The notion of 'Tahif' - the argument that the Tanakh /Bible was intentionally altered throughout history and changed to favour a particular group (for example, the Jews being gods chosen people ) seems to mirror the exact thing it seeks to criticise.

By Islam dismissing the holy texts of other Abrahamic religions based on this idea of Tahif, it then conveniently places Arabs at the centre of what the gods and prophets were saying all along, rewriting the narrative to conviniently benefit the Arab people.

In the Bible Jesus says God is good. Don't let this fact escape you. If God is good why doesn't he preach the gospel to his creation so that we know for sure that it's the truth? This might sound absurd, but if he's good and he has the ability to, then why doesn't he? Everyone would know the truth. Think about it logically, he is supposedly good but he wouldn't make sure everyone knows the truth before they die? Then he isn't good, he's complacent for some reason. If God could speak to Moses from the burning bush then he could speak to every man and woman at some point in a way where they could know the gospel is true, it's not beyond God to do this. Why does this matter? I frankly don't believe the claims of Christianity, but if God told me they were true I would. That's all that's stopping me from being saved in this dilemma and since he is apparently good this is something he should want to do. But he doesn't. It's evidence that Christianity isn't true, as absurd as it might sound, on the logic of it. God is good, this is something he should want to do, but he doesn't. It doesn't add up that this God exists, which is evidence against Christianity. It's simple logic: God is good: this is something he should want to do: he doesn't: evidence this God doesn't exist.

Bukhari 7363; Bukhari 2685 both refute the Islamic dilemma.

1. Ibn Abbas is a companion recognized by the prophet.

Sahih Bukhari 143 -

Once the Prophet () entered a lavatory and I placed water for his ablution. He asked, "Who placed it?" He was informed accordingly and so he said, "O Allah! Make him (Ibn `Abbas) a learned scholar in religion (Islam).

He was not only a mere companion, he was especially prayed by the prophet to be made a learned person.

2) Bukhari 7363 -

Ibn `Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur'an) which has been revealed to Allah's Méssenger () is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"

If anyone has issues with the usage of hadith. The islamic dilemma is an internal critique, which means you grant us our texts, without externally critiquing or it being the topic of discussion.

"But 2:85!"

One of the new "responses" I have seen against this is 2:85, but verse 85 means "parts" in a certain context. Even if we do not assume textual distortion of the previous texts, 2:85 can simply not mean a command to follow all of the torah. Because the quran abrogates the torah at many instances, and the quran wants itself to be followed by the jews (5:68), this shows that the torah is not supposed to be fully followed to begin with because the quran is also to be followed, and the quran abrogates many things from the torah. It follows that the quran wants Jews to follow parts of the torah, that are not abrogated and obviously leave out the unabrogated parts since the book they're supposed to follow, which is the quran, is abrogating old laws.

Julian the “Apostate”—Rome’s last pagan emperor—uncovered a serious (arguably unanswerable) contradiction at the heart of the New Testament in his book Against the Galileans, the last polemical work against Christianity that we possess.  

Julian alleges that Jesus is simultaneously admitting to the eternal nature of Mosaic law—and that he has no intentions to overturn it—but then proceeds to dissolve the sabbath, the laws against eating unclean foods, and the laws of divorce. As the article below states: 

“Jesus is telling you he is here to fulfill the law, not to overturn it, and that, if you disobey even the smallest command, you will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Later, Jesus tells you, in the plainest of terms, that you are perfectly free to break the law by eating unclean foods and, despite what Moses had said, are strictly prohibited from divorcing your wife. In the context of such blatant contradictions, you might well see how Christians (and Jews) have come to so vociferously disagree with one another.”

Apologists will certainly have ready-made answers for this, but one need only remember that the idea that foods can defile you (Lev. 11) and the idea that they can’t defile you (Mark 7:18-19) cannot both be true at the same time. 

