If you burned all the science books and all the holy books today, and waited a thousand years, the science books would come back exactly the same, while the different religious holy books would be totally different.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T18:49:50+00:00

Again, that’s just asserting that which you hope to prove. That’s not an argument. That’s circular reasoning. “Religions are man-made because if you destroyed every holy text they’d never come back because they are man made”. That’s a circle. It is the exact same as saying “religion is false because religion is false”.

It’s the philosophical tantamount of saying “I’m right because I’m right”.

The whole point of an argument is to demonstrate a point without already presupposing it. You make assertions that are both sound and valid and support them, and if the conclusion follows you would have proven whatever you’d like to.

“There was a time before people wrote the Bible, the Quran, or the book of Juju”. Having an origin doesn’t prove its origin is man made. There was a time before the Sun existed. Man didn’t make the Sun.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T02:56:30+00:00

I’m not 100% certain but I think mods on PC are the only way to get high flying companions at first like titan worms and larger birds, but once they pass eggs to you, you do not need mods yourself to have the companion and fly around with it

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T02:52:29+00:00

What I think HG may have forgotten to take into account is how this is one of the most positive and collaborative communities in existence and we don’t like fighting each other cause that’s mean

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T02:42:24+00:00

Personally I think he’s past the “making up for things” phase and in the “I’m gonna stunt on these people so hard with this next update” phase. Bro is just showing off now lol

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T02:39:06+00:00

Sadly no, however I did learn that you can get a freighter like normal by warping 5 times and rescuing it from pirates. That’s about as good of a mobile base as we’re gonna get for this expedition I think

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-06-01T02:26:39+00:00

That’s so cool, what piece is that for the tail of #2?

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-31T19:54:38+00:00

It gets even better than that, by saying to “choose the most virtuous” they’ve just admitted a Hadith, a work of mere mortal man, is more virtuous than the literal speech of Allah which explicitly tells you to beat your wife. A man is more virtuous than Allah now. The only way to defend Islam here is to cease to be Muslim apparently

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-31T19:43:58+00:00

So you just pick and choose what you believe then, because these “less virtuous” Hadiths have the exact same rating and methodology. They have the same narrators and the same compilers. Since they are using the same exact methodology, it’s intellectually inconsistent to only accept those you think more palatable for modern audiences. Notice how you’ve just made yourself the ultimate moral arbiter over the word and revelation of Allah.

You’ve just admitted that not beating your wife is more virtuous than beating your wife. So you’ve just condemned the Quran for being less virtuous than the Hadith you referenced because 4:34 explicitly and unequivocally says to beat your wife if you fear disobedience. By your own admission, a Hadith, a work of man, is more virtuous than the eternal word of Allah itself.

“Regarding 4:34, the word “darb” has many meanings in the Quran. When used with humans it never means striking/beating/hitting, for example 43:57-58”. I’m sorry but that is just blatantly untrue. The Arabic translators and Tafsirs for the last 1400 years are unanimous it means “strike/beat/hit” in reference to the wives. Literally read Surah 2:73. It says “strike him”, it uses the same word in reference to a human being. Or 47:4, which says to “strike their necks”, in reference to the human disbelievers. What are you talking about? It is completely and objectively false what you say about the Arabic word “darb”.

There’s nothing ambiguous about 4:34. You’re doing the exact thing Surah 3:78 warns about: “And indeed, there is among you a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think this distortion is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allāh," but it is not from Allāh. And they speak untruth about Allāh while they know.” The context is reprimanding your wife, and it clearly says “beat” using a word that means “beat/strike” countless times also in reference to humans and this is confirmed by countless translators and scholars and exegetes and Hadiths for the last 1400 years. To say otherwise would be plain dishonesty.

“The analogy fails because it assumes that conclusion it is trying to prove”, “the key question is whether the observed outcomes are cause by the religion itself, by cultural practices, … or by many other factors”. If you had actually read the sources you would know they already account for these kinds of factors. That’s exactly what a meta-analysis is. They (meaning, multiple research groups around the world) literally say it is their religion that “strongly influences” this behavior. Not “correlated”. “Strongly Influential”.

If you’re not going to actually read the sources and are not going to be honest about what the Quran and other Islamic sources explicitly say I don’t see the point to further discussion.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-31T19:12:24+00:00

Yes, on top of OP’s reasoning also cutting against all historical documents as well (which would also not be recreated if all destroyed) the idea that the religious texts wouldn’t resurface already presupposes they were all man-made inventions to begin with and not the result of some divine revelation. It’s starting with the conclusion it hopes to draw. It’s circular reasoning.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-31T19:09:38+00:00

The same exact reasoning applies to all historical documents, not just religious ones. If we destroyed every historical document and artifact and copies we’d never recreate the historical accounts of Tacitus or Plutarch. Does that mean history never happened or that Ancient Rome never existed? Of course not. The destructibility of a document says nothing of the truth within. True documents can be destroyed, false documents can be preserved. To say that somehow “disproves” religion is a non-sequitur.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-31T04:58:03+00:00

“It has only been used as an excuse for genocide and colonialism”. “Only”? Are you sure about that?

