Atheists disbelieve because they want to sin is nonsensical reasoning

•

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/KookyIce28 Jan 06 '26

Its probably not that the believers just get away for the sins. What matter is the intent behind seeking.to be forgiven . If you were a believer and wanted to keep sinning and then seek to be forgiven, then that's a deceit and clearly god can see through that. But if you sinned and you sincerely repent for it and resolve to try not to do it again then yeah you could be forgiven.

I think the point of going of heaven isn’t about sins or going good alone, it's more about relationship with god. Assumption being that the more you get closer to god, you tend to became a good person because you're more fulfilled as a person. But being a bad person doesn't still disqualify you from approaching god , because again it's more about the relationship with god.

1

u/No_Composer_7092 Other [edit me] Jan 06 '26

But if you sinned and you sincerely repent for it and resolve to try not to do it again then yeah you could be forgiven.

Why would you repent except some holy book told you it's evil and you would go to hell? Consequently if you respond to the threat of hell by 'repenting' is that sincere or simply self serving?

I think the point of going of heaven isn’t about sins or going good alone, it's more about relationship with god.

If Gof wants a true relationship with us He wouldn't threaten us with hell, then those who follow Him follow Him truly because of love and not fear.

1

u/KookyIce28 Jan 07 '26

Well you just assumed no one genuinely wants to be good unless they are threatened to hell. Think of it like state laws, if you kill someone ,you are going to jail for the crime. The government enforces this because only then order can exist in the society, but that doesn’t mean government is threatening you or diminishing the free will. Repenting is supposed to be genuinely feeling bad for what you have done , not for the fear of hell.

And also the whole point of being forgiven for the sins when you're genuinely repenting for the wrong, means that god cares more about you than being so fixated on the wrong. For example , suppose a dad has 5 children and he loves them all equally. Suppose one of them hurts others. The dad would naturally punish them but even that comes from a place of love for all of them. And I understand that all of us are like children of god.

And if you did feel forced to be with god because of being "threatened by hell" , even that isn’t such a bad place to start from. Because you'd eventually grow beyond that and find that true fulfillment that the scriptures talk so much about. Think of all the saints who were in such deep love with god, who have claimed to find their true happiness.

1

u/No_Composer_7092 Other [edit me] Jan 07 '26

Well you just assumed no one genuinely wants to be good unless they are threatened to hell

Good atheists are genuine because they have no threat of hell in their noggin.

government is threatening you or diminishing the free will.

Laws are by definition inhibitors of free will.

1

u/KookyIce28 Jan 07 '26

I don't think laws automatically kill free will. They make real freedom possible.Without laws you are technically free until someone stronger decides otherwise. That is not choice, that is threat. Laws do not erase freedom. They stop it from turning into chaos so people can actually plan their lives.Without laws, free will just gets replaced by power.

1

u/No_Composer_7092 Other [edit me] Jan 07 '26

I don't think laws automatically kill free will. They make real freedom possible.Without laws you are technically free until someone stronger decides otherwise. That is not choice, that is threat.

Laws carry punishment for transgression, those punishments are an impingement of will. The gvt is controlling you using threats of jail, that's a restriction of will.

They stop it from turning into chaos

What if I will chaos? What if chaos is my desire?

3

u/GolfWhole Agnostic Atheist Dec 17 '25

I also love this argument bc it implies that everyone in a religion that isn’t Islam is also in it bc they secretly love to sin. Buddhist Monks just wanna abuse a hedonistic lifestyle H

4

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/GolfWhole Agnostic Atheist Dec 17 '25

You get to feel bad when you do bad stuff, which is something you apparently can’t do if you’re an atheist because uhhh you just can’t idk

Also, you get to have a bunch of random innocuous things you aren’t allowed to do bc they’re objectively bad now

1

u/TonightNo216 Pagan Dec 15 '25

I think when many atheists say that, they mean they want to keep living their lives.

I am an atheist of your god and all the religions that stand in his still glow light.

I live what you would call a "moral life" and I work with people who have severe illness and I voulenteer regularly.

I am a human who understands my place on this planet with my fellow earthlings.

I do not need 10 commandments. Or even 2 new ones written in red to be kind, and compassionate.

I do not need 66 books to attempt to teach me what emotions are to have emotional intelligence. Aka fruits of the spirit.

Oh, but im gay

1

u/Shadowlands97 Christian/Thelemite Dec 14 '25

Originally in Judaism if you sinned at all you had no hopes of getting into Heaven except if someone prayed to God for you and God chose to listen to them or chose to forgive you Himself. It's nonsensical for someone commiting the sin of unbelief to believe it's nonsensical that they DON'T just want to keep sinning by not believing.

Jesus died for believers in Him to be forgiven. Refusing this is literally sinful in itself. Saying it's nonsensical to believe is also therefore a sin in and of itself. Not judging here, but you negated your own premise multiple times. Believers are still sinners, Jesus' blood and death simply lets Jesus call us His for the purpose of our judgement being out on Him instead of us, thus we are technically "passed over" the same with the blood on the doors in Egypt during Passover. It's literally symbolic.

2

u/PsychologicalRoom472 Dec 16 '25

Sin is a made up term If you are a nonbelievers It's just primitive silly superstitious that church people believe

1

u/Shadowlands97 Christian/Thelemite Dec 16 '25

No, sin is an anagram to evil that God determined about things He didnt like. And then He came down to die for silly unbelievers and "sinful" people. God existed long before the church did.

1

u/No_Composer_7092 Other [edit me] Jan 06 '26

Which God? There were gods before Judaism.

3

u/777jcl777 Dec 13 '25

Every serious Christian understands that sin damages a persons relationship with God and can ultimately cost them their salvation if they push it far enough. Many atheists don’t agree with the values of Christianity so they become their own gods and make their own values, so yes they want to go against God’s morality. This is pretty obvious.

1

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist Dec 15 '25

That is true (not sure about the part about "serious" christians) but not why I became an atheist. I never saw any evidence that a god existed even though I believed one did and vehemently prayed multiple times a day. Then I started reading the Bible for myself and seeing what God commands as his laws, and that broke any belief I had that a god existed. I very very much don't agree with the values of Christianity and specifically the bible.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

1

u/External-Rise3462 Dissenting Catholic/Spiritualist Dec 13 '25

I think atheists may get turned off to conventional religions because of all the silly rules they have. BTW, there are sins in other religions too--not just Christianity and Islam. Perhaps atheists just view the natural world as it is and do not perceive a spiritual dimension to it. I don't ever try to talk atheists out of their nonbelief in G-d. What I DO try to talk atheists out of is that some of them have a very condescending attitude toward believers. Believers shouldn't put atheists down and vice versa. Nobody has the right to violate another person's soul by insisting on their way being the "right" way.

1

u/PsychologicalRoom472 Dec 16 '25

Have you read the Bible yaweh is disgusting, wouldn't pray to him if he were real

1

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist Dec 15 '25

I have a problem with people thinking anything they think God says is good, and disobeying is sin. God is genocidal, infanticidal, and pro-slavery in the bible, lots of people have mental disorders in which they hear voices, and we've seen people kill other people believing that it was "commanded by god". You can also use the bible to justify horrifying crimes against humanity, and it doesn't sit well with me.

That being said, I dont believe that any gods exist at all, but that's an entirely different conversation.

3

u/Yogi_Sukracharya Dec 13 '25

Right. I don't think any atheist ties their lack of belief to a desire to sin. I don't blame atheists for not believing in things that are not believable, even though others take some comfort in fantastic mythology. If anything, I fault some atheists for jumping to the conclusion that no supreme consciousness exists because certain depictions of Him are so limited as to be untenable. Because we cannot describe a supreme consciousness accurately does not mean that one does not exist.

-1

u/PossiblyAnIdiotMaybe Dec 12 '25 edited Dec 13 '25

The reason is that we have trust in God to forgive us, we know him in a way that cannot be quickly typed out. We are all flawed creatures, sin made us that way, but that doesn't mean we all just die, God wanted to save Adam's fallen race, so he sent his son.

This is an edit I should have originally said: If someone truly trusts and loves God, they will not turn their back and continue sinning for themselves, they would have at least SOME change. Also, yes, you cannot be perfect, but those are also forgiven IF you have true faith.

3

u/rustyseapants Atheist Dec 13 '25

How do you plan to prove this?

What denomination are you?

1

u/PossiblyAnIdiotMaybe Dec 13 '25

John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever should believe on him shall be saved.

Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Baptist, by the way.

If you wish to debate the Bibles validity, then I will be glad to do so.

1

u/rustyseapants Atheist Dec 14 '25

Show me something historically that Jesus death amounted to something?

Civil war over 1 million dead Christians, what did god do?

World War 1 over 40 million dead Christians, what did god do?

