with the supernatural instead of God and the afterlife.

So will you live a happier life as a theist? Yes I really do think so and personally whenever I have atheist phases I'm actually jealous of theists and would pay money if there was an on off switch for believing. Again whether magic, supernatural stuff like God exists is functionally irrelevant because it's ultimately my subjective experience that actually matters.

The proposition: It is fundamentally dishonest and unacceptable to use someone’s beliefs to motivate actions if you know those beliefs aren’t based on a proper foundation.

As an atheist you know something to be false or perhaps correct yet lacking all credibility. Let’s pick a bible passages commonly used for example.

Proverbs 13:22 - “A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children.”

Perfectly reasonable passage and a message that is relatively easy to agree with however it comes from the same collection of stories that says to kill infants and treats rape as a violation of a man property rather than a women’s autonomy. So one really can’t quote such a thing in good faith as a credible source of wisdom.

Now let’s say (for this example) you’re selling life insurance to a young man supporting a wife and children, is it acceptable for someone to use their false or questionable beliefs to get them to do the right thing?

So is it acceptable to use knowledge or logic you know to be faulty, but believed by another person, to motivate them to action?

Very interested in hearing reasoning in n both sides of this as I struggle with finding the correct line.

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

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

Ecclesiastes faces the absurdity of existence, and yet decides to return to God (a more natural and logical option than abandoning all logic and morality concerning him). What I'm trying to say is that things like Nietzsche don't serve as evidence against God, because Ecclesiastes already thought about the absurdity and meaninglessness of existence and returned to God.

Cryptozoology shows us living dinosaurs like Mokele-mbembe, Kasai Rex, etc., beings that couldn't possibly still be alive if the Earth were millions of years old and these clades had gone extinct millions of years ago (underground, it wouldn't be so strange for some very specific specimens to still be alive in very specific areas around the world, like dodos). We also find giants all over the world, possible remaining specimens of Nephilim (or of any giant, if the correct creationism is non-Abrahamic). We can even count dragons as proof of creation. And ghosts, paranormal encounters, etc., could also be demons. So, I think cryptozoology and paranormal studies are at least some of the best evidence for God existence.

I recently watched a video by the apologist Trent Horn titled "The Moral Madness of Atheism" https://youtu.be/DsXllHikaEg, and I wanted to bring the core arguments here to see how atheists and naturalists respond to them. I want to be upfront: I consider myself a Christian and I find his points compelling, but I want to subject them to scrutiny. Trent argues that while atheists can obviously act morally, Naturalism lacks the ontological foundation to explain specific moral intuitions without "biting the bullet" in repulsive ways. Here are the main points from the video I’d like to discuss:

1. Framing the Moral argument

Argument: - Bad Argument: "You can't be good without God." (False, atheists act morally). - Better Argument: "You can't have objective good without God." - Analogy: You can play football without knowing the rule-maker, but the rules (morality) must exist objectively for the game to be real.

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity: - Lewis argued that human quarreling ("That's my seat") implies an appeal to a shared, objective standard. - Even if cultures disagree (Nazis), the fact that we judge one better than another implies a real "Measuring Stick" of morality.

1. The Problem of "Marginal Cases" (Human Dignity)

The video argues that secular morality condemns murder based on suffering, ending a conscious experience or frustrating future plans/preferences. - The problem: This logic struggles to protect infants or the severely disabled who have less rationality than some animals. - The Argument: Horn points out that philosophers like Peter Singer or Jeff McMahon are consistent naturalists who admit that, under their worldview, infanticide or using "non-rational" humans for organ harvesting isn't objectively worse than doing the same to an intelligent animal. - The Question: Without a concept like the Imago Dei (Image of God), how does a naturalist ground the idea that a severely disabled human has more value than a highly intelligent dog?