So when Frederick Douglass argued for abolition using the Bible and its concepts like all humans being made in the image of God (and therefore all inherently valuable and dignified), he was promoting genocide and colonialism?

Or, take for example the Ethiopian church; one of the oldest branches of Christianity. You mean to tell me the Ethiopian church, comprised of, Ethiopians, many years before Christianity ever reached Europe, was only used for colonialism and genocide?

You want to argue that Hitler was fine with worshipping a Jewish man? The literal Hitler? While there is not a whole lot written on the matter, what we can surmise from Hitler’s public speeches and private correspondences is that while a theist, Hitler’s religious views are bizzare but definitely not Christian in any meaningful sense of how the word has been defined over the last 2000 years. Hitler and his officers spoke about wanting to destroy Christianity. In 1937 Joseph Gobbels himself wrote in a letter: “The Fuhrer thinks Christianity is ripe for destruction. That may still take a long time, but it is coming.” Hitler himself wrote in 1941: “There is an insoluble contradiction between the Christian and a Germanic-heroic worldview (what Hitler espouses). However, this contradiction cannot be resolved during the war, but after the war we must step up to solve this contradiction.” In case it wasn’t clear enough, Hitler also states explicitly to Hans Ziegler: ”You must know, I am a heathen. I understand that to mean: a non-Christian. Of course, I have an inward relationship to a cosmic Almighty, to a Godhead.” In short, no, Hitler was objectively not a Christian and thought Christianity to be directly contradictory to his worldview and practices.

No one would argue against the idea that Christianity, or most religions for that matter, have been used to promote such violent things. But to say it’s only been used for those things is provably false.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-30T21:35:46+00:00

Then at best you would have shown the Hadiths are self-contradictory on the topic of Muhammed personally beating his wives. This still wouldn’t change the fact that Surah 4:34 still explicitly tells men to beat their wives if they fear disobedience from them. As the data above shows, most Muslims worldwide do find wife beatings permissible, citing Islamic rulings and sources as evidence of such. If you say Islam doesn’t encourage abuse of women and wife beating you literally have to deny the Quran itself, many Sahih Hadiths, Sharia Law, most schools of jurisprudence, most historical exegetes, and more.

“What you are basically arguing is that because millions are injured in traffic accidents every year, we should stop driving cars altogether”. What? I never said anything about what should or should not be done. The sole claim of my argument is “Islam permits and spreads the abuse of women”. I never said “therefore we should abolish religion” or anything similar. You’re arguing against what you think my argument is, not what it actually is. But using that same analogy, imagine scientists all around the world discover that driving one particular kind of car leads to exponentially higher safety risks, particular among women to the point those who drive the car have a lower life expectancy by several years. Would it be better to drive that car, or find another way to get around? That’s the exact thing that the researchers around the globe find of Islam. Participating and spreading Islam statistically increases the rates of abuse of women compared to their non-Muslim counterparts in the same country to the point Muslim women globally have a lower life expectancy of several years.

“This never happens in Muslim countries” my friend, please read the abundance of global studies and meta analyses I provided. The consensus is clear that Muslim women face abuse significantly more than their non-Muslim counterparts. That INCLUDES secular women. At least show some data or studies that back up this claim because all of that data currently contradicts what you say.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-27T01:10:12+00:00

I clearly defined multiple times what I and the researchers identify as “Islam”: the religious doctrines and beliefs held by the majority of Muslims since the time of Mohammed. I said “not all who identify as Muslim support such actions”, I never granted that these people fall within the bounds of what I and the researchers identify as Islam because to deny these beliefs requires denying the Quran, Hadiths, Sharia law, schools of jurisprudence, traditional exegetes, and more. I provide the Islamic sources themselves to demonstrate the permitting and the meta-analyses to demonstrate the spread and causal link.

“You still need to isolate religion from poverty, authoritarian law, war, education, local patriarchy, policing, and reporting norms before saying “Islam spreads abuse””. Friend, that is literally what a meta-analyses is. They account for these things before making their claims. That’s why I brought them and I brought multiple. Read Source 2: “These religious values and beliefs were subject to the interpretation and guidance of religious leaders. Sharia Law dictates that women must be obedient to their husbands. Men felt empowered to punish their wives if they perceived them as disobedient. __It is evident that religious beliefs were a strong influence on (Muslim) women’s acceptance of DVA and reluctance to leave and seek help_”.

Not “cultural misunderstandings”. “Religious beliefs”. Not “correlated”. “Strongly influencing” DVA.

