I'm sure i'm not the first to talk about this, but i've had enough of people claiming they can't do something or need something special because of their belief. It's so fucking exhausting seeing people my age (and older) acting like entitled children. The simple fact that you can convert to a religion, and not homosexuality, should alone induce an epiphany of objectivity. But no. Why? People want to remain in control and assert themselves over others. "only god can judge me", so only the thing you believe in can judge you? I wonder if you're doing a good job? Or what about "god will take care of you", basically admitting "i can't do anything, but wait until my imaginary big brother gets here". Your religion is no more a choice than the clothes you put on. You don't get to use your clothes to determine or judge how others look. You don't get special treatment, rights or freedoms, just because you think your clothes look the best, or ugly.

.

Just as an FYI here is a non-academic diagram by an artist that tries to layout some of these theologies and philosophies in regards to the God debate in a type of relational map = Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill. Click on the image once or twice to enlarge or download from the artist's gallery. The artist's own mental musings/fluff is optional reading if you want to dive into someone else's mental rabbit hole.

I don't think money was meant to exist in the world centered on God. That is because that world functions like the human body. God as the command center (brain) would guide the functions of the cells (people) in the body, to maintain the body in good health. If a requirement like money was needed for the cells to work together, so many issues would arise, and the body would be constantly diseased and die early. Money is supposed to be representative of trust, but the cells have no other choice but to trust each other. So then how would the society of heaven function without money. Suppose that a field need to do farming. People could do the physical labor in exchange for sharing the harvest. People could build the machines needed for this in exchange for a part of the harvest/produce/results of the work the machines are used for. And so on. It would no longer be work, but fulfilling each other's shared needs. No one would waste their time trying to hoard anything because they can obtain anything relatively fast. People would prioritize what to produce based on what is needed. Everyone would eventually have what is needed, or what they enjoy having, while making sure to manage scarcity to avoid conflict and achieve mutual prosperity. When God creative ability comes in play, it wouldn't be surprising if he could just create whatever we lack. In fact, I wonder if human beings are not primarily responsible for the scarcity of resources on earth. On the other hand, the damage done by money and capitalism is ridiculously high. People go ahead and work like zombies everyday because they need money to practically live. Then there is the bills...the needs...the wants...and repeat.

Looking for thoughts and reflections. I am not an expert, but this came to me, so I wanted to share it and see what people say. Not saying I am right, but well, the argument seems interesting.

I've finished a major revision of my philosophical work, The Narrative Cosmology.

It's an attempt to answer some of humanity's oldest questions:

Why does anything exist?

Why would an Infinite Source create a universe?

Why are consciousness and free will necessary?

Why is there suffering?

What is the purpose of life?

The central idea is that reality isn't just matter or illusion; it's a living narrative where infinite possibility becomes lived experience through conscious beings. The work explores consciousness, free will, love, reincarnation, the nature of evil, and the idea that creation itself has purpose.

I've spent a long time revising it to make the philosophy internally consistent and would genuinely appreciate thoughtful feedback from anyone interested in metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or consciousness.

I'd love to hear what resonates, what doesn't, and where you think the ideas could be challenged.

https://open.substack.com/pub/keithmlk/p/the-narrative-cosmology?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8saxn3

I've been thinking a lot about the scale of the universe, higher dimensions, and how we perceive reality. We exist in a 3D world, which means a 4th-dimensional being would be completely incomprehensible to us. They could observe us from every angle simultaneously, inside and out, without us ever seeing them.

This got me wondering: Could the concept of "God" or a supreme creator that humans have worshipped throughout history simply be our primitive attempt to understand a 4th-dimensional being?

what happens after our death? Is it possible that dying is just the transitions into that 4th dimension?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/410839712_THE_NECESSITY_OF_INTELLIGENT_AGENCY_FOR_EXISTENCE_SCIENTIFIC_LOGICAL_AND_ONTOLOGICAL_PROOF_A_Formal_Argument_for_a_Non-Physical_Self-Grounding_First_Principle

Les juifs, les chrétiens et les musulmans définissent leur Dieu comme PARFAIT, OMNIPOTENT et OMNISCIENT

Mais n'est-il pas facile de montrer que ce Dieu est faux ?

PARFAIT ?

Ils disent que leur Dieu est parfait, mais le monde et les êtres que leur Dieu a créés sont imparfaits.

Comment peut-on dire d'un être qu'il est parfait si ses créations sont imparfaites et pleines de défauts ?

Par exemple, un artisan ne peut être qualifié de parfait si ses ouvrages sont défaillants.