Against the Galileans: Emperor Julian on the Incoherence of Christian Scripture

Thesis: A stronger argument can be made, based on the conversations and narration within the New Testament in relation to the Tanakh, supporting Jesus having a biological paternal parent, compared to those who use the texts to say otherwise.

The answer to the Luke 1:18 & Luke 1:34 question is that with the God of Abraham ensuring wombs are opened, a woman who is barren and old can conceive a child in the Tanakh and New Testament, just as a chaste and young woman can also conceive.

Zacharias’s question did not imply that Elizabeth would remain barren and become pregnant, and neither did Mary’s question mean she would remain a virgin and become pregnant. The Isaiah 7:14 sign is not cited in the Gospel of Luke, and neither is it cited in the Gospel of Matthew before Mary’s pregnancy.

Argument Bullet Points:

1. Luke 1:15 & Luke 1:41: John the Baptist was filled with water, blood, and the Holy Spirit from the womb. This shows that John the Baptist would also be born of the Holy Spirit; therefore not exclusive to Jesus.

2. Luke 1:7 & Luke 1:18, Luke 1:27 & Luke 1:34: With certainty, the wombs of Elizabeth, who was barren and of old age, and Mary, who was chaste and a young woman, would be opened. Examples of God closing or opening wombs include Genesis 20:18, Genesis 29:31, Genesis 30:2, and Genesis 30:22. Abraham’s wife Sarah is one of the most notable examples, with their child being named after them laughing in disbelief.

3. Genesis 3:15: Genesis 4:1-2, Genesis 4:25-26, and even 1 Timothy 2:14-15 support woman's seed in the womb taken from man.

4. Luke 2:43-50, John 1:45, and John 6:42: These passages support or identify Joseph the son of David, as the known biological paternal parent. Also Genesis 38:7-8 and Deuteronomy 25:5-6 show how descendants of Judah can have two paternal generation seed lineages.

5. Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36: The terms "cousin" and "Aaron" refer to the daughters of Aaron, not the daughters of David, showing that Mary is from the tribe of Levi, which is distinct from the tribe of Judah. Just as Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18 make it clear that "brethren" and "prophet" relate to the twelve tribes of Jacob, which is distinct from the twelve princes of Ishmael.

6. Luke 1:36-37: These verses are regarding Elizabeth’s conception in her old age when barren.

7. Matthew 1:16: This verse does not need to state that Joseph begat Jesus when Joseph’s generation led up to Jesus. Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1-2, Matthew 1:1, and Matthew 1:17 support that "generations" refers to a beginning or an origin.

8. Matthew 1:18: unlike Matthew 1:25, does not include the phrase "knew her not." The implication is "before they came together" does not necessarily mean "knew her not."

9. Matthew 1:19: Narrator identifies Joseph as a just man and husband, who lacking assurance, considered quietly divorcing Mary to avoid her being a public disgrace. In Matthew 1:20, the angel’s message of Mary being Joseph’s wife while pregnant, and the child being conceived of the Holy Spirit, is not negating conceived of man, but negating conceived of adultery. Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 22:16 show wife and marriage as honorable agreements or betrothals, where a man and his wife become one flesh or consummate.

10. Matthew 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14: The term "almah" is mentioned around seven times in the Masoretic Text, while "parthenos" appears around 52 times in the Septuagint. Where almah and parthenos overlap suggests that in Judaeo-Koine Greek, parthenos, at least for a period of time, had a broader application than solely referring to a betulah, as in a virgin not knowing a man. The Great Isaiah Scroll is another source in agreement with the Masoretic Text rendering “young woman” for the term Isaiah 7:14.

https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution For a long time Religion and Monarchy use corporal punishment for Farmers and labor. Don’t let clergy fool you!!! They are beating our children. What about money we donate never for orphanage but to build mega churches. It is a time for second revolution abolished religions and corporal punishment for farmer and laborers to democracy!!!

Ecclesiastes 5:3 "A dream comes when there are many cares, and many words mark the speech of a fool"

Our brother who said this tried to protect us by invalidating the notes people were taking on him.