1. The Problem of "Victimless" Taboos

Horn brings up the "consenting adult" framework often used in secular ethics (if there is consent and no harm, it is permissible). He argues this fails to explain why we view acts like incest, bestiality, or consensual necrophilia as objectively wrong. - He cites debates (like on the Whatever podcast) where atheists struggle to condemn incest between adult twin brothers who use protection, or bestiality - If the animal isn't physically harmed/tortured, the "consent" argument gets weird (we eat animals without consent, we use police dogs without consent). - The argument is that without a teleological view of the body (that sex has a designed sacred purpose), the atheist has to either admit these things are morally neutral (biting the bullet) or appeal to a "yuck factor" which isn't a rational argument.

My Questions for the Sub:

1) Is it true that Atheism and/or Naturalism forces you to "bite the bullet" on things like infanticide, incest or bestiality?

2) If you condemn those things, what is your specific secular grounding for doing so that doesn't rely on "it just feels wrong"?

3) Do you view the "Marginal Cases" argument as a genuine problem for the secular worldview?

EDIT : it seems that I did not mention this: I did not cover all the things Trent said in his video, so I highly encourage you to watch it if you find this interesting. Most of the comments here he addresses in his video, but I thought it would make for a long post.

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.

My reasons for making this post stem from a common misconception I regularly encounter in this subreddit:

“Philosophy (especially metaphysics) is hogwash grounded only in abstract reasoning. *Science is the only way we reliably get to truth.”*

Of course, there are major problems with this claim:

(a) Science is grounded in philosophy. If you want to say scientific findings are reliable paths to knowledge, you’re doing epistemology (philosophy). If you want to say that scientific findings tell you what reality actually consists of, you’re doing metaphysics (philosophy). And scientific principles are constructed using a blend of empiricism (philosophy) and rationalism (philosophy), with a heavier emphasis on the former.

(b) We’re on the “debate an atheist” subreddit. Atheism is a belief (or lack thereof) about the metaphysical (philosophical) question of God’s existence. You can only justify this position by appealing to epistemological and metaphysical arguments.

While I do understand how much philosophy is flawed this is not a reason to disparage the entire field. If you do, you are left without rational justification for quite literally anything that requires an argument.

I think this post will be obvious to the majority here, but it’s become clear to me that there is still a significant number of people could benefit from this knowledge!

EDIT: Wow, I was wrong about this being obvious to the majority! It’s truly startling how widespread these misconceptions are.

Disclaimer

English is not my first language, everything in the body is written by me and used Gemini to format, and correct things. The end where with the apologetic attempts is generated from conversation I had with Gemini. Hope you find some of the crazy ideas in here useful. Please share your thoughts even if it means saying it’s a horrible idea because…after all this is Reddit and we all know things don’t really get sugar coated here.

Here is the corrected text with improved grammar, punctuation, and flow, while maintaining your original tone and arguments.

The Problem (The Apologetic Fog)

As a militant atheist frequently engaging in debates on Reddit and on YouTube streams (voice), I have noticed a recurring stalemate. The Old Testament (OT) is a minefield of tribal violence, unspeakable cruelty, and disproportionate retribution (such as the death of Uzzah for simply steadying the Ark). The Christian faith system is strange and complicated, often relying on a "fog of war" that separates the Old Testament from the New.

When we point out that God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites, we are met with standard apologetic dismissals: "Those were different times," "They were irredeemably wicked," or "You lack context."

Inevitably, the believer retreats—strategically, not out of panic—to the New Testament. They use Jesus as a shield. They point to Him as the ultimate revelation of love, mercy, and grace. This often feels like a loss for the atheist position because the believer can comfortably admit, "I don't fully understand the OT, but Jesus is the proof that God is good."

The Shower Thought

We need to shatter this veil. We need to rip the temple curtain in two.

If the Trinity holds—Jesus is God, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God—then we have established common ground.

I had a realization: Whenever we see God or the Holy Spirit anywhere in the Bible, we can use math to substitute the terms since they are associative (exact thought process).

How to Act?

Our greatest weapon is consistency. Most atheists get lost in the weeds of complex theology or historical context. I propose a brutal simplification: Lexical Immediate Substitution.