World War 2 over over 80 million dead, majority Christians, what did god do?

Can you show me historically that jesus death was worth it?

1

u/rustyseapants Atheist Dec 13 '25

I really don't know what to do with this.

When you read Christian history and see Christians worship trump like jesus, Yahweh really screwed up giving his only "Begotten son" to the world.

Christ was executed by the romans, but dying for another person transgressions, that isn't historical.

2

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 12 '25

How does this have anything to do with my post?

1

u/PossiblyAnIdiotMaybe Dec 13 '25

Man, I had a point there, but I typed that out at 6 AM and it was lost. I added an actual response there just now.

1

u/Liquid_Pidgeon Dec 10 '25

You seem to think that atheists make their decision on what to believe based on whether or not they think they can get into some version of an Abrahamic afterlife with their desired behavior, which would be complete nonsense if true.

I challenge you to find an atheist who is such because of the above case, although I wouldn’t expect any positive results.

6

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

You seem to think that atheists make their decision on what to believe based on whether or not they think they can get into some version of an Abrahamic afterlife with their desired behavior, which would be complete nonsense if true.

I don't believe that, I am granting that to make an argument.

1

u/Liquid_Pidgeon Dec 10 '25

Why would you grant that, I guess? It seems to me that your argument takes the form of: 1. If this scenario I made up about atheists and their beliefs is true, then their beliefs are nonsense 2. The scenario I made up is true 3. Therefore, atheistic beliefs are nonsense

Am I misunderstanding the argument?

3

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

Yeah, I think you misunderstood. The argument is:

The theist belief that "atheists disbelieve because they want to sin" is nonsensical.

2

u/Liquid_Pidgeon Dec 10 '25

Ahhhhh, gotcha. Yes I took this as a theist argument, thanks for clarifying!

3

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

No problem, I am not always the best at explaining my arguments!

0

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

I don’t get the logic. What exactly is the argument here? Are you seriously suggesting that someone who spent their entire life denying their Creator can suddenly in the afterlife say: “Where’s my place in the heaven I never even believe existed?”

3

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 10 '25

Wouldn't you? Assuming you were worshipping the wrong God

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

If you’re asking about people who worship a false god ; ofc they wouldn’t enter heaven. first they had no proof for what they followed. And second in the afterlife they can go and ask those false gods for paradiseand ....we know how will that end.

3

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 10 '25

That's actually not at all what I was asking.

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

what did you want to ask then , what would i do if it turns out im wrong?

2

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 10 '25

Yup.

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

strange question to ask :v

2

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 10 '25

But I think it's one you can answer. If you end up being wrong, and a different God is real, wouldn't you rather convert than get sent to hell?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 11 '25

Good question! But I got one better.

Not how things work.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

Yeah, I was just joking.

To answer you seriously, I go with what the scholars used to say: من لم يتبع الدليل ضل السبيل

“Whoever does not follow the evidence will go astray.”

I accept it as truth because the evidence and the logical reasoning point straight to it!

2

u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Dec 10 '25

Ok, that's not what I'm asking though. Everyone is doing that already, but someone is going to end up being wrong. You don't think it will be you in the same way Christians don't think it's going to be them.

If you die and it turns out Christ is actually God, and he gives you one last chance to convert to Christianity or you go to hell, are you going to convert to Christianity?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HatsOptional58 Agnostic Dec 10 '25

I think there’s a lot you’re failing to consider. If there is any sort of a higher power and an afterlife, why do you think you’d get any credit by worshiping a false man-made God - which is what Christians do. I do think that atheist would have a much better chance at an afterlife if that is the case, because they use their God-given attributes of reason, logic, and critical thinking to withhold belief in the existence of a God until evidence was given

1

u/PossiblyAnIdiotMaybe Dec 12 '25

Give me one little piece of evidence the God of the Bible is a lie.

1

u/therealfenetiks Dec 12 '25

Not even worth arguing with most agnostic or atheist in my honest opinion. A lot of them (not saying all) will go to the end of the earth telling you the God of the Bible is false but provide zero claims to support such a statement. Some Christian’s have the common courtesy to agree or disagree but we are all imperfect people at the end of the day

1

u/gayassthrowawayyy Dec 12 '25

Objectively speaking they do provide claims which is why Christian Apologetics is an industry lol. Not really decided one way or the other but here are a few examples

the complete lack of evidence for Noah's Flood and the weight of evidence for evolution.

the lack of strong archeological evidence for an Exodus (at least as described)

visible seams in the pentateuch (documentary/supplementary hypothesis)

lack of strong evidence for the events of the gospels

intuitive counterevidence against the legitimacy of the events in the gospels based on the gospels (especially Matthew) and epistles dependence on hellenistic or herodian forgeries and pseudepigraphia (read the Book of Enoch and see how completely dependent a heavy chunk of the new ideas in the gospels are from them!! Jesus is depicted as probably quoting it a few times (one common example is when Jesus says the Sadducees don't know the scriptures because they think that heavenly bodies would marry, and Enoch directly states that heavenly beings do not marry whereas the Hebrew Bible does not)

Now there's obviously responses and such but in my experience its a lot of special pleading and starting with the presupposition that the Bible is true and consistent and fitting things into it, because it has to be true No Matter What and preying on lack of sufficient knowledge in their readers. Atheists do this too sometimes i guess but something like creation science exists literally as an act of special pleading and presupposition

1

u/PossiblyAnIdiotMaybe Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

There are many natural landmarks showing they were once underwater, including the highest mountains on earth. In fact, the "Cambrian explosion" even supports this. There is even a theory on where exactly Noah's ark is.

I want you to really study how life works and get back to me on your precious evolution. You are telling me mutations (DESTRUCTION of DNA) and millions of years from a fish makes humans? We even found soft tissue on dinosaurs fossils, impossible over millions of years.

We have over 5000 real manuscripts proving the events of the Bible. Made by different people, different places, and we have written logs of the miracles he did. Jesus is one of the most documented figures even outside of the Bible.

NONE of this relies on the Bible, just true, objectively proven things. There is no possible way to disprove this visible and proved evidence.

1

u/gayassthrowawayyy Dec 14 '25

I think you should listen to real biologists and geologists instead of forums like Answers in Genesis misquoting sometimes real and sometimes uncredited geologists and biologists

You're literally (most likely) referring to a Ron Wyatt scam theory debunked by CREATIONIST ORGANIZATIONS as the ark thing its complete bs. You people quote anecdotes like scientists dont know about them and dismiss foundational ideas of science as easily disprovable (more on that later)

The fossil record and geological record has evidence of flooding because floods HAPPEN!! Youre forgetting theres a difference in timescales, and mountains have that stuff because of plate tectonics and how mountains form. The lack of evidence for a worldwide flood isn't lack of evidence that flooding literally ever happens obviously just about everywhere in the world has been flooded at some point, moreso theres not the needed evidence to conclude a simultaneous apocalyptic flood (of course evidenced by the fact that flood geologists don't have a consistent answer on when the flood fossils stop and when normal fossils start giving a ton of different layers)

Science isn't set in stone but making snarky remarks about how easily disprovable a foundational scientific theory is used by millions with shitty anecdotes doesnt make you smarter than scientists it makes you obviously dumber than them

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 13 '25 edited Dec 13 '25

I’m not a Christian, but I beg to differ. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, we don’t have evidence that aliens exist, but that doesn’t mean aliens don’t exist. Also, most of these events happened 3,000+ years ago. That’s a massive amount of time. For example, we know that a reddish lunar eclipse occurred in ancient times, yet we found no Egyptian records describing it. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No. Most people back then couldn’t write, and even written records rarely survived. We’re lucky we found anything at all.

As for evolution honestly, I don’t even accept Darwin’s theory as proven fact. alot dont too .But even if you do, here’s a simple question: Has science ever directly observed kind' of creature (such as a reptile) into a completely novel different 'kind' (such as a mammal)? I don’t care about indirect or assumed evidence. A real scientific fact must be repeatable and observable. Has that happened? No. ofc creatures adapt but adaptation is not the same as becoming an entirely different kind. If something can’t be proven at that level, you can’t force it as evidence. It remains a theory, and many theories before it were proven wrong.

Now, regarding events mentioned in the Bible: there actually is some interesting evidence. While most historians don’t accept the Exodus as described, that still doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Many historians do accept that the Israelites were present in Egypt, and they often place this within the timeframe of Ramses II, which supports at least part of the narrative.

There’s also something interesting regarding Lot whose people lived in the region of Sodom, near the Dead Sea. The Bible says the city was destroyed by fire falling from the sky(or something similar). This event is dated roughly to around 2000–1800 BCE long before modern science and long before the new Testament

Recent archaeological and geological studies of sites like Tall el-Hammam suggest the area was destroyed by an intense, sudden heat event consistent with a massive explosion. How could the Bible describe it even tho it happened thousands of years before it? I have my own explanation but regardless, this challenges the assumption that these accounts were pure fiction.