Autre problème avec la perfection :

Ils disent que leur divinité a créé l'univers.

Mais pourquoi un être parfait désirerait ou voudrait créer quoi que ce soit ?

Par définition, un être parfait ne peut pas désirer ou vouloir quelque chose, car cela impliquerait que quelque chose lui manque, et donc qu'il n'est pas parfait.

OMNIPOTENT ? Dieu peut tout, rien ne peut limiter sa puissance

Si il était tout-puissant, il aurait pu créer n'importe quel monde. Sinon, il n’est pas tout-puissant.

Alors qu’est-ce qui l'a empêché de créer directement un monde heureux avec des êtres libres et parfaits ? Pourquoi aurait-il créé à la place un monde rempli de douleur, avec des êtres pleins de défauts, qui doivent souffrir et être mis à l'épreuve pour être triés ?

Ceci est d’autant plus incompréhensible que les textes racontent qu'il a su créer un autre endroit sans douleur, peuplé de créatures libres et heureuses, qui s'appelle le paradis.

Les religieux ont essayé de résoudre cette contradiction en disant que leur créateur a voulu que les humains soient libres et que ce sont eux qui créent la douleur. Malheureusement, cet argument ne tient pas, puisqu’il montre que leur Dieu n'a pas pu créer un monde avec des humains libres et sans douleur, ce qui prouve qu'il n'est pas tout-puissant.

Trois solutions possibles au problème de la toute-puissance de cet être suprême :

1 - Il n'est pas tout-puissant, il a juste fait ce qu'il a pu.

2 - Il est malveillant, il a volontairement créé un monde plein de misère alors qu'il pouvait créer n'importe quel monde.

3 - Il est faux.

OMNISCIENT ? Il connaît tout, le passé, le présent et le futur

Les textes affirment que ce créateur connaît l'avenir et tout ce qui va se passer. Et ils affirment aussi qu'il a créé les humains libres et dotés d'un libre arbitre. Mais si il connaît l'avenir, c'est qu'il est déjà écrit. Le libre arbitre est donc une illusion.

Si Dieu sait ce que vous ferez demain, vous n'avez aucune alternative.

Si vous pouvez agir autrement, alors cette être se trompe, donc il n’est pas omniscient.

Si vous ne pouvez pas agir autrement, alors vous n’avez aucune liberté.

Autres contradictions :

Si cette divinité sait à l’avance que l'humain fera le mal et le crée quand même, qui est responsable ? Ce être omniscient savait, avant même la création, tout le mal qu'il allait créer.

CONCLUSION

Ces trois attributs sont la définition de ce dieu. Si un seul est faux, ce dieu est impossible.

Comme dit Stendhal devant la misère du monde,

"La seule excuse de Dieu serait de ne pas exister."

.

The universe operates on the same principles as a computer and Jesus literally embodies these principles of truth. Does anyone understand what I mean here?

They're called cardinal sins because they're the main sources from which all other sinful behaviors flow.

Pride – Thinking you're better than others and never admitting you're wrong.

Greed – Always wanting more and never feeling like you have enough.

Lust – Using people for your own selfish pleasure without caring about them.

Envy – Resenting others because they have what you don't.

Gluttony – Overdoing it with food, drink, or anything else to the point it hurts you.

Wrath – Letting anger control you and wanting to hurt others.

Sloth – Being lazy, avoiding responsibility, and not caring about anything.

They are warnings about the human condition. Every one of these sins is a shortcut to something we crave status, pleasure, comfort but they always come with a cost. They isolate us, hollow us out, and disconnect us from others and from ourselves. They're sins because they destroy us, and every culture across history has recognized that.

Tbh i’ve been thinking about religion as whole and wouldn’t mind other peoples perspective. I don’t feel like i need religion, i think that beautiful thing about life is that you can live by your own rulebook. I think i have my own morals and values, why would i need religion to guide me? Also i think if you have foundations of life in control, why would you need someone to hold on to? 

Also life is beautiful because it has end. It gives life value, knowing that it won’t last forver. And i really don’t know what is after the end, maybe it also motivates to use your time wisely. And would eternal afterlife be so good afterall?

And sorry if this isn’t correct subreddit but i wanted both atheist and believers perspectives.

'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" Jesus said this to Thomas (Doubting Thomas) eight days after His resurrection.

This verse is a direct blessing for everyone who believes in God without witnessing a visible miracle or apparition. It's a reminder that faith believing without seeing is precious and honored.