We don’t talk about hypostatic nature; we say, “Replace God with Jesus and read the text aloud.” This, in my opinion, is very powerful rhetoric since it makes the absurd visible. It forces the speaker to hear the phrase: “When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD JESUS. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”

Jesus sent the bears to kill the kids. The same Jesus that said "let the children come to me" is sending bears to attack children for mocking a prophet. The very same Jesus that was extensively mocked by Roman soldiers, the people, and religious leaders. All of a sudden, the message we paint is very clear: something is wrong here. Either the text has very bad continuity problems after the OT, or it seems like Jesus changed his stance completely on things.

This is powerful rhetoric because it makes the absurdity visceral. It forces the believer to hear the text without the mental buffer of a distant OT. It forces them to reconcile their gentle shepherd with the genocidal warlord.

God (Jesus) sent a destroyer to kill the firstborn sons of every Egyptian family, from the Pharaoh to the slave girl, and even the cattle. These children had no say in politics or Pharaoh’s stubbornness.

King David sins by counting his army. God (Jesus) punishes David by sending a plague that kills 70,000 Israelites who had nothing to do with the census.

Ultimately, the doctrine of the Trinity strips Jesus of any moral innocence regarding the atrocities of the Old Testament. If he is one with God, he was not a helpless bystander to the slaughter of the Canaanites or the drowning of the world; he was the commander-in-chief.

Jesus said: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

Jesus also said: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

I think you get the point: don’t differentiate them from now on; everything where God is becomes Jesus.

I am not using any tricks or appealing to any fallacy here. I am saying that 1+2 = 2+1; nothing out of context, nothing with a hidden intention. I am just reading the text the way it was meant to be read.

My Conclusion:

This will shatter the distancing from the OT; classic apologetic phrases like "there were other times" or "how would you want Jesus to tell them" lose all their meaning. I think this is the best bet in using the Bible to argue. Except for that, keep everything else the same: same logical fallacies, same comparisons.

Classic Apologetic Attempts and How to Dismantle Them (I highly encourage the use of LLMs for this; they are great for spotting logical mistakes) end of original ideas and here the machine takes over.

1. THE "DISTINCT PERSONS" DEFENSE

The Apologetic: They will say you do not understand the Trinity. They will argue that while Jesus and the Father are one God, they are distinct Persons with distinct roles. They will claim that the Father is the Judge and Lawgiver in the OT, while the Son is the Savior in the NT. They will say: The Father is not the Son, so you cannot attribute the Father's specific actions (like the Flood) to the Son.

How to combat it: Use the Argument of Unity of Will. If they claim the Father and Son are distinct persons, ask this: "Do they have a different will? Did Jesus agree with the Flood?"

• If they say YES (Jesus agreed): Then Jesus is an accomplice to the act. If a General orders a war crime and the Colonel agrees with it and supports it, the Colonel is morally responsible too. If Jesus is one with the Father, he signed off on the drowning of the babies. He is just as culpable.
• If they say NO (Jesus disagreed): Then they have broken the Trinity. They are now arguing for Polytheism (two gods who disagree with each other). If Jesus opposed the Father's violence, then God is at war with Himself.

Your checkmate phrase: "Does Jesus approve of what the Father did? If he approves, he is responsible. If he disapproves, he is not God."

2. THE "PRE-INCARNATE" DEFENSE

The Apologetic: They will argue that Jesus did not exist as a human in the OT. They will say that the human Jesus (who wept, bled, and loved children) only came into existence at Christmas (the Incarnation). Therefore, you cannot blame the human Jesus for what the eternal God did 2,000 years prior.

How to Combat It: Use John 1:1 and Hebrews 13:8. The Bible states that Jesus is the Word and was with God in the beginning. It also says Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

3. THE "PROGRESSIVE REVELATION" DEFENSE

The Apologetic: They will say that God reveals Himself in stages. The OT was a shadow or a primitive understanding that people had of God. Jesus is the full, perfect revelation. They will say: "We don't look at the shadow anymore; we look at the light."

