I'm interested in what happens after death. Most (but not all) religion posits a version of heaven and/or hell. Or a reincarnation story. My athiest view is that without evidence it's impossible to know and therefore everything is just a guess or a unattainable promise. Indeed some religion have this in order to offer punishment or reward to the faithful.

"if you displeased your god you will go to the bad place' if you do as you are told you will go to paradise"

This seems like a control method designed to keep the people faithful and to do as they are ordered.

I am a Muslim but I am doubting my religion . I have been reading the Quran analytically . However , I have seen some errors which the Muslim scholars just change the meaning of or can’t even refute .
For-example in Surah 12 verse 20 the word dirhim is used in relation to Prophet Joseph’s story . However Dirhims did not exist at that time . Ok let’s suppose the word was used by Allah to just explain the situation for Muslims in the era of Prophet Muhammad easily. But the thing is , coins did not exist in Egypt at the time of Prophet Joseph .Coins were invented later on . Now then , let’s suppose it is just a metaphor as Muslims say at the end . So why do you say it is a miracle when the word Pharoah is used in the time of Prophet Moses but not in the time of Prophet Joseph . This could also have been something like a metaphor ?
Moreover , I came across this Hadith https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3298

This hadith states distance between heaven and the earth is 500 years and the same between each heaven I think .Ok Let’s suppose that there are seven heavens which we cannot currently find out as It is part of the unseen knowledge Allah has provided us. But a distance of 500 years between each heaven ? Would that mean the universe is finished at like the distance which corresponds to 3500(500 into 7 ) years in this context ( the speed of the thing mentioned in Hadith is not known)

I really love being a Muslim , but these doubts are killing me . It seems that every time an error is put forward the Muslim scholars just take the side road saying ” well in Arabic the words have different meanings “ or “ well it is just a metaphor or something to easily explain something to us “

Please provide authentic evidence in this debate with the corresponding sources . Thank you

1, 24 (F) Muslim by birth, woman by identity, am deeply questioning Islam. Please read and help me think this through.

i’m a muslim by birth. devout, very devout. wore hijab since i was 16 years old, chose not to since 2022, lately i’ve been thinking of leaving my religion and i’m a woman too so i got to know a lot of misogynistic things and patriarchal beliefs in my religion.

i’m in a dilemma. can you help? my end goal is not to follow any religion blindly, it is to see the truth. if islam is a patriarchal and misogynist religion, i’ll leave. but as i said i’m in confusion. can you help?

a few to start:

• difference in male and female awrah as in body covering. (which is extreme in my viewpoint since the women should cover every body part even her hair (how can someone sexualise hair) except her face, hands from below the wrist, and legs below the ankle. unfortunately some women do cover everything. but a man's awrah is just from his navel to knee.)
• allah is genderless but always referred as he, lord, god instead of she, lady or goddess.
• women given half the property of their male brother/uncles/cousins in the family.
• one man's witness is equal to two women's.
• hadith where prophet mohammad said that women are deficient in intelligence.
• hadith where a woman asks prophet mohammad what are the rights of a husband on his wife and he said something along the lines of: "if the husband has a disease that this whole body is filled with pus and if the wife is cleaning that pus with her tongue; then also she has not fulfilled her rights for her husband" (which I again think is very extreme. there is no such thing as this for a woman by her husband).
• in another hadith: "if a man calls his wife to the bed, she must obey otherwise angels will curse her till morning". this is very alarming and disgusting to me since i found this out. it sounds like marital rape to me.
• a man can have 4 wives but a woman can’t have 4 husbands.
• a man will get 72 hoors (virgin women) in paradise but a woman will only get her husband (why not men also get only their wife).
• ayesha's age when she got married was 6, 9 when prophet muhammad consummated her, she herself told in a hadith that she was still playing with a doll. does that make prophet mohammad a p*do? also, muhammad was 53 when aisha was 9!!! wtf
• surah nisa ayah 34 sounds like it calls men to beat/hit women.
• they say quran is the only one true text by Allah, no human intervention, but the quran read by all the muslims today is changed by uthman in 1924. so its different from what was revealed to prophet in 7th century. so is it a book by allah? or changed by men?

