Atheist Discussion Thread

[Verdance he/him]

On 4/18/2026 at 11:08 AM, CoderDrag0n8 said:

Well, in general, Judaism doesn't have any specific afterlife stuff, just general, God's got somethin, but Christians definitely made up the 'this is heaven with god and believers, and this is hell with satan and non-believers'

What’s interesting is that a Christian would say that it was like that the whole time, God just didn’t tell the Israelites about the afterlife as it didn’t need to be that much of their worship. 

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

2 hours ago, Verdance said:

What’s interesting is that a Christian would say that it was like that the whole time, God just didn’t tell the Israelites about the afterlife as it didn’t need to be that much of their worship. 

...

Or god was like 'oh rust i forgot to tell dem about the afterlife, and the romans are scary!'

and then jesus was like 'yo god want some coffe?' and then god was like 'OMG JESUS I HAVE A GREAT IDEA'

And jesus was like 'what the talking snake with limbs?' and then god was like 'hey can ya die for me? just a little tiny die nailed to a cross, super tiny die i promises!'

and then jesus was like 'uhhhhhh' and god was like 'get yoinked' and thats how the New Testament

[Verdance he/him]

9 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

...

Or god was like 'oh rust i forgot to tell dem about the afterlife, and the romans are scary!'

and then jesus was like 'yo god want some coffe?' and then god was like 'OMG JESUS I HAVE A GREAT IDEA'

And jesus was like 'what the talking snake with limbs?' and then god was like 'hey can ya die for me? just a little tiny die nailed to a cross, super tiny die i promises!'

and then jesus was like 'uhhhhhh' and god was like 'get yoinked' and thats how the New Testament

I’m going to leave this thread very quickly cause that’s a little rude/insensitive 

[Pathfinder]

3 hours ago, Verdance said:

I’m going to leave this thread very quickly cause that’s a little rude/insensitive 

So first and foremost, I respect your decision to leave the thread. I hope my response will not be construed as anything other than an explanation and clarification. This was exactly what I was referring to in my last reply to you. You stated a claim. That claim does not work for coderdragon nor myself. @CoderDrag0n8’s response was a refutation of your claim. Not of yourself.

I understand that reasoning works for you, and that is great! I am happy for you! I am sure there is a scripture out there that when interpreted a certain way supports that. Or a figure of religious authority in your life said it in reference to something else. Or there may even be a scripture that literally says word for word verbatim what you said. But none of that changes the reason that @CoderDrag0n8 does not believe it.

I could expound on that reasoning but that will go back to my earlier post about how I feel regarding apologetics. I would rather not repeat, so if you are so inclined please go back and give it a read. Totally optional of course. At the end of the day though, when you state as a christian, or a christian would say, you are making a claim based on your understanding,  of your parish, of your region, of your denomination, of your religion. We could very realistically move just a bit to the next church over, in the same religion, of the same denomination, of the same rough region, but get a completely different answer from that christian. There are roughly 45,000 denominations of christianity world wide. And there is a whole lot they disagree on. That is an issue for me. And I know most of the apologetic responses to that exact statement. I also know the responses to those apologetics. And so on and so forth. Round and round we go.

I understand your position. I understand why you wrote what you did, and I understand why you are choosing to leave this thread. I respect where you are coming from and wish you well. I just hope you take the time to visit the link I posted at the top of the thread, and give some of the YouTubers I posted a shot. I know I messed up with some of the links, I apologize for that, but if you google the names you should find them pretty easily. I ask that not to pull you away from your beliefs, or change your mind, but to show other perspectives and build understanding. Thank you!

 

On 4/17/2026 at 9:10 AM, Denissimo said:

Hello. I am an Atheist. 
I live as a nihilist and an absurdist. Screw all meaning, I suppose, yet revel in it all the same.
Initially a Christian. Hopped around religions for a bit, trying to find one I thought made sense.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

I empathise with Sazed in this manner, I suppose.

Buddhist for a while. Converted to Islam for an on-of 2 month duration. A dozen smaller religions entangled into the bunch as well.

How does everyone else here handle death? Being: What are your beliefs regarding it, which I believe are unto themselves a coping mechanism somewhat, and if you believe in eternal oblivion, how do you cope?

Thank you for asking this question! Regarding myself, I am very happy living my life with my wife, going on our little adventures, traveling, playing video games, reading books, and hanging out with our friends. I most definitely do not want to die. Maybe when I am much older I will look forward to the experience, but right now I would very much rather live. That does not mean there has to be an afterlife for this life to have meaning for me. I derive plenty of meaning from it all by myself lol. It matters to me because it’s all we have. So I want to make this count. And I feel i have, and will continue to do so. There is nothing eternal about my oblivion lol. 