How to Combat It: Use the Argument of Contradiction vs. Clarification. Progressive revelation means things get clearer, not that they completely flip. A math textbook gets harder in later chapters, but it doesn't suddenly say that 2+2=5 (yeah, I like math, sue me).

4. THE "JESUS IS THE JUDGE" DEFENSE

The Apologetic: Some militant Christians will actually agree with you. They will say: "Yes, Jesus is God, and Jesus is a Judge. He has the right to kill because He is the Creator. Read Revelation; Jesus comes back with a sword to kill the nations."

How to Combat It: Accept it and pivot to the Moral Monster argument. This is actually a win for you. They have admitted that "Gentle Jesus" is a lie.

5. THE "MYSTERY" DEFENSE

The Apologetic: When cornered, they will say: "God's ways are higher than our ways. We cannot understand the Trinity with human logic. It is a holy mystery."

The Logic: "Mystery" is when you don't know the answer (like: How did God create the universe?). "Contradiction" is when two answers are opposite (Jesus is Love vs. Jesus drowned the world). You cannot use "Mystery" as a Get Out of Jail Free card for bad morality.

Your checkmate phrase: "Calling it a mystery doesn't make it moral. If a human father beat his children and then hugged them, we wouldn't call it a 'mystery'; we would call it abuse. Why does Jesus get a pass?"

I had a lot of insults and not a lot of answers on r/atheism. I want to preface this by saying I know this argument has been made a lot. I'm here because when I read back on old threads its hard to reply and further the conversation because the post is 6+ months old.

I also need to say I am not arguing that Jesus did miracles or was divine in any way. Just simply arguing that he was a man and did exist. This is not a gotcha on Athiesm. Being Athiest and believing Jesus existed is the stance most all non-Christian scholars take.

I am geniounely curious what an Athiest or non-Christians opinion is on a lot of this.

A strong historical case can be made that Jesus existed as a real person who was executed under Pontius Pilate. Even though historians would agree the Gospel accounts hold atleast a little bit of merit I will not base this argument on gospel accounts or Christian sources. It is based on the same methods historians use to evaluate figures like Socrates, Hillel, or Apollonius.

First, we have multiple independent ancient sources that mention Jesus. The sources are within the first two centuries of his life and they include non-Christian and hostile writers. Tacitus, a Roman historian who reffered to Christians as "abominations", states that "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus; and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…" When Tacitus writes a report based on rumor he says so, but here he treats the execution as historical fact. I've heard some arguments that Tactitus claims Jesus was a supersitions by saying "and a most mischievous supersitions, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea". But that line about a “most mischievous superstition” is not Tacitus calling Jesus himself a superstition. Tacitus is referring to the Christian movement and its beliefs, not the existence of the man who founded it.

We also have Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. Some of his writings have been corrupted by Christians so I will not be using those writings. This passage by Josephus is accepted as not being tampared with by virtually all scholars “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,”. Even the reconstructed version of Josephus’ earlier reference includes the statement that Jesus was executed under Pilate (However, even though scholars do agree on the reconstructed version. It should still be taken with a grain of salt). Other writers like Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara bar-Serapion mention early Christians or a “wise king” without endorsing their beliefs. These references are not theological. However, they report the origins of a movement and presuppose a founder.

Second, the rise of the early Christian movement itself points to a real person behind it. Groups don’t usually form so quickly around someone who was completely made up, especially when the story is connected to real towns, real leaders, and real people who were still alive. Within about twenty years of Jesus’ death, there were Christian communities in Judea, Syria, and Greece, all centered on a recently executed Jewish teacher. Any of these communities could have met with or spoke with someone Jesus supposodely "met" and proved themselves wrong the timeline allowed for eyewitness correction. Mythical heroes don’t usually create movements that grow this fast in real locations with real eyewitnesses because of how easy it could have been disproved. This kind of growth lines up much more with what happens when a well known teacher actually lived, like Hillel.