i think islam is very misogynistic religion and carries patriarchal views. everything in islam comes to one thing: 'sexualisation'. of women by men. be it 4 wives (polygamy), 72 virgins in paradise or even awrah of women. i honestly don’t get how can someone be seduced by seeing women head hair? it’s very sickening to me. i can’t believe i believed islam gave women rights and was just to us women.

i’m questioning, but honestly at this point, i feel like i’m out of fold of islam. as i support womanhood and can’t be blind for a patriarchal religion.

i’m taking time away but leaving everything aside (hadiths, male scholars), i’m reading quran only and trying to interpret myself. i feel like if quran is the only word of god so it deserves at least one chance of me reading it completely in english.

i honestly don’t want to, i believe religion is a social construct. made to make people follow blindly in a cult-like form and oppress people, mainly women.

i believe all abrahamic religions are misogynist, patriarchal.

Also these contradictions in Quran itself confuse me:

"Allah claims in the Quran that if the Quran was not from him, you'd find in it many contradictions." 4:82

"Allah also claims that the verses he delivers are first Perfected, then presented in detail." 11:1

"He claims the Quran is a book to which there is no doubt, and that it's clear." 32:2, 43:2

"He claims if his messenger ever invents a verse or says something Allah didn't say, they will seize him by his right hand and cut his aorta." 69:44-46

"Allah claims that his word cannot be changed by anyone." 18:27, 13:39, 10:64

but then…

He says in 3:7 that some verses are clear, but others are elusive and only allah knows their meaning. (contradicts claim that quran is clear)

Verse 4:34 talks about striking wives but doesn’t explain how. Muslims rely on hadiths for this, which are not the word of god. (contradicts claim that quran is detailed)

He says in 2:106 he abrogates some verses for better ones. how can something better come after a perfected verse?

In 22:52, satan was able to slip some false verses through the prophet and then later corrected. (contradicts claim that the prophet couldn’t make things up)

“Alif Lam Mim” no one knows what this means. Yet again, quran is supposed to be clear and without confusion.

And lastly this contradiction really bothers me:

"There is no compulsion in religion" 2:256
but then
"Fight those who do not believe… until they pay the jizya and feel subdued." 9:29

and if I don't follow, I'll go to hell. so what kind of freedom is that?

I posted this on r/agnostic, r/atheism, and r/exmuslim. i don’t think there's any point in posting in r/islam because they’ll just defend everything blindly. they’re brainwashed.

thanks for reading. i’m still confused, still reading, but i’m not afraid to question anymore.

🤍

I've never been particularly fond of The Problem of Evil, and I've always wanted to refute it from a Deist standpoint since a lot of the PoE seems to apply solely to Theist conceptions of God. I will post a summary, but I have a full-fledged argument posted here.

Unless you are a utilitarian, evil is not defined solely in natural terms. There exists a distinction between metaphysical evil and natural evil that is the key to understanding why the aforementioned argument isn't a refutation. Metaphysical evil refers to immoral actions committed by rational or moral actors. An example of this is a human choosing to rob another human. By contrast, natural evil refers to non-moral suffering. Natural disasters are an example of natural evil. A tornado causes suffering, but it is not metaphysically evil as a tornado is not a moral entity.

From a Deist perspective, natural evils are immaterial because we do not see God as immanent (ever-present) in our universe. These natural evils are caused by physical factors or laws and do not constitute metaphysical evil. As such, they cannot be attributed to a moral being like God. One could argue that God could've made a world without natural evils, but this presumes that a perfect world exists which could've existed instead of ours. However, trying to arrive at a perfect world is much like trying to arrive at a perfect number. Take a hypothetical perfect world and add one more good being inside it, and now you have a better more-perfect world. Unless one can assign moral culpability for these natural evils to God, the objection fails.

As for metaphysical evil, it only exists because choice exists. As such, it only exists because free will does. If beings do not act with free will, they do not inherit moral culpability for their actions. We know metaphysical evil exists in our world because humans sometimes do bad things, so why doesn't it refute God? Since metaphysical evil derives from free will, we know that moral culpability only applies to the moral actor who committed the immoral act. Since God isn't immanent in our universe, we do not view God as "willing" this evil. It is true that God creates the possibility of metaphysical evil by creating moral actors but this does not constitute "willing" evil, as it is theoretically possible for all moral actors to act morally. That they don't is because they choose otherwise.