[Verdance he/him]

3 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

So first and foremost, I respect your decision to leave the thread. I hope my response will not be construed as anything other than an explanation and clarification. This was exactly what I was referring to in my last reply to you. You stated a claim. That claim does not work for coderdragon nor myself. @CoderDrag0n8’s response was a refutation of your claim. Not of yourself.

I understand that reasoning works for you, and that is great! I am happy for you! I am sure there is a scripture out there that when interpreted a certain way supports that. Or a figure of religious authority in your life said it in reference to something else. Or there may even be a scripture that literally says word for word verbatim what you said. But none of that changes the reason that @CoderDrag0n8 does not believe it.

I could expound on that reasoning but that will go back to my earlier post about how I feel regarding apologetics. I would rather not repeat, so if you are so inclined please go back and give it a read. Totally optional of course. At the end of the day though, when you state as a christian, or a christian would say, you are making a claim based on your understanding,  of your parish, of your region, of your denomination, of your religion. We could very realistically move just a bit to the next church over, in the same religion, of the same denomination, of the same rough region, but get a completely different answer from that christian. There are roughly 45,000 denominations of christianity world wide. And there is a whole lot they disagree on. That is an issue for me. And I know most of the apologetic responses to that exact statement. I also know the responses to those apologetics. And so on and so forth. Round and round we go.

I understand your position. I understand why you wrote what you did, and I understand why you are choosing to leave this thread. I respect where you are coming from and wish you well. I just hope you take the time to visit the link I posted at the top of the thread, and give some of the YouTubers I posted a shot. I know I messed up with some of the links, I apologize for that, but if you google the names you should find them pretty easily. I ask that not to pull you away from your beliefs, or change your mind, but to show other perspectives and build understanding. Thank you!

 

Thank you for asking this question! Regarding myself, I am very happy living my life with my wife, going on our little adventures, traveling, playing video games, reading books, and hanging out with our friends. I most definitely do not want to die. Maybe when I am much older I will look forward to the experience, but right now I would very much rather live. That does not mean there has to be an afterlife for this life to have meaning for me. I derive plenty of meaning from it all by myself lol. It matters to me because it’s all we have. So I want to make this count. And I feel i have, and will continue to do so. There is nothing eternal about my oblivion lol. 

Twas more that he wasn’t explicitly stating it as a serious belief, which i would respect, and more that he was almost making fun of it. But whatevs

[Usseewa ✾ She♡Her ✾]

I wish I could explain stuff like y'all do

i already did an "intro" post in this thread a few months back lol but it seems like it's gettin' some activity.

to be honest I've been... ... somewhat interested in religion lately even tho I'm an atheist.

Uhh

Idk what to say but I wanted to say something?

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

4 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

I wish I could explain stuff like y'all do

i already did an "intro" post in this thread a few months back lol but it seems like it's gettin' some activity.

to be honest I've been... ... somewhat interested in religion lately even tho I'm an atheist.

Uhh

Idk what to say but I wanted to say something?

I find religion an interesting concept as well even tho I’m for sure an atheist 

[Usseewa ✾ She♡Her ✾]

2 minutes ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

I find religion an interesting concept as well even tho I’m for sure an atheist 

right? Sometimes I'm just interested in it for no reason. I'm also REALLY interested in culture/linguistics/humans.

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

14 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

right? Sometimes I'm just interested in it for no reason. I'm also REALLY interested in culture/linguistics/humans.

I find the fact that humans overtime have overwhelmingly used supernatural explanations and how even with resounding scientific evidence for other things many of those religious beliefs still exist 

[Usseewa ✾ She♡Her ✾]

29 minutes ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

I find the fact that humans overtime have overwhelmingly used supernatural explanations and how even with resounding scientific evidence for other things many of those religious beliefs still exist 

true

I'm also not spiritual btw

atheist and nonspiritual

 

it's cuz humans like thinking things are cool 

or something

or they just don't understand the science

 

 

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

12 hours ago, Verdance said:

I’m going to leave this thread very quickly cause that’s a little rude/insensitive 

I am genuinely so sorry that what I said came across rude/insensitive, I geniunely did not understand that what I was doing was in any way that, and I was merely attempting to make a small joke, and I now realize that the joke got out of hand and/or was never funny in the first place, and I sincerely promise to not joke around like that with your religion again.