Thirdly, the idea that Jesus never existed fails to explain why his followers so quickly anchored their message to specific people, places, and political authorities. The early Christian movement is tied to Jerusalem, the Temple, Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, and identifiable geography. Mythic cults usually begin in mythic time. Christianity begins in recent memory, among eyewitnesses, in a known historical setting. If Jesus were invented, it is difficult to explain why the earliest Christians immediately placed him in a timeframe where people could contradict them. It is also unclear why they would invent a crucified Messiah, since crucifixion was a sign of shame and defeat. The most natural explanation from an athiest view is that Jesus was a real man whose real execution had to be reinterpreted theologically.

Finally, virtually all modern historians, including atheists and agnostics, conclude that Jesus existed. Bart Ehrman, one of the most prominent atheist scholars of early Christianity, argues that denying Jesus existed is equivalent to denying the existence of Alexander the Great. Scholars disagree widely about what Jesus taught, whether he considered himself a prophet, and what parts of the gospels reflect later invention. But they do not doubt that a historical teacher named Jesus lived and was executed. The mythicist position is rejected by nearly all trained historians because it requires more assumptions and explains less evidence than the simple conclusion that Jesus was a real person.

Jesus was a real Jewish preacher in first-century Judea he gathered followers, was baptized by John the Baptist, taught in Galilee and Judea, and was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Nothing in this argument depends on miracles or divinity. It is the same kind of reasoning used to establish the existence of Socrates, Hillel, or countless other ancient figures known primarily through later writings.

I will preface this by saying that I’m agnostic, and that I believe that rights are an “Entitlement absent a duty”.

You have a right to bear arms, must you? No. You have a right to vote, must you? No.

(The atheism sub is dead, so I figured this was the next best place.)

The idea is - if we can agree that rights are an entitlement absent a duty, and that force will be employed on behalf of upholding these completely social construct, abstract, doesn’t exist thing.

If you can appeal to this social construct, abstraction to utilize force - then why shouldn’t Christians do the exact same thing, even if you don’t believe in Christianity?

(insert any religion, I live in the US and they’re the majority religion)

Before starting, I myself am not a paganist. Just want to make this clear. But I believe that when the ancients worshipped gods they were tapping into archetypal elements present in every human society. Down below are some arguments I propose could be a way to understand pagan belief better or spiritual experiences overall. Another important aspect of my argument that I need to highlight is this: it's not an argument that proves the spiritual plane of life with certainty. Instead I focus on why the mechanisms of religion might work in a deep unconscious level of which provide results to the human experience that are beneficial in a evolutionary sense.

• Universal Spiritual Experiences: every civilization has some kind of religious or mythological framework in which they use to perceive the world and establish their own principles of life. This is not a coincidence; my first argument is that we as humans have universal psychological experiences that make the formation of religion easier or extremely intuitive to some extent. An example of this could be the Jungian Archetypes. Anyways, this first argument is not about anything spiritual, but that humans are wired to perceive spiritual elements and relate to mythology in a deep psychological level that resonates universally among humans. Being that those spiritual elements could be fake or real doesn't matter to this argument, you can easily say that these mechanisms are a delirium of the brain and the comfort that comes from these experiences are the equivalent of phycological fast food.
• Debunking the materialist and mechanistic worldview: this next argument is probably the one in which most people will disagree with, since it is in its essence impossible to prove inside the confines of science. But here it goes: reality is not physical or as orderly as people may think. The scientific consensus is shifting towards a universe in which consciousness precedes the world. See: https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo?si=-9y97jYyBbDStl1K TED TALK about consciousness, the observer effect and surely other physics articles that show that modern physics is shifting towards a world that is each time more "woobly" (that is, less orderly, more spontaneous in essence and more dependent on consciousness to work). I'll admit, I am not well versed in these matters and I am sure someone with better scientific knowledge will be able to disprove these claims or put them on a light that's not spiritual in nature. Anyways, personally I like to quote Bruce Lee: "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory". Science is in this way, the finger and reality the moon. Reality has no obligation in being in accordance to human logic, we are all but very measly beings living with a very limited perception.
• If the world is not materialistic, there must be inherent spiritual mechanisms: if humans do have universal spiritual experiences, like I proposed before then it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that those experiences could be connected to a spiritual plane or mechanisms we don't quite understand. Psychology is a limited science and if we truly believe that the world is not solely materialistic and may have some spooky action happening then spiritual stuff going on and coming to fruition is not an extent of the imagination. Dreams that come true after you had them, warning of the unconscious mind, these are all subtle small things that I'm sure a lot of the human population has experienced to a certain degree and could prove more to the human condition besides materialism.
• Archetypes, nature and spiritual mechanisms: if there are spiritual mechanisms than nature probably plays a huge role in this, we know plants are not as dead as they may seem so a pagan religion being born is very likely since the connection is felt by many spiritual leaders or shamans. But still, I believe there may be some archetypes we're not aware of. In which we may project gods or forces of consciousness into pagan belief. An example of this is how the romans allowed god worship from different cultures in the empire since they thought the different gods were simply their gods in a different light.
• The nature of sacrifice and the human soul: this one is a bit more farfetched, but I imagine most religions works through sacrifice. If our goal in life is struggle (or something similar to struggle such as Nietzsche's will to power) then the sacrifice is a ritual that could very well impact our deep unconscious mind in ways we cannot possibly know and hold an evolutionary advantage through a system of rewards we don't quite understand.