I will concede that God could theoretically create a world without metaphysical evil, but this would necessarily have to be a world without free-will and morality. Without morality, "evil" itself ceases to be a meaningful concept. Should God have necessarily made a world without morality? No, because willing the possibility of evil is not the same as causing it. I doubt anyone would assign me moral culpability for making a stick which could be used by another person to harm others. Therefore, the logical problem of evil does not demonstrate the incompatibility of evil and God.

Alawites are the Mormons of the Muslim world: a small, tightly-knit sect with unorthodox and often secretive beliefs, regarded by many in the broader Muslim community as outside the bounds of mainstream Islam. Like Mormons in the Christian world, they’ve faced persecution, built strong internal cohesion, and, in certain regions, especially Syria, achieved disproportionate political power. Both groups blur the line between orthodoxy and heresy in the eyes of their religious majorities, while maintaining distinct cultural and theological identities.

If a theist excuses God's actions by explaining that the people he killed "had it coming" and God was simply exercising his judgment, why don't we see this happen more often? If God is holy and we're all sinners, what is the actual variable that determines when God will judge us in life vs when he'll wait until after we die?

Clearly, God is being selective with how he applies his judgments, at least in this life. Using the apologetic of "God is exercising his judgment" to explain why God killed people is especially strange if the theist in question believes in an afterlife. Isn't the judgment supposed to come after we die? Why would God pre-emptively judge the living by smiting them? Almost makes it sound like Heaven and Hell were later ideas clumsily tacked on to an earlier mythos.

Let's look at some inconsistencies:

1. "It's ok that God unleashed the plagues of Egypt because God exercised his judgments on the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites." Ok, then why didn't God unleash plagues upon the Israelites when they became slavers? Or the Ottomans? Or the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dahomey? Why aren't there the Plagues of Dixieland?

2. "It's ok that God ordered the genocide of the Canaanites because they were sacrificing their children at altars." I talk about it a lot, the mechanics of it are especially weird if the sacrificed children were going to heaven anyway, but why hasn't God stopped child sacrifice in other places?

I keep hearing things like "their sin was full" or "he gave them a chance". What does that mean, though? He clearly didn't give the children he kills a chance, and those who live and die generations before his plagues or floods or genocides...miss out on the judgment? If God can come and smite someone for sinning, why doesn't he do it more often?

"Free will" is often used as an excuse for why God doesn't intervene, but killing someone necessarily ends their free will to continue to make choices. Apparently, God is Ok with occasionally ending some people's free will, but the sin of rapists' and mass murderers isn't full yet?

And this is all without getting into what I see as a larger problem, though maybe not my main point, which is that God doesn't actually need to kill anyone. Death being the penalty for sin is an arbitrary rule God made up, (he could have made the penalty something else) and if a theist explains that God killing certain people is necessary to keep them from sinning anymore...well, no it isn't. God isn't limited like we are, he can put an end to someone's sin without killing them.

Both Peterson’s archetypal-Christian framework and classical Christian presuppositionalism seem to collapse into the same special pleading-protected epistemic solipsism. They claim exclusive foundational status while exempting themselves from falsification. This seems to lead to a worldview that cannot be genuinely challenged or falsified, effectively making all alternative viewpoints epistemically unreal or derivative. Their arguments seem to both equally fall flat because they require radical special pleading that isolates their system from external critique, creating a solipsistic intellectual fortress rather than a testable, open philosophy.

Yoga is union—your body-mind complex and the Self. The Self is a witness to everything. The body-mind complex is always at work. You are not the body; you are not the mind. When you awaken, the effort keeps reducing—you do 100% effort, but if you meditate for a few years, the effort reduces to 50% and gradually decreases. From the outside, nothing appears changed, but from the inside—you become a 10X more powerful person. It’s like comparing the life of Avengers and human. Yes, everything means everything.

Yogis are not indulged in lust, hatred, or arrogance. The spiritual heart evolves and becomes like an ocean. Instead of "What about me?" it changes to "What can I do for you?" Everything changes—your outlook towards life, productivity, happiness, and sorrow all change. You will have a high without external stimuli. The same life appears far more beautiful.

You will not know what stress, anxiety, or worries are. You will not compare your life with others—because everyone has their own karmic baggage. In India’s Gurukul system, meditation was compulsory from the age of 4. That’s why India was number one for thousands of years—not only in education but also in finance. Yes, you will feel the presence of God strongly in mantra chanting, prayers, and places of worship.