5 hours ago, Verdance said:

Twas more that he wasn’t explicitly stating it as a serious belief, which i would respect, and more that he was almost making fun of it. But whatevs

I was not in any way attempting to make fun of a belief, and I now realize that my joke was poking fun at something near and dear to you, and I should not have poked fun at it.

[Verdance he/him]

25 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

I am genuinely so sorry that what I said came across rude/insensitive, I geniunely did not understand that what I was doing was in any way that, and I was merely attempting to make a small joke, and I now realize that the joke got out of hand and/or was never funny in the first place, and I sincerely promise to not joke around like that with your religion again.

I was not in any way attempting to make fun of a belief, and I now realize that my joke was poking fun at something near and dear to you, and I should not have poked fun at it.

Okey, no worries. 
sorry for holding up this thread :3

3 hours ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

I find the fact that humans overtime have overwhelmingly used supernatural explanations and how even with resounding scientific evidence for other things many of those religious beliefs still exist 

There is a lot of science that proves or supports christian beliefs, AnswersInGenesis.org is a fantastic resource 

I find you would need more faith to believe that there isn’t intelligent design or an omnipotent creator

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

12 minutes ago, Verdance said:

Okey, no worries. 
sorry for holding up this thread :3

There is a lot of science that proves or supports christian beliefs, AnswersInGenesis.org is a fantastic resource 

I find you would need more faith to believe that there isn’t intelligent design or an omnipotent creator

I appreciate the resource but I got slammed with anti abortion and homophobic transphobic content on the very first page so unfortunately I do not believe I will be looking at that resource

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

15 minutes ago, Verdance said:

Okey, no worries. 
sorry for holding up this thread :3

There is a lot of science that proves or supports christian beliefs, AnswersInGenesis.org is a fantastic resource 

I find you would need more faith to believe that there isn’t intelligent design or an omnipotent creator

Tis ok

 

[Denissimo He/him]

9 hours ago, Verdance said:

Okey, no worries. 
sorry for holding up this thread :3

There is a lot of science that proves or supports christian beliefs, AnswersInGenesis.org is a fantastic resource 

I find you would need more faith to believe that there isn’t intelligent design or an omnipotent creator

I often find them victim to confirmation bias. Many of the explainations given, in my opinion, mistaken poetic reasoning
(not a real term, but I'll use it. It refers to falsely correlating factors with seemingly logical reasoning, when it links more metaphorically or intuitively. For example, the argument "If the bible is a man-made, why does it go against all of man's desires?"
It sounds persuasive but falls apart because it exaggerates its premise and draws a false conclusion. Christianity does not go against human desires; it constrols some impulses like greed or revenge while strongly appealing to others like love, purpose, justice, and eternal life, which are deeply human longings.

It assumes a false either-or: that something must be divine if it opposes desire and man-made if it doesn't, when in reality humans constantly create systems that both restrict short-term impulses and serve deeper goals, from laws to philosophies. There is also an implicit mistake in equating difficulty with truth, as people often embrace demanding or self-denying beliefs for identity, meaning, or future reward without those beliefs being true. Look a Nietzsche, the poor chap.

The argument selectively focuses on restrictive elements while ignoring appealing ones, and misunderstands human nature itself, since humans are not driven only by immediate pleasure but also by discipline, meaning, and delayed gratification, as seen in philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism. Opposing some desires is not evidence of divine origin, because that is exactly the kind of system humans regularly invent.

Also, means that suicide can be interpreted as divine by that logic. It certainly goes against most base human and general natural instincts of self-preservation) with logical reasoning. 

I have no issue with christianity on it's own (removing a lot of social context, if one is to be honest). In fact, I have no problem with any religion. But I dislike how it seems christianity (and scientology, arguably), in the face of today's society, frequently tries to claim the scientific validity of their beliefs. 

Religion, as a whole, requires uncertainty to maintain generally. And the uncertainty exists. There are factors we cannot observe, evidence of something bigger perhaps. But to argue that a religion is verified by science, a practice targetting what we can observe and quantitatively verify, is inherently fallacious, as in christianity's case, it regards a being we cannot perceive as a whole or often even partially.

Any attempt to confirm Christianity through science or strict logic encounters a fundamental mismatch from the start: they operate on different grounds not just thematically but epimistecally. Science encompasses systematic observation, measurement, and the refinement of models through repeatable evidence that we can detect. Religion is concerned with metaphysical claims, existential meaning, and forms of knowledge that are not fully accessible to be empircally verified. When a belief system depends on faith, revelation, or unobservable realities, it cannot be proven by a method that requires publicly testable data. This does not entirely invalidate religion. The uncertainty exists. But it simply means that scientific confirmation, in the strict sense, is logically and structurally impossible as a viable proofing-method.