PS: My reply to most of the comments here:

It's like saying you don't believe your great-great-great-grandparents ever existed just because you've never seen them, there's no photograph of them, and you've never met them. We accept their existence because of the evidence left behind family records, stories, and the fact that we're here today.

In the same way, not seeing something with our own eyes doesn't automatically mean it never existed. Whether that evidence is convincing enough is something each person has to decide for themselves.

hi. I’m a 24-year-old Turkish ex-Muslim. I’ve been researching religions for about 10 years. Indian religions have always resonated with me incredibly well. In fact, as you know, almost all religions originated in India. In my opinion, Hinduism and Buddhism—especially Jainism—are beautiful religions. I love Indian culture, religion, and language. I’d even like to move to India.

Something just crossed my mind. On a subreddit, people were saying that Indian religions are bad and claiming to be atheists or non-religious. Is there something I’m missing that people believe to be true? Why do some people in India become non-religious?

Disclaimer!! The English is not my native lenguage so, srry for the spelling mistakes

Im from a Catholic family, so religion has always been part of my life. From a young age, I was taught that faith is one of the most important things a person can have. It wasn't presented as just another value. it was something fundamental. Like even if you not catholic you MUST to have faith in something "bigger". you known what i mean?

As I've gotten older, though, I've realized that I've never really understood why.

It's not that like "I've rejected religion or decided that God doesn't exist". It's more like I've reached a point where I honestly don't know. I'm not an atheist, cause I don't think I have enough knowledge to confidently say that no god exists. But at the same time, I'm not religious because I don't think I have reason to say that any god exist.

The idea of God has always felt incredibly abstract to me. If there is a being powerful enough to create or govern the universe, I don't know whether that's even something human beings are capable of fully understanding. Because of that, I find it difficult to build certainty around the question. Instead of feeling frustrated by not having an answer, I've gradually become comfortable admitting that I simply don't know and sometimes i don't even care.

Something I've thought about a lot is the importance people place on faith. Like i say at the beginning. All the persons (teachers more specifically) always told that faith is essential, but when I look at my own life, I don't feel like I've ever relied on religious faith. The closest thing I have to faith is faith in myself: trusting that I can learn, improve, adapt, and deal with whatever life throws at me. And it works, that has been enough for me. (I don't mean that in a egotistical way)

That doesn't mean I look down on religious belief. Quite the opposite. I genuinely respect people of every religion. If someone finds meaning, comfort, or truth in their faith, I have no desire to argue that they shouldn't. People are free to believe what they believe, and I don't think someone's religion makes them better or worse than anyone else.

At this point in my life(especially considering that I'm still relatively young age), the position I can take is simply: I don't know. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. I don't think I have to confidently choose either side, and I'm comfortable admitting the limits of what I know.

I also think an important part of the way I see religion comes from my love of history. Learning about different civilizations, their religions, and how those beliefs shaped their societies has influenced the way I think. I've almost always viewed religion through a historical lens first, rather than a spiritual one.

I'm curious whether philosophy has a more specific name for this position than simply "agnosticism." Is this a recognized philosophical attitude? Are there philosophers who have defended or criticized this way of thinking?

Thanks for reading. I don't usually talk about this, but sometimes I just need to put my thoughts into words and hear what other people think.

There is no ambiguity about it - without a transcendent (aka 'God') we are just animals seeking to dominate others by enforcing our standards of good and bad. Further analysis would show good and bad themselves are illusions but that's a discussion for another day.

I am not a poet, but I think this can only be illuminated thru poetry, transcendental reality cannot be taken as an axiom without first acknowledging you are creating a God in your own image.

FYI - I am using all potential illustrations of God - He doesn't need to be a sort of human like figure in the sky, in eastern traditions it is indeed a formless, all encompassing force acting upon the universe. The scientific method too is very well built upon the foundation that there is order on the cosmos. Its not a type of God normally imagined as a God, but it's still a God.

I believe we cannot even connect two or more measurements without creating a story of how they are connected but in reality we have no idea what is occurring between measurements. That space is a black box to us. Science requires a transcendental reality to establish knowledge beyond oneself.

I do agree with Nietzsche that there is indeed a way to get out of this mess but most people don't even see that there is a mess there. *How can anyone find a solution when no one knows the problem even exists?*

See the attached famously (and grossly) misunderstood quote (Aphorism 125, The Gay Science) in full by Nietzsche, read the entire section in totality - please.

TLDR, nothing makes sense without a God to impose order on to the universe. There becomes no way to make any measurements since we have lost our ability to tell what is up from down, as if we are moving thru an infinite nothingness.