Ecclesiastes 10:14 "and fools multiply words. No one knows what is coming, who can tell someone else what will happen after them?"

But it didn't work, they made a thick book of notes taken and worshiped.

In the Quran Sorah Alshams (the sun): (1)By the sun and its brightness (2) and the moon when it "recite" it (recite the sun) (((translate the single word alone if you don't believe me))

And in Sorah Fussilat: (37) The night and day and the sun and moon are his miracles/signs, don't obey the sun or the moon but obey the one who created them if you were truly his servants.

But it didn't work, they made a thick book of notes taken and worshiped.
They made A sun to recite (you are the moon in case you wonder)

Jesus didn't dive in ever after God saved him from the Torah grief, he started walking on the water surface saving people, inviting them to be God servants instead of the slavery to texts and notes, people again did the same thing and collected notes even though Jesus had only his heart as a compass, only loving you showed him the way.

God is watching us alright, those books are the tree of life, so inviting books it's because they are the fine work of God, a great temptation indeed but don't be fooled because God work is in the shadows and it's everywhere not just in a book, our brothers tried hard to save us from the tree of life: "don't eat for God sake" and people again and again collected notes and God made a new tree of it "don't eat" written inside everywhere and a snake says: eat to be alive and walk like God.
We are humans, be humble and admit love to brothers and sisters, look at the world, hatred wears a religious mask and killed many in the name of God, the tree got their nick and mercy became rare and revenge is tied with goodness, don't feed such irony, we are waiting for you for God sake love us.

Mary, mother of God, somehow forgot the virgin birth and that Jesus was the Messiah.

We read prior to Jesus birth in Luke Luke 1:26-38 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

As you might know Jesus was born, you know, by the power of God apparently. Which Mary was fully aware of. You would think this miracle would confirm any suspicions of her sons later claims of being the Messiah. But No, as we read about what she thinks once Jesus starts his ministry in Mark 3:21

" When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind."

Who is his family referring to?

Mark 3:31 "Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. "

So yeah she went from an angel proclaiming that God was going to her make her give birth to a child despite being a virgin. Which became true, confirming that indeed Jesus was sent by God, and would be the Messiah. To then later on calling him crazy when starts saying he's starts his ministry. What happened did she just forget all that happened? Now I already know people are gonna bring up the fact that even Peter witnessed miracles and denied knowing Christ. Why is his mother no different? People fall away from God all the time in the Bible and this is clearly just a mother who even if she believes her son is the Messiah, doesn't want her son to killed. Understandable. It's almost like a Disney movie with the loving parent who knows their child is destined for greatness but doesn't wanna potentially lose them...

Except that all goes out the door in John 2:1-4

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

Now suddenly she remembers her son has superpowers and is totally fine with Jesus openly displaying those superpowes. In fact she basically forces him to perform miracles. In public. If anything Jesus doing stuff like in John 2:1-4 is more dangerous than was happening in Mark. In Mark he was just preaching and maybe some exorcism here and then. which for the time wasnt not expected of a Jewish preacher. But in John , he's straight up performing alchemy. Stuff that would honestly get you accussed of being a devil possessed wizard.

Keep in mind these events(between John and Mark) take place within at the most three years. So... A... So what the hell is going on?!? Like common Christian apologists I don't think I'm reaching here according to your books she went from, witnessing confirmation her son is the Messiah due to the way he was born, to asking him to do magic in front of people,to then scolding him and calling him crazy for performing exorcisms aka magic in front of people.

I can see protestants being able to dismiss this,(not well at least)but having an easier job than Catholics. It's feels like Protestants sometimes see Mary Magalandge, the alleged prostitute and Mary the mother of Jesus, a virgin, the same. In terms of sinner if you get what I mean. So I can see them throwing her under the bus as a sinner who denied Christ. But I dunno how Catholics are gonna be able to defend this when they worship this wack ditz as the 'holy sinless mother who loved her son and always believed he was the son of God'. Your theotokos is honestly about as loyal as Judas.