Many arguments that attempt to align science with Christianity extend beyond what the evidence can reasonably support. Cosmological findings, such as the apparent beginning of the universe or conditions that permit life, are often stated as indicative of a creator. However, these observations do not specfically indicate the Christian God. They are compatible with multiple explainations. Alternative theisms, deistic models, or presently unknown natural mechanisms. Thus the problem of underdetermination: the same body of data can indicate several competing interpretations. Moving from general features of the universe to a specific theological conclusion introduces a level of precision that the evidence itself does not warrant and is perhaps statistically less likely.

Fine tuning arguments illustrate this issue more clearly. They typically depend on probabilistic reasoning applied to universal constants, despite the absence of a well defined sample space or knowledge of possible alternatives. Even if one grants that the universe appears finely tuned, the immediatly turning to a theism as the answer, Christianity per say, is unnecessary. At most, such arguments might support a form of teleology, but they do not single out any particular religioun, or even indicate a religious causal relationship.

Historical considerations rarely scientifically provide confirmation. While there is substantive evidence suggesting that early Christian texts were composed relatively close to the events they describe, and that early believers were sincere in their beliefs, this establishes belief rather than the factual certainty of supernatural claims. Historical methodology can evaluate authorship, consistency, and context, but it cannot empirically verify miracles. By definition, miracle claims posit exceptions to established regularities, and are therefore less tractable under standard evidential frameworks.

Philosophical arguments, such as cosmological or moral arguments, a;so do not yield uniquely Christian conclusions. Even if they succeed, they generally succeed in establishing only a general cause, necessary being, or some sort of moral foundation. There remains a substantial inferential gap between affirming the existence of some form of ultimate reality and affirming specific doctrines such as the incarnation or the Trinity. That logical seperation cannot be closed through logic alone.

Experiential and quantitative claims don't resolve the issue either. Expirements regarding intercessory prayer have not produced consistent, replicable effects beyond what might be expected from placebo or psychological factors. Likewise, reports of personal transformation, while often profound, occur across a wide range of religious and non religious contexts. Their lack of exclusivity limits their plausibility in confirming any single religion.

Arguments that appeal to the historical influence, global spread, or perceived moral value of Christianity often rely on the irrational (yet appearing intuitive) conflation of correlation with causation. The success or utility of a belief system does not entail its truth. 

Attempts to confirm Christianity through science, logic, or quantitative methods consistently exceed the scope of what those approaches can establish. The available evidence may be compatible with Christian belief, but it does not uniquely or conclusively verify it. At most, such arguments can support a degree of philosophical plausibility rather than deliver confirmation in the rigorous sense associated with scientific and logical proof.

I repeat, the uncertainty exists. I, personally (and I think most Atheists. Maybe. Can't be sure) am an Atheist not because I entirely reject the idea of a "god", or some sort of uncomprehensible entity. The discovery and development of quantum physics has really screwed with our perceptions regarding science. We are only able to scratch the earth's crust, while the rest of it's depths remain mysterious to us. The cosmic speed-limit prevents us from exploring beyond a tiny portion of the galaxy. That, and expansion of the universe, at a certain distance relative to us is theoretically faster than the speed of light and thus theoretically inaccessible. And thus we know that uncertainties exist. Perhaps there are eldritch monstrosities hiding just beyond our view. Perhaps Dr Seuss was the true messiah and Horton Hears a Who was an allegory for our true existence, our universe a speck of dust suspended on a dandelion in the trunk of an almighty and incomporehensible elephant-entity named Horton.

Just as it is incorrect to assume that religion can be conclusively proven, it is equally so to fully close your mind to the potential of the unknown, and thus religion.

My point being: I cannot deny the existence of religion, but I think claiming that science proves or supports religious beliefs is inherently inaccurate and fallacious.

Edited April 21 by Denissimo

[Verdance he/him]

38 minutes ago, Denissimo said:

I often find them victim to confirmation bias. Many of the explainations given, in my opinion, mistaken poetic reasoning
(not a real term, but I'll use it. It refers to falsely correlating factors with seemingly logical reasoning, when it links more metaphorically or intuitively. For example, the argument "If the bible is a man-made, why does it go against all of man's desires?"
The argument sounds persuasive but falls apart because it exaggerates its premise and draws a false conclusion. Christianity does not uniformly go against human desires; it restrains some impulses like greed or revenge while strongly appealing to others like love, purpose, justice, and eternal life, which are deeply human longings.