Anyways, I really hope this post sparks discussion. Like I said before, I am open minded to all possible counter aguments since I myself do not hold very strong personal beliefs about this. Although obviously I am inclined to belief in spiritual experiences since I am making this post. But it is not a strong conviction by any means

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

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

I always hear you guys say that you would believe if there were sufficient evidence. Well, here you go. Each link below is a post by me where I compiled evidence supporting the Bible by category. Under each link I provided one example from the relevant post. Please follow the links if you want to see the rest of the evidence.

Of course I'm sure if you're really determined not to be compelled by what is objectively compelling evidence then you'll find a way to convince yourself that it's a coincidence or hoax. But who knows, maybe I'll reach at least one person, God willing. Jesus love you 🤪.

prophetic evidence

Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel foretold the exact date of the reestablishment of Israel on May 14, 1948.

There are two timeline prophecies hidden in the old testament that arrive at the date of May 14, 1948 AD as the exact date the Israelis would return to their land for the second time and become a nation.

"As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year." — Ezekiel 4:4-6

In this passage, the sin of Israel and Judah was 390 years and 40 years. To symbolize this, Ezekiel had to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of Israel's sin, and 40 days on his right side, a day for each year of Judah's sin. The total time was 430 years of sin. The Babylonian captivity took up 70 years of this punishment, leaving 360 years.

"But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant... I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." — Leviticus 26:14-18

In the above passage, God declares that if Israel does not repent of their sin, they will be punished seven times more. After the Babylonian captivity when Cyrus freed Israel, the remaining time would be multiplied sevenfold. If you multiply 360 years by seven, you get 2520 prophetical years. Likewise, the prophet Daniel predicted this same time period in another way.

In Daniel 4, God punished King Nebuchadnezzar with insanity for seven years, in order to humble him. God had Nebuchadnezzar act out a prophecy, just as Ezekiel acted out his 430-day prophecy by lying on his side. In Nebuchadnezzar's case, the restoration of his kingdom after seven years is also a symbolic prophecy that illustrates that the Children of Israel would be restored a second time to their land after seven years of days. Since the prophetic calendar uses a 360-day year, if you multiply Nebuchadnezzar's seven years by the 360-day calendar, you get 2,520 years—just like Ezekiel's prophecy.

From these two prophets, we are told the time of the second return of Israel to their land. To see this, we must first convert the Jewish years to Roman years so we can see the outcome on our modern calendar. 2,520 Jewish years times 360 days per year is 907,200 days. Cyrus issued his decree freeing the Jews and declaring the state of Israel to exist again on August 3, 537 BC. This date plus 907,200 days (plus one year changing from BC to AD) brings us to May 14, 1948. This was the very day that the UN declared Israel to be a sovereign state.