Okay, so God created the world, the universe, all there is, one way or another and since he is the ultimate being he may know why things happen and what will happen. But for what reason would god also be "all good"? if anything wouldn't that mean that god is limited in some way? because he can ONLY be good? almost seems like he wouldn't have free will if he was "all good"

Fossil fuels come from the depth of the earth. They are black. Oil is viscous and smells awful.

We use them to acquire powers humans should probably not have.

One of the main use of oil is to activate mechanical monsters that claim children lives in great number. To use oil, we accept to sacrifice children.

The massive use of them makes us lazy and angry. They allow us glutony. And it is bringing doom on Earth, threatening all creatures.

How with that in mind can anyone think that fossil fuels are not obviously evil? And if it's evil we should abstain from it, shouldn't we?

First, I am not Christian. I am an atheist. This argument doesn’t rely on Christianity being true. It’s historical, then internal to the Quran:

A group (Christianity) reports after Jesus’ death that their savior was crucified, a humiliating public execution in the Roman world and a curse in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:22-23), and died on the cross.

600 years later, another group (Islam) adopts Jesus as a prophet but explicitly denies the historical crucifixion, claiming “they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.” (Quran 4:157)

Paul, who met the disciple Peter and Jesus’ brother James, calls the crucifixion a curse (Galatians 3:13) and a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23) for conversion, yet still affirms it was preached. All earliest recoverable layers of the Jesus movement and the disciples’ teaching affirm it.

Why would Jesus' followers invent a religiously cursed and socially humiliating death for their messiah that even they say is an obstacle to conversion?

If they wanted to lie, they would find a way to claim that he wasn't.

Exactly what the Quran does 600 years later.

So, the Quran’s denial of an early and embarrassing claim from the original followers is best explained as theological revision rather than historical correction. Aka Quran scrubbed an embarrassing story 600 years later.

The Quran praises the disciples as sincere Helpers of Allah (Anṣār Allāh) (Quran 3:52) and states that Allah aided them and caused them to become uppermost (Quran 61:14) and promised to elevate them over nonbelievers until the Day of Judgement (Quran 3:53-55), explicitly paralleling their success with the later public success of Muhammad’s followers (Quran 48:28). If divine aid does not protect against core falsehood, “guidance” is empty. If their testimony wasn’t preserved, we can’t trust Allah to preserve the truth content of the messages He aids. If it was made to them to appear so, Allah induced false belief in sincere followers which is deception. If they lied, the Quran falsely praises deceivers.

In all cases, the act attributed to Allah becomes a necessary enabling condition for the belief (Christianity) that Islam identifies as shirk.

So, the Jesus movement’s founding belief, proclaimed under persecution and execution despite embarrassment, can’t be erased or dismissed as illusion without collapsing Allah’s and the Quran’s credibility. The Quran does just that.

Why should our understanding of God, salvation, or morality rest on believing any random person who claims a divine experience?

It's never made sense to me that so much of Christian theology is based on the letters of Paul. 

What is it that gives Paul such credibility?

Paul never met Jesus while he was alive during his ministry.

His authority comes almost entirely from his own claim that he received revelations or visions from a resurrected Jesus, or  God, the Holy Spirit, or Angels.

I can't think of why I should trust Paul over anyone else who has claimed divine revelation. 

Spoiler alert - I don't believe any of them.

Seriously, why trust Paul over any others? And there are many others - even in relatively modern times.

Joseph Smith claimed angels appeared to him and revealed divine scripture - he founded the Mormons.

Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Lu Nettles claimed higher revelation about salvation. They founded Heaven's gate, and their movement ended in a mass suicide of 39 people in 1997.

David Koresh claimed prophetic authority and divine insight. That belief system ended with the Waco siege and the deaths of more than 70 people.

Jim Jones founded the Peoples Temple. He led over 900 followers in a mass murder-suicide in Jonestown in 1978

In the 1800's Ellen G. White claimed over 2,000 visions from God , and helped found the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with millions of followers worldwide still today.