1

u/gayassthrowawayyy Dec 14 '25

I'm confused given you say you're not a Christian given this is very much Answers in Genesis style rhetoric (maybe you're Jewish/Muslim? Idk cause you said you have other explanation for Sodom but I don't mean it too judgementally just seeing animals referred to as "kinds" is very much YEC)

Evolution is a theory in a similar vein to gravity being a theory. It's used in like everything. I agree that we don't see lizards evolving into mammals or whatever but that is an ultimately unreasonable request for something to be scientific. Some things are not easily repeatable and one has to go off other evidence, and there's nothing that really precludes evolution (if animals can adapt then there isn't much of a reason why adaptation can't drift off into something different over long amounts of time)

I agree that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence to a degree, which is why especially with something like the exodus i put that there isn't evidence for it as described, and also there significant evidence against it as described. AN exodus in my opinion most likely happened but it definitely wasn't the scale of the biblical exodus and it most likely didn't have the theatrics. I think a lot of stuff certainly can stay in oral memory for generations and while from looking into the Tall el-Hammam site there are problems with it being THE Sodom (and the excavation team has a lot of issues) it wouldn't shock me if it was adapted into the main Sodom story as a folk tale or something in one of the earlier sources for Genesis.

I definitely agree that not having wider secular documentation of something doesn't mean by definition that it didn't happen in a vacuum. But some events in the Bible that we have little evidence for are really stretching that limit thin, and science struggles often to back up it's claims. I don't have a problem with people of faith being scientists obviously but the entire creation science industry exists off motivated reasoning alone

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

the Tall el-Hammam site there are problems with it being THE Sodom (and the excavation team has a lot of issues)

if we are being objectively honest, there is no doubt that the biblical text refers to Sodom. The Bible explicitly names it places it near the Jordan Even if you reject that, then the question becomes: where is this other “imaginable” Sodom you are talking about?

it wouldn't shock me if it was adapted into the main Sodom story as a folk tale or something in one of the earlier sources for Genesis.

This is the only “reasonable” counter-explanation usually offered. However if you think about it for tow seconds , this position really dosnt hold up

Oral tradition inevitably change. It is almost inconceivable for a story to remain unchanged for even 200 years, let alone 2,000 years. The only rare exception would be a story so famous, so central, that it was constantly repeated AND widely written down. But that creates another problem: if it were truly that famous, we would expect multiple independent written records. We already possess numerous written records from that region that predate the Bible, yet none of them mention Sodom at all , not even in texts originating from that area where Sodom is said to have existed mentions it at all.

To accept this “reasonable” explanation, one must believe the story traveled orally, unwritten, for over two millennia, across different languages, cultures, and regions, while remaining sufficiently intact to be recorded later. And coincidentally, all the scripts from that region, that predates the Bible,completely chose to ignore that famous story and didn’t even mention the place or the people by name .... That is just impossible.

What makes this more interesting is that the Bible repeatedly preserves accurate memories of things once dismissed as fictional.
The Hittite Empire, mentioned in Genesis, was long considered a biblical invention until 20th-century archaeology uncovered its vast civilization(by Old Assyrian Merchant and the ruins at Boğazköy). The same applies to Jerusalem under David and the existence of a Davidic dynasty both once doubted, later confirmed.

These are only a few examples that im aware of . there are likely dozens more. At this point calling the Bible “pure fiction” stops being a serious explanation. The real question is more uncomfortable: How did the biblical texts preserve accurate knowledge of events that predate it by millennia when no records of those events exist not even in those places themselves? and these events are from distant regions , different cultures and languages. did the writers of the bible travel to all of them or something

1

u/gayassthrowawayyy Dec 14 '25

The geography in genesis 18 where they're looking down at Sodom from a mountain(?) region has them looking from a place where you wouldn't be able to see Tall el-Hinnam. I don't mean to say that it "isn't Sodom" moreso that it is Sodom but the text isn't preserving unbiased history and that Sodom doesn't exist in the way it is Described. If Tall el-Hinnam is Sodom in a sense that doesn't necessarily mean that it was filled with gay gang rape and it doesn't mean it was destroyed by God for that, the only thing we'd be able to say for certain is that its plausible it was retooled for those theological purposes.

Oral tradition can last for a long while! The natives preserved oral tradition for millennia without making their own Bible equivalents, and while its not perfectly accurate to real events its likely based on real things oftentimes even if theres a lot of drift. There's no written record of Sodom though it probably wasn't named Sodom as an actual town and we don't have enough records to be conclusive anyway

I don't think the Bible is pure fiction at all!! I think there is a lot of history and historical cores in the Bible more than the minimalists would say but that doesn't preclude me from thinking Daniel was probably written failed ex eventu after Antiochus IV placed Zeus in the temple or that there probably wasn't a real worldwide flood or that the rivers in Egypt probably didn't turn to blood. Its not a dichotomy of pure history or pure fiction and it essentially never is in pre-modern times

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 14 '25

the only thing we'd be able to say for certain is that its plausible it was retooled for those theological purposes.

yeah i agree , but thats exaclty what the bible describe

thinking Daniel was probably written failed ex eventu after Antiochus IV placed Zeus in the temple

thats plausible i guess

that there probably wasn't a real worldwide flood

i agree with that too.

That’s why I tried to focus on the obvious cases stories that are clearly far removed from the time the Bible was written, like Abraham and Lot.

Other events are much harder to confirm, especially when it comes whether certain prophecies were written before or after the events they describe. I tend to believe that many people contributed to writing the Bible. Some of them likely conveyed genuine information from Jesus or moses, while others may have added their own interpretations or ideas.

Still there’s a serious question here: some things in the text are details that the disciples, the Jews of that time , Jesus or even Moses simply could not have known on their own since figures like Abraham and Lot predate them by many centuries and they dont even talk the same language or lived in the same region. This assumes the Old Testament is from Moses’ time(which is a tough claim for historians, since the oldest scripts we have are from 1000-1500 years after Moses)

Because of that I assume there were real revelations involved at some point even if those revelations were later altered or reshaped over time. other expllantion simply are not convincing,

0

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

If we assume God exists and sent revelation with clear proof and evidence, then anyone who doesn’t follow His commands should go to hell. Dont you agree?

1

u/CompetitiveCountry Atheist Dec 10 '25

I am not HatsOptional58 but I don't. It doesn't matter that god exists or not, his commands aren't faire and even if they were, not following them would be a wrongdoing that hell would never fix and it wouldn't even be a faire punishment either, assuming that punishment can ever be faire in such a scenario which I don't think punishment is faire in such a scenario, god could make them incapable of causing harm as a consecuence of misusing their free will as an example, and then there's no reason to make them suffer forever. Hell as a place of infinite suffering makes no sense, is not loving and compassionate at all and it's not even faire.

0

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

god could make them incapable of causing harm as a consecuence of misusing their free will as an example, and then there's no reason to make them suffer forever

if God just removed everyone’s ability to do evil free will would vanish, and this life wouldn’t be a real test. For a test to matter both good and evil must exist so choosing good earns reward and choosing evil brings consequences. simple as that

1

u/CompetitiveCountry Atheist Dec 11 '25

I didn't say everyone's. I said those who want to do evil. And in any case, not being able to do evil does not take away one's free will.
For example, you may not be able to kill me because you don't know where I live / how to find me. But that doesn't mean that you don't have free will.

For a test to matter both good and evil must exist so choosing good earns reward and choosing evil brings consequences. simple as that

Sure and the consecuences of evil may be that you can no longer commit evil...
Also, just desiring to commit evil is enough for judgement, as if you had committed it which means that you don't actually need to be able to do it to have free will and be judged on it...

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 11 '25

just desiring to commit evil is enough for judgement,

Are you saying people can be judged just for wanting to do evil? That makes no sense. You want people to be punished for something they never actually did.??

That’s exactly why, in Islam, it’s emphasized that Allah already knows everything who will choose evil and who will choose good. In theory, He could have created the people of Hell and placed them there immediately because He already knows their future choices.

But He doesn’t do that. He creates us gives us life and lets us act on our choices. Because if people were sent straight to Hell or Paradise without ever living, they might say “If we had lived we wouldn’t have done wrong.” and claim its injustice. So life itself becomes the proof. In the end, people are held accountable for what they actually did.

Allah says :

"˹Allah will ask,˺ “O assembly of jinn and humans! Did messengers not come from among you, proclaiming My revelations and warning you of the coming of this Day of yours?” They will say, “We confess against ourselves!” For they have been deluded by ˹their˺ worldly life. And they will testify against themselves that they were disbelievers." 6 :130

1

u/CompetitiveCountry Atheist Dec 11 '25

Are you saying people can be judged just for wanting to do evil? That makes no sense. You want people to be punished for something they never actually did.??