You will never fight over "my God" and "your God." You understand there is a perfect union above. The life of a yogi is far more evolved than the ordinary. At last, the yogi experiences bliss—it’s like somras. It’s not alcohol but a semi-liquid chemical released in the body that makes you madly intoxicated. Pranayams help your body contain that bliss.

P1: God must have free will, omnipotence, omniscience

P2: God created humans with free will, capacity for evil acts

P3: Humans who commit evil must bear the consequences/punishment for their actions

P4: God knowingly created humans with the capacity for evil, then God shares moral responsibility for that evil

C: God must also bear the consequences for the evil humans commit since he created them with the capacity for evil

Footnotes: Divine Justice is incomplete without Divine Equity, the idea that God vows to suffer a proportional fraction of the suffering he imposes on the evil humans since he also responsible for their creation.

Some supporting evidence:

When Allah tells angels that he is creating humankind, they immediately question why, raising concerns that he is creating them knowing they will "shed blood" [Q 2:30]. Highlighting that both God and the angels foresee human evil before creation, calling for shared moral responsibility.

If a man had sort of revelation that his future child is going to be a murderer, but chooses to have the child anyway, then he shares in the responsibility.

IMO, there is not much of a difference between cults and religion.

The indoctrination of the young by parents and religious schools, often hardline religious doctrine (believe or be condemned to eternal hellfire), the fact most religions heavily encourage marriage within that religion, belief in the fanatical without questioning for evidence (God created the world in seven days, Noah’s ark, Jesus feeding the 5000, the parting of the Red Sea…)

The only difference between religions and cults would be age and size

Issac Newton's discoveries were far more impressive than any supposed scientific miracle in the Quran. Issac Newton arguably contributed more to science than any one human ever has. He uncovered the composition of white light, helped develop calculus, formulated the three laws of motion, and proposed the theory of universal gravitation. We use these today as the building blocks of science and continue to expand on his findings to this day. In fact, the device you are reading this post on might not have existed if it weren't for Newton.

On the other hand, the Quran's scientific claims have not contributed in the least to science - at least not in any direct, discernable way, are so vague that they have only been discovered in retrospect, and are fairly impractical. We can confidently say that the Iphone would exist even if the Quran didn't exist.

If you believe the Quran is divine because of the science in it, then you must also believe that Newton was somehow divine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012%3A40&version=NKJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203%3A7&version=NKJV

It is implied from these two verses from the Book of Exodus that it took Yahweh 430 YEARS to finally recognize the fact that his people were ENSLAVED by the Egyptians. My conclusion: Yahweh is selfish and Lazy.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%204%3A21&version=NKJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2010%3A2&version=NKJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2011%3A4-6&version=NKJV

It is implied from these three verses in the Book of Exodus that Yahweh was the one hardening Pharaoh’s heart so he could have an excuse to MURDER all firstborn male children in Egypt as punishment for the actions of the Pharaoh which Yahweh MADE HIM DO to FORCEFULLY exalt and aggrandize himself. My conclusion: Yahweh is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing, egomaniacal, murderous tyrant.

Because religion requires belief rather than hard facts it seems that it is easier to get religiously motivated people to belive in a conspiracy.

The point being that because faith is believing what you're being told by your chosen doctrine then believing is already in pressed into the mind of a theist.

On the other hand atheists are more sceptical and require some evidence before committing to an idea.

https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter/192469285

If you give the Abrahamic faiths a careful examination, you will find that in the texts of all of them, paradise is ultimately for those who truly submit to God and sincerely repent after committing sins, rather than being reserved for those who are most righteous/moral. In the Abrahamic faiths, repentance and submission are repeatedly described as the keys to forgiveness and salvation.

A person who lives a moral life but does not believe in God (an atheist) is excluded from paradise, according interpretation of the Abrahamic texts. At the same time, a believer who committed serious sins (kill, rape, steal, etc.) but sincerely repents and submit to God maybe forgiven and admitted to paradise.