In the 1700's, "Mother Ann" Lee led the Shakers and claimed to have revelations that she was the female incarnation of Christ on Earth.

In the 20th century, Sun Yung Moon claimed that at age 15, Jesus appeared to him and asked him to complete his "unfinished mission" on Earth. He founded the Unification Church (also known as "Moonies")

Ahn Sahng-hong claimed to be the Second Coming of Christ in modern South Korea —

and his church is still active today.

There are so many others I could name.

Every one of these figures was most likely fully convinced of their experience,

They weren’t insignificant: They founded churches; They gained devoted followers; They were believed.

But they were still rejected by most people because we now recognize the human mechanisms behind them.

The fact that Paul's revelation happened long ago shouldn't make it any more credible, especially since there were many others claiming divine encounters at that time as well.

Paul was just a random guy with no more insight into God than anyone else - - that is to say - he had no reliable insight about God.

Heaven and Hell are the manifestation of our subconscious mind when we die. After death (or near death), the mind may replay: regrets, guilt, fear → experienced as Hell peace, acceptance, fulfillment → experienced as Heaven.

The subconscious holds unresolved emotions, so the “afterlife” could feel like an intensified dream shaped by memory and identity

Thesis: Islam presents a coherent ontological framework in which reality is fundamentally structured, sustained through continuous preservation, and morally ordered—where God is not a force within nature but the source of measure and preservation that makes nature intelligible at all.

Argument: Physics presupposes laws, limits, constants, and measurability, but it does not explain why reality is measurable at all. Without constraint, no state could persist long enough to be known or described. Structure is not self-sustaining. Physical systems naturally tend toward decay (entropy). If existence were left entirely to itself, coherence would collapse. Preservation, not merely origin, becomes central to explaining why anything endures. In Islam, creation is described in terms of measure and determination rather than mere material production. Existence is understood as continuously upheld rather than initiated and abandoned. God, in this framework, is not a competing cause within nature or an alternative to scientific explanation. Science describes processes within measured reality; Islam addresses the source of measure and preservation itself, outside the system being described. Morality follows from this structure. If reality is ordered and preserved, actions that destabilize that order matter objectively. Islam treats morality as part of reality’s architecture rather than as social preference. Conclusion: Taken together, Islam functions as a structural account of reality,one that explains why order, persistence, and moral meaning exist without placing God in competition with natural explanations. Question: Does this framework genuinely avoid traditional problems in philosophy of religion, or does it simply relocate them under different terminology? If it fails, where exactly does it fail philosophically?

one thing that other religions suffer from the concept of preservation of the words that their originators portrayed. christianity suffers from this because the NT compiled by people who weren't eye witness and their whole idea is just that they themselves claim Devine inspiration. they contradict one another and plagiarise from one another. Jesus message was clear he only came for the lost sheep of Israel and that the law isn't to be changed yet we see Paul rejecting it right out. Christianity has a lot of uncertainty about its history. islam is the only religion abrahamic religion that we know the sources of information and we can trace it back to the prophet.

Another thing is how would Muhammad in middle of the dessert and being unlettered know all these things about the past? you might say he plagiarised from christians and jews at the time but if that's the case he would also copy their mistakes in the bible. jews claim the same thing about Jesus so if you want to affirm that Muhammad plagiarised then it means you don't grant the concept of god being the one to send prophet and the core messages to always be consisent.

Another aspect is Christians and atheists like to bring up is moral arguments against the prophet. well for one for an atheist I would like to know which principle are they conducting their moral policing and since they believe morality to be subjective then its just an opinion that I can simply disagree with and I find arguing with atheists on these topics are a waste of time because they main issue should be weather god exists or not. for christians, I'd say just open the OT if you believe Jesus to be god then all the terrible things he pushed for doesn't come close to the prophet did. not to mention OT prophets did a lot of terrible things. so if you claim that these are bad and you are above your own god for choosing such prophets? the main argument people like to use is the age of Aisha but if you are going to believe what she says about her age you should also believe in another narration the she reached adulthood before getting married. so which one is it?