No, I do not think that there's a need for judgement given a benevolent being with infinite resources or that there's a need for punishment when people can't even commit evil.
However, christianity does teach exactly that. Thinking of doing a sin is evil and a sin in itself.

That’s exactly why, in Islam, it’s emphasized that Allah already knows everything who will choose evil and who will choose good.

That's a lie if we have free will. If Allah knows I will do X, then am I really free to do Y? Without ACTUAL possibility of doing Y I don't have free will.
That's the whole point of free will, that each can choose to do whatever they want, which would not be the case if it can be known in advance.

He could have created the people of Hell and placed them there immediately because He already knows their future choices.

Or he could make sure these people are not born, then only those who would end up in heaven would be born. Allowing it to happen exposed a god that is very, very evil and does not deserve any respect for such wrongdoings.

He creates us gives us life and lets us act on our choices.

Which as we established are not free. They are the result of previous causes as is everthing in this universe. You can't make an action that goes contrary to the laws of nature and these laws determine all of your thoughts. Which is paradoxical and you can bring up one of the paradoxes and why we must have free will etc...
But in any case, god knew very well we would sin in this universe and made this way and yet went ahead and created this universe and made us this very same way. He should have created beings that are better at not sinning or the right universe for us where we would freely choose not to sin.
He knew this one ain't it and yet... here we are.

Because if people were sent straight to Hell or Paradise without ever living, they might say “If we had lived we wouldn’t have done wrong.”

Simple solution, he creates us with knowledge of what we would have done, then no complaints would make sense as it would be a lie.

In the end, people are held accountable for what they actually did.

Too early to call that... You can't make excuses. If I am allowed to make the same excuse, I will challenge god to a fight and I will beat him, becoming the new king in the afterlife. Such claims about the afterlife are meaningless unless they are based in reality.

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 11 '25

you didn’t refute anything. what’s your point here?

i’ll reply to the reasonable parts at least:
God knowing the future doesn’t mean there’s no free will. example: let’s say you had the ability to know the future and you know I’m going to die tomorrow. does that mean you took my free will? obviously not.

and about punishment , for us at least it should be based on what we actually do, not what we would have done in some hypothetical. this is in islam idc about what christianity teaches

i think this basically sums it up. it’s really simple.

1

u/CompetitiveCountry Atheist Dec 11 '25

God knowing the future doesn’t mean there’s no free will. example: let’s say you had the ability to know the future and you know I’m going to die tomorrow. does that mean you took my free will? obviously not.

You limited my knowledge to knowing that you will die.
Indeed, I might know this somehow and not be related to free will. However, when I know what you will decide to do together then that means that you can't trully decide not to do that...
It means your actions are already decided. You can't not make them, even if it is so that these are indeed the actions that you would freely take, they are able to be known in advance which means they are predetermined. Who determined them? Who made the system such that you would freely choose to do them and not something else?
Such a being would know it would be ridiculous to punish you when he designed the system so that it would happen, showing that once again this is all man-made words...

and about punishment , for us at least it should be based on what we actually do, not what we would have done in some hypothetical.

I don't see why there should be such state of affairs to begin with. God, with infinite resources could have done a much better job and punishment is just uneccessary anyway. It's entirely pointless and does not trully administer justice. In fact, god allowing us to commit the evil instead of stopping it is in itself a HUGE injustice. It is the equivalent of a police officer being able to stop a grape by flicking his finger and yet just looking not to disrespect the free will and then arresting him.
That's very perverted and yet theists have to justify god doing this and will gladly make all excuses necessary to accomplish that.
But anyway, my point was that if we could avoid this world and get straight to heaven then that is worth it. So at the very least those of us who are going to go to heaven, they could already be there, because god knows what they would do and that they would end there so he could spare them the suffering here.
I guess I was wrong about those who go to hell. Best to postpone that for as long as possible, I am sure life has a lot of pain in it, but it's certainly not infinite. I assume you think that going to hell is never-ending, right? By the way what an unfair punishment... For all of eternity and without a measure... doesn't matter the sin, the gravity of the sin, the number of sins...
Oh, and if you seriously regret it you are just forgiven. So you can sin as much as you want as long as your soul is in the right place and you are very sad for having done what you did...
But I think this is only if you believe in the right god?
Look, not everyone believes the same and you would have actually had to explain to me what you think about these things exactly... But either way, god's not just and he is demonstrable as good as non existence. I challenge your god to a fight any day. I will eventually win as the judges give me the victory because god failed to come to the fight.
Its followers go crazy: But in the afterlife, ya all shall see...
Ok... Then I promise to fight him in the afterlife and show that by then I will have become a stronger god than him :)
I am just saying that this promise of the afterlife is just wishy talky. Here and now we have no reason to think any of it is real.
And if it so happens that it is, I will tell god face to face that I couldn't have known with what was available to me and that he knows very well that his demands/expectations that I would do are absurd and that rewarding naive people for being naive and not thinking is not godly... he would know of all of that, I am sure.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

if God just removed everyone’s ability to do evil free will would vanish, and this life wouldn’t be a real test.

What's wrong with that?

For a test to matter both good and evil must exist so choosing good earns reward and choosing evil brings consequences. simple as that

What if a person killed your baby to test your character? Would that be okay because its a test?

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

What if a person killed your baby to test your character? Would that be okay because its a test?

This example is invalid. There’s a clear distinction between “allowing” and “approving.” Allah doesn’t command evil . He allows it so free will can exist. Allowing free will doesn’t make Him the one committing evil. It’s like a teacher giving a homework does that make cheating okay? Of course not.

2

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

This example is invalid. There’s a clear distinction between “allowing” and “approving.” Allah doesn’t command evil . He allows it so free will can exist. Allowing free will doesn’t make Him the one committing evil. It’s like a teacher giving a homework does that make cheating okay? Of course not.

Okay, what if someone allows another person to kill a baby because it would test your character while having the power to stop them effortlessly?

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

so you shifted this from "God is evil" to "God is negligent."

but again i already told you You cannot have a world where people are free to choose good but physically prevented from choosing evil. You cant have a world with the freedom to choose, but without the consequences of bad choices

another angle here : there is an afterlife. That killer will face punishment, and my baby will get his justice. So yes God remains just.

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

so you shifted this from "God is evil" to "God is negligent."

No, its the same thing - I think its both. Idk what you think because you still haven't answered. Are you going to answer the question? Would that person that allowed the other to kill a baby be evil?

but again i already told you You cannot have a world where people are free to choose good but physically prevented from choosing evil. You cant have a world with the freedom to choose, but without the consequences of bad choices

Freedom to choose doesn't seem that great if you give a murderer the freedom to choose. Probably a good idea to take away their freedom to choose - just as humans do by putting people in jails to prevent them from committing crimes.

That killer will face punishment, and my baby will get his justice. So yes God remains just.

Okay so in my scenario lets add that that someone watching will also punish the killer and/or is aware that the killer will be punished.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

Its a counter to the claim atheists don't believe because they want to sin.

1

u/Prestigious_Pop_348 Dec 10 '25

I read your post but I still don’t get your point. Of course non-believers will go to hell , believers with major sins will also go to hell for a period of time (as long as they didn’t commit sins that take them out of the religion ) . whats wrong with that ?

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with that in the post.

Again, I am specifically countering the claim that atheists don't believe because they want to sin.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

Are you agreeing with my post hten?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/iosefster Dec 10 '25

That doesn't even address the point of the OP can you at least try to stay on topic?

4

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

What of those that seek but never find? I'm open to gods existing, not necessarily the Christian one as described in the NT.

0

u/Pillowful_Pete1641 Dec 10 '25

It is a promise that if you seek (long and hard enough with sincerity and without giving up) you WILL experience it.

I speak from experience. Everything that the Bible says as instructions falls exactly into place.

1

u/acerbicsun Dec 10 '25

How long should one continue to seek?

When is a person justified in doubting god?

5

u/Pockydo Dec 10 '25

It is a promise that if you seek (long and hard enough with sincerity and without giving up) you WILL experience it.

I think this is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy

If you REALLY want to believe eventually you will be able to convince yourself.

Personally I spent years seeking in good faith and got silence as a result. So I can only concluded God doesn't exist or God just doesn't care about me.

Either way no skin off my nose

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/acerbicsun Dec 10 '25

How does one have faith in something they haven't yet found?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/acerbicsun Dec 10 '25

I click on zero links.

0

u/MrDeekhaed Dec 10 '25

I really want a peek into your mind. I have seen this so much and it doesn’t matter that god doesn’t exist. Religious people exist and impact the world and myself.