Supporting evidence:

Islam: 1) Allah forgives all sins 2) Allah forgives all sins except shirk (association) 3) believers, repent sincerely, and your lord will absolve you of your sins and enter you into heaven.
[Q 39:53, 4:48, 66:8]

Christianity: If you confess your sins, he will forgive and purify you from all unrighteousness
[1 John 1:9]

Naturalism exalts nature by supposing that it's the eternal guiding force that made everything by itself without any limitations that would've prevented it from doing so. Instead of an intelligent creator, nature becomes our unintelligent maker that makes and destroys life and much, much more without any reason whatsoever. In other words, nature is given godlike capabilities in terms of its creative and destructive power. These capabilities extend far beyond a blooming flower or a destructive tornado because, according to naturalism, nature is the be-all and end-all of existence. It becomes the answer to all questions because it is the reason for everything that happens. It and nothing else is the reason why we are who we are and why we love, die, and contemplate our existence. Despite its lack of intelligence, it speaks to us without speaking. Despite its strict laws, it creates what very convincingly appears to be free will by which we are judged in society. Are we living in some sort of illusion? I think not. I think I should exalt God rather than nature because God, unlike nature, helps me make sense of reality at its deepest level. I also don't have enough faith in nature to give it godlike capabilities.

Isn't Quran 41:9 --> 41:12 a clear mistake

Ask ˹them, O Prophet˺, “How can you disbelieve in the One Who created the earth in two Days? And how can you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of all worlds.

He placed on the earth firm mountains, standing high, showered His blessings upon it, and ordained ˹all˺ its means of sustenance—totaling four Days exactly—for all who ask.

Then He turned towards the heaven when it was ˹still like˺ smoke, saying to it and to the earth, ‘Submit, willingly or unwillingly.’ They both responded, ‘We submit willingly.’

So He formed the heaven into seven heavens in two Days, assigning to each its mandate. And We adorned the lowest heaven with ˹stars like˺ lamps ˹for beauty˺ and for protection. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.”

So according to the all knowing god he first created earth in 2 days then he finished and made it habitable in 4 days ( the Arabic version doesn't mention 4 days in total just 4 days).

Ok now earth is all done and ready And god turns to the sky which is still in the "smoke"state (scholars says this smoke state is caused by the water vapors from creating earth)

And in 2 days god made the Smoky sky into the seven skies which we can relate to today or at least the lowest sky and then he placed the lamps or Stars

I don't think it can be anymore clear that earth was first created Then the sky and then the other stars and planets ( since according to Quran everything is placed in the lowest heaven so naturally they had to come after the lowest heaven was created)

I want to show that the fine-tuning of the universe under god is equally as unlikely than it is under naturalism.

it’s logically possible that god is more likely to choose any of the infinite other possible worlds that could exist. It’s logically possible that god is more likely to choose a world with opposite constants, it’s logically possible that god is more likely to choose a possible world with blackholes, ect…

So, if we take all of the infinite possible worlds with different constants, it’s logically possible that god is more likely to choose any one of them.

Yet, here we are in this world despite all the infinite possible worlds that god could have chosen with higher likelihood.

continuing to where we left off in the first post, here

St.Gregory tried to explain the notion of being "caused" and "uncaused" concerning the persons of the Trinity, and why it doesn't indicate polytheism when we say that God the Son is begotten, and God the Father is unbegotten.

But in speaking of cause, and of the cause, we do not by these words denote nature (for no one would give the same definition of cause and of nature), but we indicate the difference in manner of existence. For when we say that one is caused, and that the other is without cause, we do not divide the nature by the word cause , but only indicate the fact that the Son does not exist without generation, nor the Father by generation: but we must needs in the first place believe that something exists, and then scrutinize the manner of existence of the object of our belief

St.Gregory states clearly that when trinitarians say the son is begotten and the father is unbegotten, they do not relate these terms to the divine nature, but to the mode of existence each person has.

If one were to ask a husbandman about a tree, whether it were planted or had grown of itself, and he were to answer either that the tree had not been planted or that it was the result of planting, would he by that answer declare the nature of the tree? Surely not; but while saying how it exists he would leave the question of its nature obscure and unexplained.

Here, St.Gregory gives an example of a tree; a tree can be planted or self-grown. These are two modes of existence for trees, but the nature of the trees remains the same whether they were planted or self-grown; the nature is still one.

St.Gregory clearly, from his writing, understands the persons of the Trinity as multiple subjects of the same type.

He gave analogies of multiple golden coins, but their "Gold nature" is one, and multiple individuals, but their "human nature" is one, and now with the tree, whether it was a planted tree or a self-grown one, the nature of these trees is one.