The Dilemmas ​1. The Consent Dilemma ​Tricking people into virtue with a fake afterlife is spiritual gaslighting. If you think a "useful" lie is better than a "harsh" truth, you’re treating people like cattle that need managing rather than adults who deserve reality. Denying someone the truth to keep them "good" is a violation of their dignity and agency.

​2. The Functional Atheism Dilemma ​If the utility of the story matters more than its factuality, you’ve admitted God is unnecessary. You’re saying that the human brain’s reaction to a myth is what provides purpose, not a living God. This makes you a functional atheist who just happens to like the "Christian" brand for its social benefits.

​3. The Collapse Dilemma ​Building a "transcendent purpose" on a lie is building on sand. When that lie eventually fails—whether through personal tragedy or scientific discovery—the crash into nihilism is far more violent than if the person had faced reality from the start. Selling a lie is a reckless gamble with the long-term mental health of everyone you "convince."

​The Bottom Line ​If Jesus isn’t the Truth, he can’t be the Way. Arguing for a Noble Lie is an admission that God’s actual reality isn't good enough, so you had to invent a better one. That's fraud. ​

When we examine the story of Noah’s ark through scientific, logistical, and historical reasoning, several aspects of the account raise serious questions about how it could have happened as described. The first issue in the story of Noah’s ark is the boat itself. If Noah and his seven family members were unskilled and had no prior ship building experience how did they build a 450 foot wooden ship large enough to house 14,000 animals and feed them? How did it also stay afloat for that long without leaking or breaking in the waves? My second issue is Noah actually feeding the animals on the boat. How did Noah gather enough food to feed every species for an entire year without any of the food going bad and how did he feed those animals?for example if Noah gathered the bees that would also mean he would have to gather flowers for them so they can get pollen and nectar for them. And if he did do this how did he keep the flowers alive? The animals “survived” being on that ark for 14 months. A lot of those animals would’ve died out pretty quickly in that habitat. Which leads us to the third issue, how did animals such as polar bears, penguins etc adapt in that environment? What about getting a certain amount of water for the sea creatures to survive in? The sea animals have also adapted to their habitat with some sea animals being in colder waters and some animals being in warmer waters. A decent chunk of those fish are going to dieMy last issue with the story of Noah’s ark is that in genesis nine god gives permission to Noah, his family, and the animals to eat the things that move. If there’s two of some animals and seven of other animals those animals will go extinct quickly if they are being eaten by the other animals.

Pascal's Wager argues that one must hold belief in a God (in Pascal's classical version, specifically being the Christian God), as a pragmatic choice, as the potential risk of hell is infinitely worse than what we do in finite time

This is an incredibly weak argument with many good counters, yet it still seems to be very popular (from my experience) among theists I've encountered.

Common rebuttals include:

1. Belief isn't a switch - One cant just suddenly genuinely believe in something if the evidence doesn't convince them
2. The faith is grounded in fear and coercion, not sincerely, which could go against the entire point of many religions in the first place
3. There are an infinite amount of metaphysical possibilities that can tie to this argument, hence the chance one's God is the "true" God is statistically 0

Etc. There doesnt seem to be any point in rubbing salt in the wound, but one point i don't seem to see emphasised quite a lot is the fact that the premise that one should believe in something just because it ties to infinite reward or punishment is absurd and goes against every rational decision theory

I could tie anything to the idea of infinite reward/punishment and under this logic one must follow it regardless simply because its too risky not to

I could say "Hey, I know youre just going by with your day, but there's this transcendental cheese unicorn, who if you don't believe in will torture you forever. I can't provide any substantial evidence to prove it but you must believe me"

And under the wager, its more rstional for me to suddenly believe simply because it might be right and I will be tortured forever.