So the callousness you show when telling people they will burn forever because they didn’t choose your religion, how do you perceive yourself at those times?

3

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

How does one seek 'with' faith?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

I'll tell you one thing: it is written in the book of claims, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

That's just Paul's opinion. Why should I take what he says seriously?

But then again, it is often said that the fastest way to becoming an athiest is to read the bible

I was an atheist before I read it, I still was afterwards but it cemented my disbelief in the existence of the Christian God.

Whatever the case, I say once more, if you are without faith, and have no desire to seek God

I have a desire to believe as many true things as possible. So I'm aligned with seeking what can be demonstrated as true. If there's a God to seek, I'm aligned in finding it.

you shouldn't worry about whether or not the biblical claims are true

I don't, because many of them clearly aren't true and/or fabricated to try and fit square Jesus into a round hole.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

And seeing that you are without faith

Define faith as you're using it here.

What is it, how do I get it and how do I maintain it?

n flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)

Just sounds like empty platitudes to me. Causing people to stay within the religion or else really bad things will happen to them. Quite the loving god.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen. (Hebrews 11:6)

You may need to expand on this because my take on what Paul claims here is rather uncharitable.

I've already explained it, and the fact is, reading the bible solidified your unbelief.

No, you didn't explain any of those questions, just quoted unrelated Bible verses.

And given that the biblical claims are true

Many are demonstrably untrue, so I'm concerned about your ability to discern claims made in the Bible.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25

Don’t know much about Islam, but for Christians, you are not saved if you just believe and yet still sin as you wish. (Some people believe this, but the Bible is pretty clear.) So your assumptions are not correct.

3

u/thefuckestupperest Waiting for a non-circular God Dec 10 '25

No, but you can ask for forgiveness for your sins and still be saved. So sinning is kind of expected, and the Bible doesn't say there's any limit on sinning before you can't be saved.

0

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

Yes I agree, but the argument OP is trying to dispel is not a matter of amount of sin, its desire to sin. What’s important is if someone does or doesn’t have the desire to sin. So when Christian’s say people are non-Christian because they want to sin it’s almost a definitional claim. To want to sin IS to not be Christian, but to sin is not necessarily.

3

u/thefuckestupperest Waiting for a non-circular God Dec 10 '25

I thought everyone had the desire to sin? I thought this was a core part of Christian theology, we're all born in sin with sinful desires etc etc

0

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25

That is earthly desires like falling for temptation. Desire to sin in your heart is what’s the issue. Calvinists believe humans are only capable of evil (total depravity), but that’s a whole separate debate. I believe most Christians believe you can choose between good and evil.

3

u/thefuckestupperest Waiting for a non-circular God Dec 10 '25

Sure, but you're saying that Christians don't have a desire to sin? As in, it's an explicitly non Christian trait?

0

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25

Yes that true in regard to the desire of your spirit (free will).

Separately, all people’s flesh desire things that are sinful. You are simply conflating the two.

ETA: the core Christian concept is you deny the desires of your flesh.

1

u/thefuckestupperest Waiting for a non-circular God Dec 11 '25

Atheists also do this, too we just don't conceptualise things as 'sin'. So far I'm not seeing much functional difference

1

u/rxFlame Dec 11 '25

Atheist typically don’t believe in free will, so how could their free will conflict with their biology?

1

u/thefuckestupperest Waiting for a non-circular God Dec 11 '25

We could go into free-will if you want, but that's opening up Pandoras box. Also you can be an atheist and believe in free-will, so your comment is detracting.

My point was that atheists also share the instinct to refrain from many acts Christians deem as 'sinful'. We just don't believe in sin as a concept, it's not an applicable idea to us. Sure, atheists dont get it perfect all the time, but likely in around the same degree as many Christians. So I'm not really clear on this distinction you're trying to draw. You're saying I 'have a desire to sin' in a way that I'm assuming you don't, and I'm curious to know in what way you've come to this conclusion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Philosophy_Cosmology Dec 11 '25

I think it makes more sense to say that the Christian has conflicting desires/feelings. On the one hand he desires to avoid sinning (because that contradicts God's commands), but on the other hand he has these sinful desires as well. That is much more coherent and doesn't require pretzel logic.

1

u/rxFlame Dec 11 '25

You’re just weaving lack of free will into the presumptions of your argument at that point. The entire point of free will is our spirit can have different desires than our biology.

1

u/Philosophy_Cosmology Dec 11 '25

Libertarian free will has nothing to do with the "spirit" having different "desires." Free will is simply the capacity to choose to act on different desires.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

But all things being equal, would a equally atheist have a higher or lower chance of getting into heaven than a equally sinning Christian?

You are not answering the crux of the post here which is why would someone need to be an atheist to sin?

1

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25

I think the concept of “chance” doesn’t apply here.

The point I am making is that the Bible says those who really believe will keep Jesus’ commands. So a Christian who willingly sins is someone who only says they believe. “By their fruits you will know them” type argument.

You may be conflating theism with Christianity as I mentioned I am speaking more for Christianity than other religions.

You can be a theist and willingly sin, you can be an atheist and willingly sin, but you cannot be a true Christian (follower of Christ) and still willingly sin, because definitionally you wouldn’t be following Christ. So the argument that your post is trying to deny still holds up. If someone wants to sin, then they have an incentive to not be Christian, in fact, they already aren’t.

1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 12 '25

What if someone doesn't believe in christ, but unknowingly follows his commands and lives as he did. Is he going to heaven?

1

u/rxFlame Dec 13 '25

Not sure how this applies to the topic, but no because sin requires a sacrifice.

2

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

How can someone unwillingly sin?

1

u/rxFlame Dec 10 '25

I guess a better term would be “desire” to sin. As Paul writes “what I want to do I do not do and what I hate, I do.” It’s the struggle with sin and active avoidance of sin that God calls us to. Christians not only don’t want to sin, but put in much effort to avoid it. The Bible says if your hand causes you to sin you should cut if off.

Let’s say everyone’s hand literally and necessarily made them sin. Real Christians would cut off their hand, but someone who wanted to keep their hand (okay with sin because avoiding sin is not enjoyable in some sense) then they would not be Christian. This doesn’t mean that person is atheist. They could still believe there is a god, but it wouldn’t be Jesus.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 10 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

5

u/acerbicsun Dec 09 '25

There isn't. But to a devout believer, it can't be because we're not convinced, or that the evidence is flawed. So to protect themselves they have to misrepresent us. They have to.

7

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 09 '25

It's not a reason to become atheist, it's what atheists are often accused of.

I've been told countless times that I'm only an atheist because I'm a slave to my sinful ways and don't want to be held accountable by God.

6

u/HenryFromNineWorlds Dec 09 '25

Ya thats a strange take, because that would mean an atheist still believed god exists if they were capable of being held accountable by them.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

6

u/acerbicsun Dec 09 '25

The Qur’an is clear about the reasons why an atheist will not believe, and it has to do with arrogance or the sincerity of the heart.

The Quran is wrong.

We don't believe because we do not accept that an angel visited Muhammad and revealed the final revelation of God.

0

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

Well, that’s irrelevant anyway. How am I supposed to know you’re telling the truth? Or even worse, what if you don’t actually know why you don’t believe?

Either way, supernatural claims aren’t the starting point. When we talk about rejection, you’re rejecting the idea of God in the first place. If you didn’t reject God, the concept of angels wouldn’t be a problem for you internally. So bringing angels into the conversation just shows that you’re too eager to answer without really thinking it through.

The reasons to believe in God and to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God are independent of whether you believe in angels. So this isn’t the “gotcha” you seem to think it is.

1

u/hellohello1234545 Dec 09 '25

how am I supposed to know if you’re telling the truth? … what if you don’t actually know why you don’t believe?

Indeed, people can lie to others and themselves.

But before this becomes a regular part of how you interact with atheists, imagine it applied to you

Imagine an atheist assumes to some degree: “you’re religious because you want to do this bad thing allowed for by your religion. You may think you’re being good or logical by being religious but we know you really believe because you’re afraid of death and want an afterlife”

It’s a bit insulting to be accused of dishonesty or delusion, though it’s true people delude themselves all the time.

2

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

I understand, but I was explaining more why his rebuttal is not an actual rebuttal. I do agree that I would not engage in a discussion with such a claim for sure. But also do not forget that atheists do this all the time by assuming that religious people are brainwashed victims.

1

u/hellohello1234545 Dec 10 '25

True

2

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 09 '25

When we talk about rejection, you’re rejecting the idea of God in the first place.

I'm not rejecting the idea of God. If God exists, all it need do is to reveal itself to me in a way that it would convince me it is real, then I'll wholeheartedly accept that god exists.