It also assumes a false either-or: that something must be divine if it opposes desire and man-made if it aligns with it, when in reality humans constantly create systems that both restrict short-term impulses and serve deeper goals, from laws to philosophies. There is also an implicit mistake in equating difficulty with truth, as people often embrace demanding or self-denying beliefs for identity, meaning, or future reward without those beliefs being true.

The argument selectively focuses on restrictive elements while ignoring appealing ones, and misunderstands human nature itself, since humans are not driven only by immediate pleasure but also by discipline, meaning, and delayed gratification, as seen in philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism. Opposing some desires is not evidence of divine origin, because that is exactly the kind of system humans regularly invent.

Also, means that suicide can be interpreted as divine by that logic. It certainly goes against most base human and general natural instincts of self-preservation) with logical reasoning. 

I have no issue with christianity on it's own (removing a lot of social context, if one is to be honest). In fact, I have no problem with any religion. But I dislike how it seems christianity (and scientology, arguably), in the face of today's society, frequently tries to claim the scientific validity of their beliefs. 

Religion, as a whole, requires uncertainty to maintain generally. And the uncertainty exists. There are factors we cannot observe, evidence of something bigger perhaps. But to argue that a religion is verified by science, a practice targetting what we can observe and quantitatively verify, is inherently fallacious, as in christianity's case, it regards a being we cannot perceive as a whole or often even partially.

Any attempt to confirm Christianity through science or strict logic encounters a fundamental mismatch from the start: they operate on different grounds not just thematically but epimistecally. Science is concerned with systematic observation, measurement, and the refinement of models through repeatable evidence. Religion is concerned with metaphysical claims, existential meaning, and forms of knowledge that are not fully accessible to empirical verification. When a belief system depends on faith, revelation, or unobservable realities, it cannot be adjudicated by a method that requires publicly testable data. This does not invalidate religion. The uncertainty exists. But it simply means that scientific confirmation, in the strict sense, is structurally unavailable.

Many arguments that attempt to align science with Christianity extend beyond what the evidence can reasonably support. Cosmological findings, such as the apparent beginning of the universe or conditions that permit life, are often stated as indicative of a creator. However, these observations do not uniquely entail the Christian God. They are compatible with multiple explainations, including alternative theisms, deistic models, or as yet unknown natural mechanisms. Here we have the problem of underdetermination: the same body of data can sustain several competing interpretations. Moving from general features of the universe to a specific theological conclusion introduces a level of precision that the evidence itself does not warrant.

Fine tuning arguments illustrate this issue more clearly. They typically depend on probabilistic reasoning applied to universal constants, despite the absence of a well defined sample space or knowledge of possible alternatives. Even if one grants that the universe appears finely tuned, the inference to Christianity is not necessary. At most, such arguments might support a form of teleology, but they do not single out any particular religious tradition.

Historical considerations rarely scientifically provide confirmation. While there is substantive scholarship suggesting that early Christian texts were composed relatively close to the events they describe, and that early believers were sincere in their convictions, this establishes belief rather than the factual certainty of supernatural claims. Historical methodology can evaluate authorship, consistency, and context, but it cannot empirically verify miracles. By definition, miracle claims posit exceptions to established regularities, and are therefore less tractable under standard evidential frameworks.

Philosophical arguments, such as cosmological or moral arguments, a;so do not yield uniquely Christian conclusions. Even if they succeed, they generally succeed in establishing only a general cause, necessary being, or some sort of moral foundation. There remains a substantial inferential gap between affirming the existence of some form of ultimate reality and affirming specific doctrines such as the incarnation or the Trinity. That logical seperation cannot be closed through logic alone.

Experiential and quantitative claims don't resolve the issue either. Studies on intercessory prayer have not produced consistent, replicable effects beyond what might be expected from placebo or psychological factors. Likewise, reports of personal transformation, while often profound, occur across a wide range of religious and non religious contexts. Their lack of exclusivity limits their evidential force in confirming any single tradition.

Arguments that appeal to the historical influence, global spread, or perceived moral value of Christianity often rely on the irrational (yet appearing intuitive) conflation of correlation with causation. The success or utility of a belief system does not entail its truth. 

Attempts to confirm Christianity through science, logic, or quantitative methods consistently exceed the scope of what those approaches can establish. The available evidence may be compatible with Christian belief, but it does not uniquely or conclusively verify it. At most, such arguments can support a degree of philosophical plausibility rather than deliver confirmation in the rigorous sense associated with scientific and logical proof.