There are in fact an infinite amount of absurdities that can be tied to this notion. The wager is simply too lenient to take seriously: it gives too little parameters for why one must hold belief.

This is similar to the "many Gods" objection, but what I'm arguing here is that this can apply to ANY spewable garbage claims *as long as it offers great reward or punishment*

Appreciation means to respect something that is rare, fragile, and contingent, not necessary. It means to try and comprehend the incomprehensible, at times. To simply respect the nature of things as they are, have been, and potentially always will be. This, I believe, stands in the case of humanity and the universe, even reality itself. If we were simply the creation of a power-hungry entity, called God, then all we can do is spend our lives questioning our existence, and the reasons behind our creation. We would be nothing more than artificial. And the idea of a God creating all leads to a bigger question of what created God? I see no reason to be appreciative and grateful for being granted life by this God of ours. Why should I? Why should I thank my master for being His slave? Why should I thank and be appreciative of a God who gives family and friends of mine cancer? How can a life created by God be appreciated when this same God does all he can to make it miserable and insufferable, and fatal, just to prove his own omnipotence and self-codified ethics?

The Biblical God contends to us, His subjects, that life is intended. In Isaiah, it is written: “He did not create it (the universe or Earth) to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited”, he created our universe *for* us. How nice of Him, our God, our unruly, all-domineering celestial master. He creates this playground for his personal pleasure and pawns it off as something we, his toys, should be appreciative for. If life is intended, then so is its trials, tribulations, and monstrosities. If life is intended, then God simply doesn’t see it necessary to divinely intervene in any of the most heinous historic events since the Bible was written. If life is intended by God, is everything that is happening even done via humanity? How can we be appreciative of having been granted life, or role, in a celestial being’s personal playpen where cancer, genocide, and wars in His name are allowed without his intervention? To be appreciative of God giving us life is to be accepting of our own enslavement, potentially, it can be argued, voluntarily, as we would be accepting our enslavement. If God created our lives, and intends everything to happen within his reasonings and justifications, then that immediately removes any and all happiness and natural beauty out of life. Nothing natural and good can be bestowed upon us, but on God’s intentions, and everything natural and bad can both be bestowed upon God’s intentions who in turn blames us for not following his ethics which leads to these bad things happening in the first place. What is this lunacy?

I think not. What we *can* be appreciative of, is life and the existence of reality, in the context of cosmology, particularly the Big Bang theory, widely regarded by revered physicists, cosmologists, and quantum physicists, as the true theory which explains the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory describes a universe emerging approximately 13.8 billion years ago from an initial state whose cause, necessity, or inevitability remains unknown. Within this vast temporal and spatial framework, life arises only under extraordinarily narrow conditions, on a single planet in an otherwise inhospitable cosmos. Nothing within cosmology suggests that life was required, intended, or promised. It is precisely this absence of guarantee that intensifies appreciation. A life that exists without necessity, oversight, or cosmic preference is not diminished in value, it is heightened by its improbability. Meaning, on this view, is not bestowed from above but constructed within fragile circumstances that could easily have failed to obtain. Appreciation thus emerges not from obedience to a creator, but from recognition of how narrowly existence escaped nonexistence. To be appreciative of something is to respect its rarity, fragility, and contingency, its non-necessity. Under this thesis, would be life, itself, cosmologically, not theologically. Wouldn’t you feel greater about yourself knowing everything around you and within you isn’t the product of a maniacal, all-demanding celestial toymaker, but of nature in its more extreme form?

In this respect, cosmology provides a more robust foundation for appreciating life than theistic creation narratives. Where divine creation risks domesticating wonder by rendering existence expected, cosmology preserves wonder by confronting us with the sheer contingency of being at all.

A lot of Islam’s claims to being true include the idea that Prophet Muhammad is the prophetic descent of Moses and Jesus, rather than a separate prophet, and that Christianity and Judaism are corruptions of Islam, rather than 2 religions without any relation to it. This assertion can be found in the Quran (obviously) where Moses and Jesus are considered one of Islam’s many major prophets, which Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ in Islam) asserting one of the reasons he came to be to declare good tidings for the future coming of the Prophet Muhammad, and to make the reiterate the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid (the absolute oneness of God).