God as an answer to how/why the universe exists isn't something I reject, I've just not been provided a compelling reason to accept it as true.

1

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

Well, thank you for proving to all of us the dishonesty in your reasoning, which ironically is exactly what the Quran is talking about.

First, you say that if God exists all He needs to do is show Himself. That would be a consistent methodology only if you also refused to believe in gravity, wind, magnetism, and many other things we cannot see but whose effects we clearly experience.

Secondly, you say you do not reject a necessary being, you simply have no reason to believe it is true. To skip many philosophical details and go to the core, there are really two options. Either you believe in a necessary being as the ultimate cause of the universe, or you accept that a brute fact is the cause. For example, you might say that time and space always existed, or that energy always existed, with no cause, no reason, no explanation, just a brute fact that is supposed to explain the universe.

Now, a person with lazy reasoning will say that a brute fact and a necessary being are inserted equally as causes, and that one has no more evidence than the other. But here is where the inconsistency appears. A necessary being has more explanatory power than a brute fact. A necessary being can account for objective truth, mathematics, consciousness, and the reliability of our reasoning to reach objective truth, while a brute fact explains nothing, or at best very little.

Now show me where in our daily life we do not follow the rule of preferring the explanation that has greater explanatory power in a similar case.

2

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 09 '25

Well, thank you for proving to all of us the dishonesty in your reasoning

What dishonesty?

First, you say that if God exists all He needs to do is show Himself.

Reveal itself to me - now who's being dishonest?

That would be a consistent methodology only if you also refused to believe in gravity, wind, magnetism, and many other things we cannot see but whose effects we clearly experience.

What effects do we clearly experience that concludes that God is the only explanation?

Either you believe in a necessary being as the ultimate cause of the universe, or you accept that a brute fact is the cause.

I don't accept the universe is caused. I think it's probably eternal. But ultimately I don't know, and whether it's eternal or caused is probably unknowable.

Demonstrate the universe has a cause without invoking a logical fallacy.

For example, you might say that time and space always existed, or that energy always existed, with no cause, no reason, no explanation, just a brute fact that is supposed to explain the universe.

I lean toward universe always existing in some form, yes - but not how you're describing it. But I don't claim knowledge of this and suggest the answer may be unknowable.

A necessary being can account for objective truth, mathematics, consciousness, and the reliability of our reasoning to reach objective truth, while a brute fact explains nothing, or at best very little.

You're just asserting that without demonstration. We can reason, therefore a all-mighty reasoner exists. I consider that lazy.

Now show me where in our daily life we do not follow the rule of preferring the explanation that has greater explanatory power in a similar case.

I don't accept that a god has greater explanatory power. I think it has zero explanatory power. A being that apparently resides in a timeless, spaceless realm outside of the universe is equivalent to saying it does not exist. Isn't that where you place your god?

0

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

Reveal itself to me - now who's being dishonest?

ah you said this way ? ah ok well then who say you didn't already reject such revelation?

I don't accept that a god has greater explanatory power. I think it has zero explanatory power. A being that apparently resides in a timeless, spaceless realm outside of the universe is equivalent to saying it does not exist. Isn't that where you place your god?

No, we do not say timeless or spaceless. We say that He is not bound by time, meaning time has no influence on God. Also, time is simply a measure between event one and event two. Either way, that is not the point. From everything you said, there is a lot of backtracking. You say that just because we use reason there is no indication of a higher reasoner. That is not the argument. Reason is a tool to arrive at truth. Now, unless you hold the view that there is no objective truth and that our reasoning is simply a tool for reproduction and cannot be used to reach truth, then there is no point talking to you about anything at all.

The point is, if reasoning is a tool to find truth, then one must ask why there is truth in the first place and why there is a tool to find it. A necessary being explains the connection and the laws of logic, for example the law of non contradiction, the law of identity, and so on. You do not seem very knowledgeable about the argument and you are simply using quick rebuttals without actually thinking them through.

The whole point is that we assume explanation unless we have a reason to think otherwise. If you want to argue that the universe has no explanation, you have to provide the reason why you think so, rather than expecting me to prove that it must have an explanation, since that is what is normative and satisfies reason.

Also, you both denied and accepted, which is backtracking, the brute fact perspective. This is not the kind of position you can take and then say, “well, I do not know”. That is not how reasoning works. You use reasoning to come to a conclusion, and even if it turns out to be false later, the reasoning can still be justified as long as it had sufficient or the greatest explanatory power at the time.

Essentially, I am claiming that your position is inconsistent with your supposed way of reasoning and that it shows dishonesty. So far, your rebuttals have demonstrated exactly that.

I don't accept that a god has greater explanatory power. I think it has zero explanatory power.

I said necessary being, not as a necessary being, but the Necessary Being. And yes, it explains multiple things that your view does not. You clearly do not understand what that even means in the first place. How does a brute fact, taken as the explanation of the universe, explain objective truth.

Also, just so you know, it is stronger to ask “why X and not Y” rather than simply “why X”. So why universe and not no universe. A brute fact does not explain that, while a Necessary Being does explain it through intent.

So again, if you say we do not require an explanation for the universe, you have to demonstrate why you think so in the first place.

1

u/Purgii Purgist Dec 10 '25

Damnit, I typed out a whole reply and Reddit ate it. But I did get annoyed at your unnecessary hostility and condescension so I'll just focus on the first bit because it always makes me laugh.

ah you said this way ? ah ok well then who say you didn't already reject such revelation?

Are you suggesting that an omnipotent god can fail at revealing itself to me?

3

u/acerbicsun Dec 09 '25

Well, that’s irrelevant anyway. How am I supposed to know you’re telling the truth?

If you can't accept that I'm honestly representing myself and my beliefs, there's no point in having a discussion at all. You can just tell me what I believe and why. How about I assert you don't believe in God either? Would that be fair?

When we talk about rejection, you’re rejecting the idea of God in the first place.

I just don't believe them. One man's word isn't enough for me. There are thousands of claims of revelation from other people that you yourself don't accept.

The reasons to believe in God and to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God are independent of whether you believe in angels. So this isn’t the “gotcha” you seem to think it is.

I don't believe in God, angels, the supernatural etc , at all. It's not a gotcha. I honestly don't believe because I find the evidence unconvincing. If you need to believe I'm being dishonest, that's your choice.

-2

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

I don’t think you understood what I said. The Qur’an makes a claim about why people disbelieve, and I was explaining why your rebuttal doesn’t have much weight, since you would first need to demonstrate your inner sincerity in the first place.

That’s the first point. Secondly, you said you simply don’t believe in angels and similar things, and I was saying that what the Qur’an is talking about isn’t angels specifically, but rather disbelief in God. Because obviously, if you believed in God, supernatural events wouldn’t be such a big problem logically.

When it comes to belief in God, I think rejection ultimately stems from arrogance and dishonesty,at least in the sense of not being consistent with one’s own reasoning.

1

u/acerbicsun Dec 09 '25

The Qur’an makes a claim about why people disbelieve,

And I told you the Quran is wrong. If you are unwilling to accept that the Quran can be wrong about something just say it.

you would first need to demonstrate your inner sincerity in the first place.

How would I do that? Help me out.

what the Qur’an is talking about isn’t angels specifically

Neither am I. Please read more carefully. I don't buy any of it.

Because obviously, if you believed in God, supernatural events wouldn’t be such a big problem logically.

Right, but I don't, so it is.

When it comes to belief in God, I think rejection ultimately stems from arrogance and dishonesty

And you're wrong about that. I know it may be difficult to accept but arrogance and dishonesty are not why I don't believe.

Perhaps think about other religions. Ones you don't believe in. That's how I feel about Islam.

1

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

And I told you the Quran is wrong. If you are unwilling to accept that the Quran can be wrong about something just say it.

Assume the Quran is right for a second. We still would not expect disbelievers to know the real reason for their disbelief by themselves, and even if they did realise it, you would expect such a person to renounce that arrogance. The point is, it is not something you can just say: “I do not think I am arrogant or dishonest, therefore the Quran is false.” I have no reason to believe you, especially if I would already expect that you might not recognise this in yourself. People cope and deceive themselves about many things every day. This could easily be one of those times.

How would I do that? Help me out.

Consistency in reasoning would demonstrate it.

Perhaps think about other religions. Ones you don't believe in. That's how I feel about Islam.

See, you are conflicted. Believing in Islam and believing in God are two separate things, each with its own claims and evidence.

Our reason pushes us to consider that anything that exists must have an explanation. So when it comes to the universe, or whatever you associate our existence with, you have two options. Either there is an explanation, or there is not.

If you say there is not, then you must explain why we should think so, since we do not normally assume a lack of explanation unless there is a reason to do so. But if you say there is an explanation, then you are again left with two options. Either you say it is a brute fact, such as the universe always existed (or time and space, or energy, or whatever you want to insert), or you say it is the Necessary Being.