I repeat, the uncertainty exists. I, personally (and I think most Atheists. Maybe. Can't be sure) am an Atheist not because I entirely reject the idea of a "god", or some sort of uncomprehensible entity. The discovery and development of quantum physics has really screwed with our perceptions regarding science. We are only able to scratch the earth's crust, while the rest of it's depths remain mysterious to us. The cosmic speed-limit prevents us from exploring beyond a tiny portion of the galaxy. That, and expansion of the universe, at a certain distance relative to us is theoretically faster than the speed of light and thus theoretically inaccessible. And thus we know that uncertainties exist. Perhaps there are eldritch monstrosities hiding just beyond our view. Perhaps Dr Seuss was the true messiah and Horton Hears a Who was an allegory for our true existence, our universe a speck of dust suspended on a dandelion in the trunk of an almighty and incomporehensible elephant-entity named Horton.

Just as it is incorrect to assume that religion can be conclusively proven, it is equally so to fully close your mind to the potential of the unknown, and thus religion.

My point being: I cannot deny the existence of religion, but I think claiming that science proves or supports religious beliefs is inherently inaccurate and fallacious.

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

[Pathfinder]

10 hours ago, Verdance said:

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

So this is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding evolution and physics. The "improbability" number is taken out of context and does not mean what you think it means. The big bang is not a bang. Evolution most definitely does not function the way you think it does and there is a particle or element that exists without a cause. These and many more are concepts that are grossly misrepresented and misunderstood. Later today when I have the time to put it all together, I will explain all of it in much more detail as well as provide links to accredited physicists and biologists that explain the concepts far better than I will. 

 

Editing as I go along (also going to put the videos in spoilers so this whole post doesn’t become unwieldy):

How “improbable” the universe is

The 1 in 10(I do not know how to make an exponent on this website, so it would be 123) number claiming that the universe needing finely tuned constraints otherwise it would statistically be impossible to form is misunderstood and problematic for multiple reasons. First and foremost it is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding probability. The probability for the universe to form as it has is 100 percent. Because it has already occured. It has happened. Just like the probability I would type this sentence the way I am is 100 percent, because I just typed it. It further assumes of these supposed 26 physical constants, which have not been proven mind you, must have precisely one value in order that life exists. It could be a range. It could be the multiverse theory, with an infinite number of universes. We also only know the circumstances to produce life as we know it. We have no idea what other circumstances could produce life in a manner we do not know. We are not the end goal. Survivorship bias is when we assume the universe appears ordered for us because we can only exist in that structure for life. It is the puddle in the pothole marveling at how well designed the pothole was to fit itself, when the puddle fits the pothole.   

 

Big Bang is not a bang but an expansion with no center

Basically what the title says. Bang is a misnomer that was coined. There was a high dense and temperature state. The universe has expanded from that state. There isn’t an origin to the universe as in a location where it all started and flowed out from. It seems very counterintuitive, but a better analogy would be a balloon. We are not in the center of the ballon. We are on a random spot on the outside of it. That is the entire universe. Everywhere is expanding. Define a center of the outside of a sphere as it expands. Not to say the universe is a sphere, just that it’s the closest analogy to what is happening, and that is not even a perfect analogy. Neither is the dense state the “Start” of the universe and there was nothing before it. All we know is how to go back to as far as the first observable Plank Time. That does not mean there was nothing before that mark. The very concept of nothing is faulty. There is nothing. You literally cannot point to nothing. Nothing does not exist lol. The minute you say “this is nothing” it is something. Just because we do not have the terminology or the means to observe something yet, does not mean there was nothing.

 

Evolution and the Bombardier Beetle (also eyes and bananas!)

The Bombardier Beetle is just the latest in a series of examples that fall prey to the argument of incredulity. Basically because something is hard to understand, or not understood yet, then god. First it was a banana. That due to how it fits into the human hand perfectly, has a natural biodegradable wrapper, and tastes so good, it had to be designed. And in the banana’s case, it was, by humans. The original banana is very small, absolutely full of seeds, and rather bitter. Humans bred bananas over time into what they are today. Which actually branches off into another interesting factoid. A common reference for belief in god is because you cannot express it to someone who has never experienced it, and coffee is used as an example. If coffee ceased to exist, and a person had never had coffee, how would you convey to the person the taste of coffee? Thing is, we already do that. I highly doubt anyone in this thread has ever had a Big Mike banana, but it is highly likely every single one of us knows how it tastes. We humans have bred bananas to essentially be clones of themselves. It makes them easier to mass produce. The problem is due to a lack of genetic diversity, any pathogen or insect could evolve past its defenses and wipe it out. Which happened with the Big Mike banana. They used to be the main banana produced, sold and consumed. Till it got wiped out years ago. So how do we know how it tastes? Because artificial banana flavoring in all sorts of candies and baking recipes are mimicking that banana. Since it was the main one produced at the time, all the flavors for banana were made to be like it. The recipe never changed. That is why when you have banana flavored candy, you don’t think it actually tastes like a real banana. Because it does not taste like today’s breed of banana. It tastes like the Big Mike.