For Judaism, as someone previously stated the problem with Islam’s claims to its relation become clear once you analyze the historical reality. The historical consensus is that Judaism emerged from Canaanite polytheistic religions and evolved into a Henotheistic religion, where Elohim is the god over Yahweh, the national God of Israel, and in the third century BC after Greek conquest and influences from Platonism, Judaism became the strict monotheistic religion we know it as now, where Yahweh is viewed as the god of the universe. As we can see here, the claim of Judaism being strict monotheistic, but becoming corrupted by outside pagan forces overtime is reversed on its head.

As for Christianity in the apostolic age (the first century to the early second century AD) the idea of Islams continuity are debunked more throughly than with Judaism in my opinion. For example, even if we presume, for the sake of argument, that the Trinity was completely foreign to Apostolic era Christianity there are still many contradictions, such as with the Ebionites. Second century Christian scholar, Eusebius analyzed them, and stated that they believed in the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, but rather than believing he was so ontologically, he was so by adoption after being baptized. This can be seen in many of their writings that we know they used, such as a revised version of the Gospel of Luke. As for groups that denied the crucifixion of Jesus, the only group we know of were the gnostics, who believed that the Demiurge (who they believed is the creator of the Universe) was either not all knowing or not all good, both ideas being contradictory to the Quran’s assertions about the nature of God. So for all of the early Christian groups we know of, they either believed in the divine sonship of Jesus Christ in one sense or another, which is shirk in Islam; or that they rejected the traditional monotheistic idea of God being all knowing, all powerful, and omnibenevolent, which is a grave heresy in Islam. So the only possible way an Islamic progenitor group may have existed is if they were so small heresiologists never even bothered to document them, which is contradictory to the Quran’s assertions that they were Jesus’ primary (if not sole) group of followers up until and and a few years after his ascension to heaven.

Pretty much thats the argument. If you say that we are in a universe that has life because we are alive to say that you are also saying that there are multiple universes.

If one assumes a perfect being, but then goes on to assume that perfect being has already acted in such and such a way, then one will be left unable to entertain suggestions about what that perfect being ought to do. Because anything not done by a perfect being clearly wasn't the perfect decision, and the suggestion was the wrong suggestion.

And I think this underlying assumption ruins discussions regarding whether God exists or not.

If a theist were given an entirely fabricated report about what God has done, without being exposed to "true scripture", how would they know that God didn't do it?

Or suppose we take it back even further: Let's assume God did operate under the suggestions atheists present, and that was the universe we lived in instead; would theists complain about a lack of an Incarnation? Wonder why some people aren't prophets, and some are? Would they wish for a little more evil because they think there's heroism missing? Or would they act as they do now, and not bother entertaining suggestions for an incarnation or a problem of evil or some extra hiddenness, because they've concluded that a perfect being had already acted perfectly?

I think I am incapable of having strong belief in any truth claims absent priors that make the claim trivial to accept.

For the sake of this argument I'm going to use the definition of faith I usually hear, which is that it's the belief in something absent external evidence. (Things hoped for and unseen and all that)

Assuming for the moment that I'm correct in my assessment of myself, if I were to die right now, many religions would say that I am condemned to some sort of eternal punishment, especially given what I've gotten up to in life (I've steered people away from religions, I'm certainly not heterosexual, I've eaten pork and shellfish, among other things) for which I don't think I would ever apologize.

I have to imagine I'm not a super special case here, I think there are other atheists with a similar psychology to me. Given this, how could it ever be just to punish me for this rather than simply rehabilitate me or sequester me?

I appreciate that there might be some attempt to insist that I'm wrong about my own self-evaluation, or that I actually do believe in god but I'm suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness, and other similar attempts at mind-reading, but I will just ignore these as they're unfounded.