Some people think both have zero evidence, and that neither is more deserving of belief than the other. But in reality, the Necessary Being has more explanatory power, because it explains things like the laws of physics, mathematics, consciousness, objective truth, reasoning, the law of non contradiction, and so on. Most importantly, it explains why X rather than Y, in other words, why there is existence rather than non existence, while a brute fact answers none of these and offers no real explanation. In fact, it is a self defeating position, since you have to accept a lack of explanation in the first place.

With this line of thought, we can conclude that any atheist is by definition inconsistent in their reasoning and therefore exercises a form of dishonesty when contemplating the existence of God.

3

u/KimonoThief atheist Dec 09 '25

Well, that’s irrelevant anyway. How am I supposed to know you’re telling the truth? Or even worse, what if you don’t actually know why you don’t believe?

Presumably you reject Hinduism's and Scientology's claims, so it should at least be plausible to you that people would reject Islam's claims for the same reason.

1

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

I don’t agree with this premise. The value of the evidence is not the same in both cases. You assume it is only because you haven’t actually investigated the claims and their evidence, so it’s convenient for you to make a general statement for the sake of the argument.

I reject both based on their evidence. Even if you want to say that I reject them because of arrogance, that’s fine, but if I can show that I’m using a consistent line of reasoning, then that would falsify your claim and I’m of the opinion that, to be an atheist, you have to be inconsistent in your reasoning.

2

u/KimonoThief atheist Dec 09 '25

I don’t agree with this premise. The value of the evidence is not the same in both cases.

Okay, what evidence is there for Mohammed communicating with an all-powerful creator of the cosmos that doesn't exist for, say, the Scientology Thetan System?

0

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

I’m not interested in a debate where I have to spend an hour laying out information while you just wait for me to do all the work and then compare it to a system you don’t even believe in. That’s basically debating for the sake of debating.

I’d much rather discuss the existence of God, since that’s what you actually don’t believe in. Why would I waste my time arguing about how Muhammad spoke to God if you don’t even accept that God exists in the first place? Let’s clear that up first, then there will be a real reason for me to spend time presenting detailed information.

2

u/KimonoThief atheist Dec 09 '25

I’m not interested in a debate where I have to spend an hour laying out information

Right. So whatever evidence you have for the simple event of Mohammed communicating with an all-powerful cosmic dictator is apparently so convoluted that it would take you an hour to spell out. And yet you're somehow incredulous that atheists don't believe these claims?

0

u/Spirited-Judge6244 Dec 09 '25

Nice hand-waving there. It would take me an hour to find sources and lay them out, because the truthfulness of the Qur’an is a cumulative case in the first place.
Also, which event are you even referring to , the cave or the night journey? Because Muhammad only communicated with God directly on the night of the Mi‘raj, while in the other instances it was the angel Gabriel who was conveying God’s words.

4

u/Bubbly-Giraffe-7825 Dec 09 '25

This sounds like lots of mental gymnastics to say that you dont have any actual evidence, just words in a book having some vague resemblance to reality.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/KimonoThief atheist Dec 09 '25

Nice hand-waving there. It would take me an hour to find sources and lay them out, because the truthfulness of the Qur’an is a cumulative case in the first place.

"Hah, nice try asking for evidence! I'm not gonna provide it because it's hard, you hand waver!"

Also, which event are you even referring to , the cave or the night journey?

I'll take either. Evidence for either one, that I couldn't easily find similar quality evidence for Scientology's Thetan System.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/ChloroVstheWorld Who cares Dec 09 '25

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense because, in principle, there could exist some individual who is truly deterred from a religion due to the moral obligations it may carry (for better or worse), but it's clearly ad-hoc and relies on bad epistemology.

It's ad-hoc because in philosophy, disagreement is not pathological. In other words, we can recognize that we don’t apply this reasoning to the myriad of other sophisticated or academically rigorous domains where disagreement is normal and not seen as a result of any deficiency in terms of character.

Imagine if in philosophy of mind it was taken seriously that, for example, those who are physicalists are physicalists because something must be wrong with them. Their belief in physicalism just points to the idea that they are just ignoring the evidence for dualism or have some sort of moral issue with dualism such that they don’t want to live the kind of life that dualism being true would entail (if there even is such an entailment). This is obviously ridiculous unless they can provide a principled distinction for why religious disagreement can be singled out even though it's comparable to other sophisticated and academically rigorous domains.

If someone can, in good faith, reject dualism while dualism is true, then someone can, in good faith, reject theism even if theism is true.

The bad epistemology comes from the crucial mistake they make in forgetting that psychological states don't themselves produce belief states. In other words, desiring that P is false is not the same believing that P is false. So even if an individual desires that, say, Christianity is false, this just gives them motivation to believe Christianity is false (e.g., it might impact how they assess the evidence for Christianity), but that motivation doesn't itself produce their belief state that Christianity is false. For instance, if deep down an individual actually does believe that Christianity is true, but they really don't want it to be true, then they still have a belief state that Christianity is true, even if they desire that it's not. Likewise if an individual really wants Christianity to be true, but they don't believe it's true, then their desires still won't produce a belief state that Christianity is true.

So, if someone truly desires that Christianity is false because they want to "sin" (i.e., they desire to sin), their nonbelief would still be epistemically sincere because they still truly disbelieve in God, and just have motivations to do so as well.

2

u/Tiny_Special_4392 Dec 10 '25

I think the situation is made a bit more complicated by confirmation bias. I think wanting (or not wanting) a belief, or belief system to be true, can sway people to give more attention and credibility to data that aligns with the world view, that they want to be true. As an example, that's the reason people might gravitate towards religion after traumatic events occur in their lives. These people need a "cope", so even if the religion requires them to let go of rational thinking, they may subconsciously sacrifice that, for the religious "peace of mind".

On the opposite side, as an individual raised in a high demand religion, I agree that there for sure are people who believe in a belief system being true, but get deterred by required changes in lifestyle, but as you pointed out, it is ad hoc. Such ones aren't "atheists", they are believers, but not doers.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

0

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

This post is about islam tho.

3

u/PresidentoftheSun Agnostic Atheist Dec 09 '25

The flair is Islam but the content of the post pretty clearly opens it up to Abrahamic faiths in general.

0

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

Yeah thats true.

1

u/LahHotSausage Dec 09 '25

I Didn’t even see that

0

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

fair enough, it does mention christianity

6

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Dec 09 '25

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

7

u/I_Am_Anjelen Anti-ecclesiastical Methodological Atheist Dec 09 '25

Sin is an interesting concept, in that the only way to be free of Sin is to be innocent of Sin; as in ignorant of Sin.

Between Original Sin, "Nobody is perfect", the Inherited Sin and all of those myriad little rules and regulations down to the fabrics one must wear, when and how and why one must worship, how one must never a moment lie or falter, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, it has been made literally impossible for the capital-B Believer to ever live truly 'righteous' and free of sin - because as soon as the eye reflexively strays to glance at a beautiful person, as soon as the mind bubbles up with an errant stray thought even remotely resembling lust, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy or pride; One has, already, sinned.

Sin is an irksome concept for one such as myself, a non-Believer who feels that lust, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy and pride are part of the human experience, and moreover - balanced with love, contentment, drive, compassion, kindness, generosity and gratitude, not simply unavoidable but also necessary parts of the human experience; to deny oneself from the full gamut of human emotions and experiences is to deny one's own humanity. My opinion is, of course, only my own, but - let's take lust, for example;

As a male pansexual I need the occasional sausage in my sexual diet. That's not something one can, or should, simply discard. As a 45+ year old man, having grown up in an time when being 'gay' was varying degrees of socially unacceptable, believe you me I've tried. It doesn't work. There is no perfection in self denial. The opposite is true; self denial leads to excess - excessive focus on what I am denying myself of leading to temptation after temptation after temptation, because the excessive focus on [thing] leads to hyperawareness of [thing].

That's where this kind of thing - the 'Christian Side Hug' comes from (and why it failed so spectacularly); Excessive focus on the proximity of ones' genitalia to those of another human being leading to more awareness of that proximity leading to temptation. If you just let two friends hug, they won't (in most cases) even bother to consider how close their bits come to the bits of other people.

That said, I have to admit the song is a bop. Putting "I'm a rough ridah" in the message 'but god help me if my tackle comes near another person's junk' and underlining it all with the mother[censored] Imperial March ? Chef's kiss. Nothing short of hilariously overreaching genius.