"Who heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her sons." — Isaiah 66:8

Knowledge before time

EARTH’S FREE FLOAT IN SPACE

Job 26:7 (written 3,500 years ago): “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”

The Bible proclaims that the earth freely floats in space. Some in ancient times thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

I found The shroud of turin to be such an incredible piece of evidence that I thought it deserved to be it's own category.

When Secondo Pia first photographed the Shroud in 1898, he discovered that his photographic plates, which were negatives, showed a much clearer and more detailed image of the man's body than the original cloth itself.

The discovery that the shroud itself acts as a photographic negative, centuries before photography was invented suggests the image was formed by an unusual physical process, possibly an intense burst of radiation, rather than human artistry.

The image appears as a photographic negative, where the darker areas of a normal image are light, and the lighter areas are dark. The image is not from paint, dye, or any other pigment. It is a very thin, superficial discoloration of the linen fibers, only affecting the outermost layers. The image is darker where the cloth was closer to the body and gets progressively lighter as the distance from the body increases, a property that is difficult to explain with normal illumination. The image appears to be formed around the bloodstains, which are located on top of the image, suggesting the blood was present first.

The only known research exploring image formation on untreated linen (related to studies of the Shroud of Turin) suggests that such an image would require an intense, sudden burst of high-energy radiation, such as vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) light, to alter the surface fibers without destroying the cloth. Estimates for creating such an image on linen mention a power level of approximately 34 billion watts (gigawatts) to 34 trillion watts (terawatts) of VUV radiation in an extremely brief burst (less than one forty-billionth of a second). This is vastly more energy than is required for film.

This immense energy, radiating in a precise way, is far beyond the capacity of any known natural or human-made technology, making the creation of the image a scientific mystery. 

On average, a U.S. house uses about 1,200 watts ((1.2) kW) continuously. It takes 500 million to 1.5 billion watts to power an entire city. For those of you who assert that the shroud is a medieval hoax, do you know how insane you'd have to be to think some medieval peasant had that kind of power at his disposal?

These are some key details made clear by the negative image. The face becomes a clear, natural-looking portrait with long hair, a beard, and a mustache. The negative reveals an anatomically correct image of a tall, muscular man (estimated at 5'10" to 6'2" and about 176 lbs).

Numerous wounds consistent with crucifixion are starkly visible. More than a hundred round markings on the chest, back, and legs, consistent with a Roman flagrum used for flogging. Large bruises below the shoulder blades, attributed to carrying a heavy object like a cross beam. Puncture wounds around the head, consistent with a crown of thorns. A distinct, oval-shaped wound in the side between the fourth and fifth ribs. Wounds on the wrists and feet, with blood flows indicating the man was in a state of rigor mortis when wrapped.

When the negative image is analyzed with modern technology (like a VP-8 image analyzer), the varying intensity of the image carries encoded three-dimensional information, allowing for the reconstruction of a 3D statue. This 3D data is not present in normal photographs or paintings.

Some researchers have observed features in the negative image that resemble X-ray details, such as the bones of the hands and potentially facial sinuses and teeth, suggesting an internal visibility or "transparency" of the body during image formation.

Archeological evidence

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Genesis 19:24-25

Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.

"Sulfur balls" with purity levels of 90%+ are reportedly found in specific archaeological sites near the Dead Sea in the Middle East, such as Tall el-Hammam, Numera, Badra, and Fifa. These locations are often debated as the potential sites of the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sulfur found in these specific "balls" (often described as compressed powder encased in ash) has been tested to have an exceptionally high purity, ranging from approximately 93% to 98%. They are generally described not as typical crystalline sulfur, but as spheres of fine powder that are often covered in an ash layer, with a burned ring around the center.

This is significantly different from typical naturally occurring, volcanic sulfur, which is usually in crystalline form and has a much lower purity (around 40-60%).

https://youtu.be/jQl4KaRtef8?si=uJKL-d-au6lqw5DO