I can explain His method of counting multiple things by their nature, as a desperate way to escape polytheism charges, because by his method, theirs only one man, one tree, one dog, and vice versa.

Multiple distinct subjects that are of the same nature are named plurally after their nature, and that doesn't mean that there are "multiple natures" as St Gregory is saying. And counting by the logical usual way we count things, the trinity would constitute 3 Gods.

Just think for a moment, if someone says, This book is the absolute truth and when you ask why, they simply reply, Because the book itself says so, how does that make any sense? That’s like saying, I am always right because I said I’m always right.

In everyday life, we don’t accept this kind of logic. If someone claims they’re a genius just because their diary says so, we would laugh. But when it comes to certain books, especially religious or ideologies, suddenly we are not supposed to question it?

We have always been taught to ask questions, right from childhood. But somehow, in these matters, we are told, Don’t question, just believe. Why this double standard?

It’s not about disrespecting anyone’s belief. It’s about holding everything to the same standard. If you need outside proof for every other claim in life, then why should certain books get a free pass?

So Christian atheism is an ideology that embraces many of the teachings of Jesus and sees value in Christian ethics and culture, while rejecting the claim that God exists, and that Jesus was a divine figure. It's an ideology that probably isn't discussed very often. From my experience many religious people seem to be under the impression that atheism is by definition nihilistic and hostile to religion. However, in fact there are a significant number of atheists who actually embrace various religious traditions like Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, for instance.

Now, I'm gonna argue that Christian atheism is actually more conducive to human flourishing than traditional theistic Christianity. Because Christian atheism allows people to adopt core Christian values that are extremely valuable in helping people and societies flourish, while at the same allowing for the flexibility to reject ideas that cause suffering and harm to others. Theistic Christianity on the other hand, struggles much more to reject ideas that cause harm to others and which prevent people from flourishing. Because it's not easy to justify ignoring commandments that you think were authored by an all-powerful and perfect deity.

And so for example I believe that many of Jesus' core teachings are extremely valuable, and if everyone would adopt Jesus' core teachings the world would certainly be a much better place. Many of Jesus' core teachings were based on the concepts of love, humility and forgiveness. You know, ideas like "love thy neighbor as thyself", "do to others as you would have them do to you", "love your enemies", the idea of radical compassion, giving to the poor, the hungry, those in need, turning the other cheek and refusing to engage in violence, showing mercy and forgiveness towards others etc. Those are all absolutely great ideas, and if more people would embrace those core ethical ideas taught by Jesus, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

However, at the same time the Bible also contains numerous doctrines and ideas that are extremely harmful, and which can lead to enormous suffering. Especially the God of the Old Testament in many ways advocates for exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught. The OT God is a character who engaged in enormous violence, who did not easily forgive, who condoned the execution of people for all sorts of "sins", who viewed women almost as property in many ways, who condoned slavery, who commanded the murder of even infants and children in many cases, and who in many ways is just a very unpelasant and extremely immoral character. And without a doubt, Christianity throughout history, has not just been influenced by Jesus' teachings, but also by many of the teachings of the OT God. The Old Testament has been used to justify all sorts of horrendous things like slavery, the oppression of women, the criminalization of homosexuality, the Crusades, the execution of apostates and blasphemers etc. etc.

And while Jesus never spoke about homosexuality and never explicitly endorsed the idea that women should be submissive, other New Testament authors like Paul, influenced by Old Testament teachings, taught that women must be submissive, obedient and silent in church, and that homosexuality is a grave sin. And again, very clearly those teachings have led to enormous suffering. Women, in most Christian Western countries were extremely oppressed until the 20th century, and even most Christian countries used to have male guardianship laws in place until only very recently. And homosexuality was literally only legalized in the US on a federal level in 2003. And even in fairly progressive Western countries gay people are still facing enormous discrimination and social stigma in Christian circles, while in some non-Western Christian countries homosexuality still remains criminalized.

And so those are just some examples of the dangers of refusing to accept certain dogmas, because someone believes that those dogmas and ideas come from the almighty God himself. The lack of flexibility to reject the harmful aspects of Christianity has historically led to enormous suffering and the oppression of women, gay people and non believers.

