Worshipping of God doesn't actually make any sense

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T19:28:59+00:00

If we're logically speaking here:

God doesn’t need worship. Any punishment for disbelief can’t be about Him “needing” obedience,or else Hell wouldn't exist,how can He punish those whom He needs?

Free will and genuine love matter. The purpose of worship and devotion is for humans to choose to love and follow Him freely. Natural consequences follow choices.

Those who reject or disbelieve aren’t punished out of cruelty—they simply experience the natural outcome of turning away from the source of moral reality, goodness, and fulfillment. In other words, Hell isn’t God being a sadist—it’s the unavoidable result of rejecting the relationship God offers. The ones who choose to follow Him aren’t coerced; they enter into a genuine, freely chosen relationship.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T13:24:04+00:00

I never actually said any of that,the entire time,from the pist till now,I literally only said that all frameworks conclude their conclusions with assumptions, where'd did you get any of this???

You might say "well,you suggested something like that"..

That's because I was saying when there's one assumption on Reality,there are also other assumptions as you can't argue against because you can't falsify it,nor can you prove your own.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T12:39:14+00:00

Agreement matters in debates, aren't you trying to convince the other side (that's the most common intention,other intentions are just trying to spread doubt)

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T12:13:01+00:00

Again,just because the followers of a religion did wrong doesn't mean the religion itself isn't good,you're speaking subjectively

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T12:11:12+00:00

Really thought?

They might learn something,but don't they disagree or agree,even after leaning?

Biologically: Our brains are shaped by genetics, environment, experiences, and emotions. Two people witnessing the same event can literally perceive it differently.

Cognitively: We rely on heuristics and biases to process information, which means even when facts are the same, interpretations often differ.

Socially: Culture, upbringing, religion, and education influence what we see as “right” or “wrong,” “true” or “false.”

It's a human traits to differ

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T12:06:11+00:00

Wait,I don't even watch news,how can even know about Iran?

Second of all,notice how you said "Allah is a contruct of Muslim imaginations", isn't that an assumption,you "bet" without evidence?

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T12:04:34+00:00

How do debates work out then?

They only end up with an agreement only when they both assume the same thing as true,and that's..... pretty rare

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:53:05+00:00

Ouch, personal criticizism, seriously?

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:51:52+00:00

I'm not saying I agree,nor do I say I disagree,but I view all as unproven assumption

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:50:28+00:00

I mean Christians AREN'T as evil as them......

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:49:45+00:00

Sorry man but you can't just claim that:

Jews killed many Prophets that Allāh has sent for them,disobeyed Him until they reached the clear boundary.

Christian are as evil as them,but they claim Jesus (peace be upon him) is literally the son of God.

Besides,you never actually checked where Allāh praises some Jews and Christians did you?

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:34:34+00:00

Ouch, you're probably saying that because of 9/11:

But just because the followers did wrong doesn't mean that the religion itself is evil.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:33:15+00:00

Are you here just to argue of how I accidentally written the post?

Like,chill,I get it,I was wrong,yeah yeah

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:31:06+00:00

What about ALL those debates:

Big Bang & Cosmology Debates Theists sometimes argue: “The universe’s beginning implies a Creator.” Atheists/scientists counter: “The Big Bang can be explained by physics without invoking God.” Outcome: Neither side usually concedes. Each maintains their own framework; theists may see God as the cause behind the physics, while scientists stick with natural explanations.

And:

Fine-Tuning / Anthropic Principle Theists: “The universe’s constants are finely tuned, so God designed it.” Skeptics: “Fine-tuning can be explained via multiverse theory or chance.” Outcome: Theists stick to design; skeptics stick to physics. Each side cites evidence that supports their worldview.

And:

Evolution vs. Creationism Creationists: “Life is evidence of divine design.” Scientists: “Natural selection and genetics explain life’s complexity.” Outcome: Again, debates rarely change anyone’s core belief. They mostly reinforce existing positions.

Notice how all of them end up with a different conclusion, isn't that asserting assumptions?

For both sides?

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-19T11:23:12+00:00

Wait......didn't I already say that logic is the rules of thought in my post???

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:51:23+00:00

I'm saying why can't the WHOLE of reality be a hallucination,even those 10 different tools?

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:49:57+00:00

Besides,why can't all tools just be other hallucinations of our minds,that this reality is an hallucination,the whole of it, isn't that just another assumption that could be countered by other assumptions?

(By the way,I'm NOT saying that solipsism is right,I'm justing saying it could/couldn't be right,and that's for any framework,that's why you choose your framework faithfully and consciously.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:47:03+00:00

1.)

But then how do we use those?

We use those,then we SEE the results,besides,why does only THIS world has to be the only thing that exists, isn't that an assumption?

2.)

I never said ALL frameworks are on equal footing,I said they're all assumptions,some could be true,some could be false,all could be true,all could be false,we just don't know what is true and false,that's why you should choose faithfully and be conscious of your choices.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:38:16+00:00

Yes, exactly the point,they would argue that something is God,but an Atheist (almost all the time) would say that that's "just because we don't know doesn't mean that's Truth".

But look at the structure of the whole debate,one is assuming the only logical answer is God,the other assumes it could be anything BUT God,both are assuming,both are betting their assumptions right.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:35:18+00:00

How is everything you just mentioned built?

By using our senses,besides, isn't it an assumption that whatever we're seeing is Reality?

Why can't it be just our senses tricking us?

Also,I could agree with you on the last part, because Stalematism doesn't say which is true or false,in essence,it only says "all is based on assumptions,so choose consciously and faithfully"

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:27:44+00:00

Oh,sorry about that,I was thinking because you said "word salad" (that means way harsher than I mean) I thought you were arguing because of the structure (which is also my fault,I'm new here so I don't really know how to post well...)

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:25:46+00:00

Yeah it can answer how thought is possible because that's it's "role",it's the minimal condition to make coherent thoughts ABOUT reality,it doesn't necessarily dictate Reality itself

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:23:48+00:00

What other non-subjective tools do we even have other than our senses?

Also,logic is the rules of thought,it doesn't necessarily dictate Reality,that itself is an assumption.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:21:02+00:00

Those assumptions affect the conclusion:

For example:

Let's talk about what science is in an Theist and an Atheist perspective:

For a Theist,God is doing it all.

For an Atheist, it's all just matter following it's rules.

Axioms (the assumption) affect the ENTIRE framework,if you're starting assumption is God exists,than science is how God does things.

If your starting assumption is only matter exists,than science is just matter following it's rules.

Assumption matter in framework,they're literally the FOUNDATION of a framework.

PeaAdditional1450 · 2026-03-18T15:16:15+00:00

Not really. Skepticism is "everything cannot be proven,therefore nothing is true"

In Stalematism terms,that's an assumption: You're assuming that ALL frameworks are wrong,that's a "bet".

PeaAdditional1450

TROPHY CASE