After writing about bananas, I am realizing how long this post is going to get lol, so I am going to try and be a bit briefer with my explanations and rely more on the videos. The eye is easy because it started out with photoreceptors that just distinguished light and dark. This was for bottom feeders to avoid predators that swam above them. When there is a shadow, hide, when there is light, safe. As the eye began to evolve to see vague shapes, that is advantageous to discern motion. Interestingly if you have poor vision and a bug is buzzing around, take off your glasses. The blurry vision will pick up the movement a lot easier than the focused vision. Then you can put your glasses back on to focus on the target and strike! Which is why binocular vision evolved. I have included an infographic that shows the progression as well as the first video in the second spoiler tag explains not only the beetle but the eye as well. 

 

Spoiler

 

Regarding the beetle, again it is incremental changes. We have a volatile chemical in our body too! Hydrochloric acid to digest food! All the elements to produce the system and the chemicals are perfectly natural, are capable of existing in the beetle, as well as in its ancestors in varying capacities that over time produced the structure we see today. We are dealing with a time scale that is very very very vast. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Things can exist without a cause and other funky physics!

The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that began to exist had a cause. Dr Blitz in the video below explains that based on our current understanding of physics, a spontaneous event without a cause does in fact exist. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 21 by Pathfinder

[Hmmm lies she/her]

55 minutes ago, Verdance said:

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

(Heh, suppose I can't be surprised this is what the atheist thread devolved into, the religious one basically did the same thing.)

I am somewhat confused as to whether you reject evolution's existence entirely or not, but there is definitely evidence for it, such as homogeneous and vestigial structures, such as human arms and bat wings having similar structure, and whales having internal feet bones, indicating an ancestor that actually had feet.

But, I imagine @Pathfinder could tell you better than I, they seem rather dedicated to this.

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

1 hour ago, Verdance said:

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

Rly? Idk to me it makes perfect sense that over time single celled organisms would evolve and adapt to their environment, natural selection yk

Just now, Hmmm lies said:

(Heh, suppose I can't be surprised this is what the atheist thread devolved into, the religious one basically did the same thing.)

I am somewhat confused as to whether you reject evolution's existence entirely or not, but there is definitely evidence for it, such as homogeneous and vestigial structures, such as human arms and bat wings having similar structure, and whales having internal feet bones, indicating an ancestor that actually had feet.

But, I imagine @Pathfinder could tell you better than I, they seem rather dedicated to this.

Yeah and analogous structures help point to the fact that one’s environment helps drive evolution bc different organisms in similar environments often have the same characteristics even if they’re oceans apart

Also idk is it just me but I feel like if someone were to convince me to be religion they would need to do it without the use of the Bible bc I feel like that’s like if I said “oh yeah middle earth is real, how do I know? Oh well in the fellowship of the ring chapter 12 it states…”

[Hmmm lies she/her]

11 minutes ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

Also idk is it just me but I feel like if someone were to convince me to be religion they would need to do it without the use of the Bible bc I feel like that’s like if I said “oh yeah middle earth is real, how do I know? Oh well in the fellowship of the ring chapter 12 it states…”

If the Bible was the first documentation of real events, that could be evidence, but I think what you're trying to get at is that the Bible, simply by being a religious text, does not have any more credence than any other text. For example, if the events described in Revelations did occur, then that would be evidence for the Bible being a reliable source, but that hasn't happened yet. Additionally, there are many books in the Bible, some which may be more reliable than others.

[Pathfinder]

13 minutes ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

 

Also idk is it just me but I feel like if someone were to convince me to be religion they would need to do it without the use of the Bible bc I feel like that’s like if I said “oh yeah middle earth is real, how do I know? Oh well in the fellowship of the ring chapter 12 it states…”

I will update my prior post once I have the chance to put together everything, but to build on this, you are referencing an fallacy regarding using a claim as evidence for a claim. The bible is the claim, it can not by definition be used to prove itself. Further its reference to real locations also cannot be used to prove itself as the existence of the locations themselves have nothing to do with the supernatural claims made. The common  example given, much like your lord of the rings reference is Spider-man. It takes place in New York, a real place that exists and can be referenced and yet Spider-man does not exist. Another example I personally like is the Illiad and the Odessey. It is because of them that Troy was found yet it is not proof that Poseidan, cyclops, or giant sea monsters exist (which is what keeps Odysseus from getting home).