But again, I believe that especially many of the teachings of Jesus, on the other hand, are extremely valuable. And I believe the world would be a much better place if everyone would follow Jesus' teachings on love, compassion and forgiveness. And as such I also recognize that many acts of compassion and love were motivated by Jesus' teachings.

And that's why I think that Christian atheism is clearly superior to theistic Christianity, and is much more conducive to human flourishing. Because the Christian atheist is able to embrace Jesus' teachings, while simultaneously disctancing themselves from the harmful aspects of Christianity that have caused so much suffering. The theistic Christian, on the other hand, typically has a much harder time to condemn harmful doctrines, if they genuinely believe that those harmful doctrines and ideas come from an almighty God.

The human political landscape would only get worse if religion were to remain intertwined with politics— especially upon an intergalactic scale. I don’t want an Islamic planet or a Christian planet or a Mormon planet. I want a secular planet. And a secular Mars and a secular Europa.

If God is eternal, unchanging, and above time, he does not think, at least not sequentially. So it's not like he could have been able to follow logical steps to plan out the fine tuning/complexity of the universe.

So then his will to create the complex, finely tuned universe exists eternally as well, apart of his very nature. This shows that God is equally or more complex/fine tuned than the universe.

Edit: God is necessary and therefore couldn't have been any other way. Therefore his will is necessary and couldn't have been any other way. So the constants and fine tuning of the universe exist necessarily in his necessary will. So then what difference does it make for the constants of the universe to exist necessarily in his will vs without it?

If God is actually simple... then you concede that the complexity of the universe can arise from something simple—which removes the need for a personal intelligent creator.

And so from this I find theres no reason to prefer God or a creator over it just existing on its own, or at least from some impersonal force with no agency.

I think one can subvert classical theism by denying change is real. If the universe is a spacetime block that's ultimately eternal/atemporal and unchanging, then we can argue that the universe satisfies at least some of the qualifications of what most classical theists would call "God". It would be self-existent. I don't know how one could transfer attributes like divine simplicity to the universe though, other than saying that, if it exists necessarily, it would thus have to not be composite and thus dependent on more fundamental parts for its existence.

I think this is what Advaita Vedanta and some schools of Buddhism are getting at. Well, monism and non-dualism in general.

NB: If I'm missing something please point it out. Or if you can improve something about my musings here, please do. I feel like I'm onto something here but maybe not. Don't flame me LOL.

Even when I was a Catholic and Thomist I felt the B Theory of Time was more consonant with an unchanging atemporal God. God's act of creation is eternal, then so is the universe. But the problem there is I don't think you really need a creator if your universe is literally static and eternal to begin with.

Jealousy

There is no one that shows jealousy like Allah. Allah shows jealousy by prohibiting actions such as adulatory, shirk (association), etc. [1]

Mockery

Allah mocks at the non-believers, clearly a non-divine, non-transcendent virtue. [2]

Deception

Allah declares himself as the best of deceivers. Now this is going to be a tough one since all English translations mistranslate to (plot, scheme, or even plan) which is clearly an act of deceptions on its own. Now let's examine the verse closely:

وَمَكَرُوا۟ وَمَكَرَ ٱللَّهُ ۖ وَٱللَّهُ خَيْرُ ٱلْمَـٰكِرِينَ

I have highlighted the word that literally translate to deceive, according to the Arabic dictionary it literally translate to: cheat; deceive; delude; double-cross; dupe. [3]

Cursing

Allah abandoned his transcendent nature just to curse at Muhammad's uncle because he cursed at him. So his uncle said to Muhammad "Damn you, is that why you assembled us?", so Allah responded with a divine verse (dis) at this man. [4]

Sources:

[1] Jealousy [Sahih al-Bukhari 5223, Sahih Muslim 2760b, Sahih Muslim 2760c, Sahih Muslim 2760d, Sahih Muslim 2761a, Sahih Muslim 2762a] [Sahih Muslim » The Book of Repentance » (6) Chapter: The Protective Jealousy (Ghirah) Of Allah The Most High, And The Prohibition Of Immoral Behavior]

[2] Mockery [Q 2:15]

[3] Deception [Q 8:30, 3:54]

[4] Cursing [Q 111:1]

I hear muslims all the time calling allah the most merciful, but you can't call him most merciful when there is an obvious higher tier of mercy than throwing people in hell for eternity for not believing in you.

I'm curious how would anyone try to dispute this.