r/DebateAnAtheist

I believe atheists fundamentally don't realize just how absurd existence is at all. Things seem to exist, deterministically. Yet, a fully contingent system can't explain itself. Somehow, reality is self-causing. This breaks our brain and can't actually make sense to us. If reality can't exactly make sense, then we can only "know" anything via a subjective experience. Objectivity will never cross this bridge.

If subjective experience is our only guide to reality, then I think the question of God's existence, which is clearly un-answerable, has an equal chance of being both true and false. Do you feel that we are the product of a larger mind. Does your gut tell you that there is some sort of intelligent organization of reality that is similar to how we intelligently organize the world in our minds? If so, you believe in "God."

Whatever the "truth" is, will have to sound absolutely absurd.

Science is the best tool we have for talking about what stuff does. Just like in quantum mechanics it allows us to make very useful predictions, but hasn't got us any closer to knowing what an electron is actually made out of.

It's fundamentally not even possible for science to find the nature of reality because science is already arising inside the thing it's trying to investigate.

Every scientific observation, measurement and theory is ultimately something known through consciousness.

So if all evidence for matter occurs within conscious experience, then how could that say anything about whether matter is metaphysically prior to consciousness?

I get that there's an intuitive assumption here that "it feels like it must be", but people have said similar things about things which turned out to be wrong throughout all of human history. Asserting this as true seems like pulling a bit of a "materialist of the gaps" to me.

So this doesn't prove God or any other metaphysical claim, but it does challenge that science has in any way at all established materialism. Science tells us how things work within the material world as it appears to us, but says nothing about what is primary to that.

This is where an alternative method of inquiry comes in, if you want to investigate consciousness you have access to consciousness in your own direct experience.

Usually direct experience isn't considered "valid" but it's worth remembering that we're all happy to use our own direct experience of consciousness to decide that consciousness exists. There's no scientific proof of consciousness, we just all know it's here because we know that we're conscious.

So to investigate consciousness we can turn our attention onto the awareness within our own experience just as the Buddhists and meditators through history have done. Each person needs to discover this on their own but the common finding among those who have gone deep enough through history has always been that the mind, the body and the world arise within consciousness. Meaning consciousness is at least epistemically primary, whatever reality ultimately consists of, experience is where all knowledge claims begin.

This experiential finding isn't an argument which can convince anyone else, it's different from typical science in that you can't really show your findings to someone else in a way that will convince them so it needs to be done for yourself to see. It is in a way, the most rigorous use of inquiry though because you are looking at the nature of your own experience to determine what's real rather than just blindly trusting your experience and taking that as a given.

So if meditators inquire into their own direct experience of consciousness and find that consciousness appears primary and unified in direct experience (some might call this God), then nothing science has demonstrated has in any way rebutted that finding.

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe? I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.

Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.

As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held. Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit. The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.

But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.

Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.

Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.

How do atheists sleep at night knowing if their wrong they could burn?

Its a question im curious about, how? You could die in your sleep. If you're wrong you have a very negative afterlife. If you're correct nothing happens. but why take the chance and risk it all and be selfish and arrogant?

it just doesn't make sense to me, if your wrong you will be in a horrible afterlife but if ur right you will be fine, why risk it all? Why be so arrogant and act like ur right about what happens? How do you know? This is why I think athesm is not logical. You guys act like you know what will happen when you die but you could fall asleep and be wrong and pass away. While religious people could be wrong and nothing happens, How can you know your correct? If anyone wants to change my mind please comment. I've been really curious about this.

Thank you for your time!

The life I have been given is not very happy. The stories I’ve seen and have been told have not been ones of justice or grandeur or fulfillment. They’ve largely just been tragic, for no reason other than, it is what it is.

How do atheists begin to find happiness amongst the chaos and tragedy of life? How do I take the sadness and grief I feel for my family, friends, loved ones, community, and turn it into something positive - without religion? Without god? I can’t find an answer

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?

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.

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)

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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 :)

I think god is something we created from our own consciousness coz we needed a human form of our consciousness which we usually talk to in our mind

When talkin to ourselves in our mind was not enough to bring hope and feeling of relief we created god

Soooo basically we are actually worshipping our own consciousness i guess

What do you guys think

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.

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.