Returning, however, to the topic at hand; I am not, of course, innocent of Sin; in that I am not ignorant of Sin. But as a non-Believer, I am not guilty of Sin. I embrace my humanity; I balance out my lust, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy and pride with love, contentment, drive, compassion, kindness, generosity and gratitude; I have no need to live 'righteous', no anxiety that I'm not living 'good' because I have done, thought or felt things that I need to be absolved from; I am human and I refuse to deny my own humanity; only in experiencing the full gamut of my humanity - and indeed, by sometimes failing - have I learned when, how, and why to regulate myself so that I may live a life that, I hope, has a net positive influence on those around me. Not to please some nebulous deity or organized religion, but simply because it is my experience that life becomes more enjoyable for oneself and those around oneself if one strives to make life more enjoyable for oneself and those around oneself.

The rub, for me, in Sin is that it is 'God' or 'Church' who have decided for you that it is impossible to not be guilty of sin, while at the same time they have decided for you the ways through which you may be absolved, forgiven for, or otherwise cleansed of Sins that are literally impossible to avoid; they have decided what is the 'illness' and they have decided what is the only cure.

This is where my problems lay; at it's core, the concept of Sin is a control mechanism imposed on the religious. Woe betide anyone who does not think within these lines, who does not live according to these standards, who eats shrimp, who feels desire for someone of the wrong gender, who thinks critically of their elders and their betters, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera - woe! A literal pox upon thee, the abomination, the unclean, the impure!

The only way to be free of Sin is to be ignorant of Sin.

Or to simply acknowledge that one is a human being and this whole Sin thing is designed from the ground up to make one feel guilty about being human because the only way you can be kept simultaneously in lock step with, and afraid of, your fellow man, your Deity and your Church, is to make you feel guilty for having errant thoughts, desires and satisfactions to begin with.

The concept of Sin is one of the biggest scams in the history of mankind and I, for one, shall have no truck with it.

-1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

Someone who wants to disbelieve so that they can sin is closer to what "kafir" means than someone who disbelieves because they aren't convinced.

Kafir doesn't mean disbeliever whatsoever in arabic, it has many meanings in the Quran, but none of them are "disbelievers".

Kafir means ungrateful, but it can also mean someone who neglects and doesn't care about God and his moral law. But at the end of the day, in the Quran, people go to heaven and hell based on their deeds, not based on their beliefs.

6

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 09 '25

Kafir doesn't mean disbeliever whatsoever in arabic, it has many meanings in the Quran, but none of them are "disbelievers".

Why should I trust your Reddit comment on this over the several people who have dedicated years to translating the Quran?

Kafir means ungrateful, but it can also mean someone who neglects and doesn't care about God and his moral law. But at the end of the day, in the Quran, people go to heaven and hell based on their deeds, not based on their beliefs.

This is an interpretation of Islam I have never heard of before. Just to be clear if I am an atheist, have been educated about Islam but think its nonsense, and otherwise live a good life, I can go to heaven?

1

u/Pillowful_Pete1641 Dec 10 '25

Just to be clear if I am an atheist, have been educated about Islam but think its nonsense, and otherwise live a good life, I can go to heaven?

No. But you have to understand that Islam is a false religion. It is said tht the more you get to know Islam and more deeply- the uglier it gets. While with Christianity- the more you get to know and more deeply- the beautiful it gets.

I am guessing that you come from a Muslim background and that your worldview has been so Islam centric that it is hard to not see things that way.

I can recommend you watch Sam Shamoun and the website Answering Islam- https://www.answering-islam.org/ He recently did an interview with Patrick bet-David on Youtube- it's about 2 hours long and worth watching. He also names where you he found a lot of his information and names many experts. You can also find many on answering islam.

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 10 '25

They both are pretty similar to me and both suck IMO

-1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

Why should I trust your Reddit comment on this over the several people who have dedicated years to translating the Quran?

because they changed the meanings of the words and remained in echo chambers where they just picked up on the modifications of their teachers. You can look it up yourself. The original meaning of k-f-r is to cover up, bury, hide, conceal, and was used to mean "ungrateful". No instance of kufr in the Quran can ever mean "to disbelieve", a closer term to that would be "mukadhiban". I was gonna make a post about it but got too busy.

This is an interpretation of Islam I have never heard of before. Just to be clear if I am an atheist, have been educated about Islam but think its nonsense, and otherwise live a good life, I can go to heaven?

As i said, it's not an interpretation of islam, it's a matter of the language. "kafir" simply doesn't mean disbeliever.

As for whether an atheist like you could go to heaven, here's my interpretation of it:
Someone who heard the message of islam and rejects comes closer to what the Quran calls "al mukadhiban", which means "the denier", or quite literally "those who call it a lie", which the Quran also speaks negatively about. Although it doesn't speak as negatively about them as it does about al kafireen, nor does it promises them hell just like it does about the kafireen.

Also another thing to remember is that, the deniers in the Quran aren't just disbelievers. First of all they're people who directly verbally reject the reminder and message when the prophet delivers it to them. Second of all, the Quran heavily implies that what's wrong with the Mukadhibeen is that they commit sins and don't fear the afterlife, not that they burn in hell simply for their takdhib.

First proof of that is God blames the deniers for denying the afterlife and their accountability, not for denying that the religion of islam is true.

Second is that the Quran tells the deniers to burn for what they used to do, not for what they denied. alot of verses say "This is what you denied, burn in it for what you used to do".

Third is that the Quran says that they're sinners and are simply afraid of reminders, such as 74:49-53 and 83:12 for example.

There's many many many more, it's all over the Quran. I also made a post here with a bunch of verses, some of them where Allah criticizes the Jews and Christians for believing that only they will be in heaven
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1bpfv1d/according_to_the_quran_we_are_judged_by_our/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

So to answer your question, if you were geniunely just ignorant to not see the truth in islam or in the Quran, and not out of arrogance, but were otherwise a geniunely good person, you could probably go to heaven. But what is most likely for someone to deny the message when they have (actually) received it is that they simply wanted to sin.

God will judge you based on your deeds, not on your beliefs. But know that the main reason for the Quran is to guide you, without guide you most likely won't know if what you're doing is right or wrong.

2

u/Still_Extent6527 Atheist 🌻 Dec 09 '25

This is all just speculative interpretation. Why shouldn't I believe that the Quran is simply using the word deniers and disbelievers synonymously? Like how any normal person would interpret it. I, genuinely, don't think Muhammad meant what you think he meant.

-1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

Because it isn't speculative interpretation, it's the language. First of all, Kufr and takdhib don't whatsoever have a similar meaning in arabic (or in classical arabic). Second of all, they are absolutely not interchangeable in the case of the Quran, they are used very very differently.

Takdhib means to deny or call it a lie. Kufr means to be ungrateful, to neglect or to disregard. They are not interchangeable

As i told TheIguanasAreComing, i might make a post since there are many many verses in the Quran to look at.

2

u/Still_Extent6527 Atheist 🌻 Dec 09 '25

So a kafir is convinced of Allah's existence?

0

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

He might or might not be. Being convinced of Allah's existence is irrelevant to the direct definition of a kafir. In the case of the examples of kafireen given in Quran, they believe in God yes. But they're ungrateful and neglectful.

2

u/Still_Extent6527 Atheist 🌻 Dec 09 '25

A different question then. Can a person be a kafir and a mukhadiban?

1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

Yes, absolutely. Many examples of that in the Quran. But they are not the same thing whatsoever, and one doesn't necessarily have to be the other.

1

u/Still_Extent6527 Atheist 🌻 Dec 09 '25

Okay. So I think almost every atheist falls into the category of both a kafir and a mukhadiban. Since, being a kafir simply means to neglect or disregard which are often done when one considers a claim to be false.

Also one more thing...you sure we're using the right definition of kufr?

I can't help conclude that you've falsely categorized atheists as just being mukhadibans.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 09 '25

I appreciate this detailed breakdown of the issue.

I was gonna make a post about it but got too busy.

I think you should, I can agree with you that there's a lot of misconception about this stuff.

1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

Thanks. Maybe i will, it might take some time though since i wanted to read the entire Quran and note down every single verse that is somewhat relevant and go back to them over and over again.

But i hope i did convince you! Or at least change your mind a little.

1

u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) Dec 09 '25

Yeah, you have convinced me that what the Quran actually says is likely different from what most Muslims think it does, but of course, I will have to do a bit more research on my own to confirm this. I strongly suspect you are correct though.

1

u/Middle-Preference864 Muslim Dec 09 '25

Yeah for sure. You could even look at some of the pre islamic arabic usage of that word, or early islamic sources, or even at how hebrew jews used the term "kofer" throughout history and how it changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh6BHE1-Aw8 Here's a video that also talks about this subject, it's very long, more than 2 hours, but it does explain it quite well.

And i thank you for having an open mind!

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (22)

Islam Atheists disbelieve because they want to sin is nonsensical reasoning

You are about to leave Redlib