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

16 minutes ago, Hmmm lies said:

If the Bible was the first documentation of real events, that could be evidence, but I think what you're trying to get at is that the Bible, simply by being a religious text, does not have any more credence than any other text. For example, if the events described in Revelations did occur, then that would be evidence for the Bible being a reliable source, but that hasn't happened yet. Additionally, there are many books in the Bible, some which may be more reliable than others.

Yeahhh that true

[Denissimo He/him]

1 hour ago, Verdance said:

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

I think Pathfinder's points answer this pretty well, but if I may provide another point. Which I also mentioned in my very long post previously, but lets be honest: No one can be bothered to fully read that.
Why automatically jump to a monotheistic origin to explain this? Again, underdetermination. Evolution has been quantitavely proven through scientific observation and repeatable expirements. Heck, the fact that bacterial resistance is such a big problem in the antibiotic industry indicates how much biological organisms can evolve. Tack on a couple billion years, and you can get some pretty nutty stuff.
And thus I believe evolution to be more likely than the many alternative theistic explainations that can't be proven. Perhaps in reality, we are all being puppeteered by microscopic cosmic personifications of a badly worded eulogy.
Who knows. But that theory is difficult to prove, so I'll disregard it for now.

I agree somewhat with your second paragraph. I consider myself an Atheist, if one is to be honest, partly in preparation for eternal oblivion. If I'm right, then oh well. If I'm wrong, joy. Even if I'm cast down onto a crucifix in the 7 layers of hell, I'll be concious enough (through the crippling agony) to think
"Huh. Well thats interesting."
Which is to me, a joy beyond all this world could provide.

 

Edited April 21 by Denissimo

[Rynturning_Light She/Her]

38 minutes ago, Hmmm lies said:

If the Bible was the first documentation of real events, that could be evidence, but I think what you're trying to get at is that the Bible, simply by being a religious text, does not have any more credence than any other text. For example, if the events described in Revelations did occur, then that would be evidence for the Bible being a reliable source, but that hasn't happened yet. Additionally, there are many books in the Bible, some which may be more reliable than others.

Kinda to build off that

I've held in my mind for a while that some of the thing in the Bible could've been real, and that's why we have the religion.

Like, Jesus could've been a real person who was crucified, and people took that experience and founded a religious story around it. Like, besides his birth story, it's all something that could happen. I believe that crucification, before its Christian connotation, was an actual thing that people did. And for the story of them arriving at his tomb and finding it open and him not there, (as morbid as it sounds) grave robbing could explain that. So, people could've taken all these things and abstracted them.

That's kinda my personal opinion on why we have the Bible. Idk how popular it is tho

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

58 minutes ago, Denissimo said:

I think Pathfinder's points answer this pretty well, but if I may provide another point. Which I also mentioned in my very long post previously, but lets be honest: No one can be bothered to fully read that.
Why automatically jump to a monotheistic origin to explain this? Again, underdetermination. Evolution has been quantitavely proven through scientific observation and repeatable expirements. Heck, the fact that bacterial resistance is such a big problem in the antibiotic industry indicates how much biological organisms can evolve. Tack on a couple billion years, and you can get some pretty nutty stuff.
And thus I believe evolution to be more likely than the many alternative theistic explainations that can't be proven. Perhaps in reality, we are all being puppeteered by microscopic cosmic personifications of a badly worded eulogy.
Who knows. But that theory is difficult to prove, so I'll disregard it for now.

I agree somewhat with your second paragraph. I consider myself an Atheist, if one is to be honest, partly in preparation for eternal oblivion. If I'm right, then oh well. If I'm wrong, joy. Even if I'm cast down onto a crucifix in the 7 layers of hell, I'll be concious enough (through the crippling agony) to think
"Huh. Well thats interesting."
Which is to me, a joy beyond all this world could provide.

 

I agree completely with that last paragraph

 

37 minutes ago, Rynturning_Light said:

Kinda to build off that

I've held in my mind for a while that some of the thing in the Bible could've been real, and that's why we have the religion.

Like, Jesus could've been a real person who was crucified, and people took that experience and founded a religious story around it. Like, besides his birth story, it's all something that could happen. I believe that crucification, before its Christian connotation, was an actual thing that people did. And for the story of them arriving at his tomb and finding it open and him not there, (as morbid as it sounds) grave robbing could explain that. So, people could've taken all these things and abstracted them.

That's kinda my personal opinion on why we have the Bible. Idk how popular it is tho

Yeah same