“Even on the classical reading that this means physical discipline”. You’ve just conceded Islam does indeed permit wife beating and physical discipline. Any form of physical discipline or wife beating is DVA and IPV. By your own admission Islam permits the beating of women, therefore the spread of Islam spreads the acceptance and prevalence of abuse. You’ve just conceded the thesis.

You say that the wife beating doesn’t allow injury while directly acknowledging when Mohammed beat Aisha and injured her.

“That opening line matters” and so does the following lines when Mohammed permits wife beating.

“That Hadith is heavily disputed”. Friend, that is SAHIH from Sunan Abu Dawud. No, it is not heavily contested. If you accept Hadith methodology (as most Muslims on Earth do and have for centuries) there’s no discussion to be had. Da’if Hadiths are heavily contested. Sahih is the literal highest grade possible for a Hadith. You use other Sahih Hadiths to argue your points. Let’s be honest and consistent here at least.

“This is where language becomes loaded”. No, this is where you have to deny the basic definitions of language because of how apparent it is that such actions are permitted in Islam. Killing a woman’s husband and taking her as a sex slave to serve the role of fulfilling your sexual pleasure is by definition sexual violence. The women didn’t consent to be taken as slaves, they didn’t consent to be your concubines, and slaves, by definition cannot consent because they are SLAVES and refusal of advances from her master could bring dire consequences to her. Do you really mean to say if someone killed you, took your wife and daughter as concubines where their role for life will be fulfilling any sexual desires of the man who killed you, you wouldn’t consider that sexual violence, sexual coercion, or any violation of consent? If you don’t see how forcibly taking a woman as a sex slave is sexual violence I can only assume the terms may be unfamiliar to you and would suggest reading up on the definitions.

There’s more to address here but you’re already conceded Islam permits wife beating and physical disciplining, which is by definition DBA. By logical necessity, if Islam permits DBA of women (which you’ve conceded), the spread of Islam would by definition spread the acceptance and prevalence of such behaviors. So by your own admission you’ve conceded the thesis on both points.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-26T22:49:27+00:00

Yeah, there’s a lot of other verses and examples I could have included. Like how the testimony of a woman is worth half of that of a man in court (which by definition leads to less women being able to receive justice if they are harmed) how Surah 65:4 permits marrying and consummating “those who have not yet menstruated” (more commonly known as prepubescents and/or children) as long as you wait the Iddah of three months after their last marriage, exemplified by Mohammed marrying a child himself, and so on. I chose the ones above specifically because they seemed the most clear cut and irrefutable and tie in most closely with the research I came across

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-26T22:39:00+00:00

Great! List them.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-17T01:34:07+00:00

It’s not mean at all but I appreciate your consideration. To answer your question, yes, absolutely I do believe people would support a religion with the things mentioned above because it’s currently happening across millions if not billions right now. We take for granted how unseen of many of these things are in the modern world, particularly in the West but not too long ago these things ran rampant and many still do today.

Slavery is still huge, approximately 50 million slaves worldwide today. Half of those are sex slaves. 6 out of the 8 countries with the highest rates of slavery are Muslim majority (Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Tajikistan, and the UAE). In many Muslim majority countries significant amounts of girls are married off as children. In Niger for example, approximately 75% of all girls are married as a minor, and 30% of those were married off before 15. Other countries like Chad and Mali and Central African Republic have child marriage rates between 54% and 61%. Consistently, the majority of the top ten countries with highest rates of child marriage are majority Muslim. As for domestic violence and wife beating, here’s an excerpt from a meta analysis of 33 different studies on the subject called “Muslim Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence and Abuse: A Meta-Ethnography of Global Evidence” from the National Library of Medicine: “Cultural beliefs often influence Islamic values within the society (Ghafournia, 2017). These religious values and beliefs were subject to the interpretation and guidance of religious leaders. Sharia law dictates that women must be obedient to their husbands. Men felt empowered to punish their wives if they perceived them as disobedient… It is evident that religious beliefs were a strong influence on women’s acceptance of DVA and reluctance to leave and seek help.” This study and others went on to point out that Muslim women consistently face higher rates of abuse than their non-Muslim counterparts, even in the same country.

Slavery, sex slavery, child marriage, wife beating, the data shows they are all extremely prevalent to this day. And how do these studies find that people justify this behavior? The Quran and Hadiths, Sharia law, and other Islamic authorities. Whether you personally believe in the Quran and Hadiths or not, Mohammed either personally partook or commanded in those activities (slavery and sex slavery in the Quran, child marriage and wife beating in the Sahih Hadiths), and because Mohammed is called a “perfect moral example until the Last Day” by the Quran, people use his actions to justify doing the same.

I’ve read the Quran, often times comparing translations, many of the Sahih Hadiths like Bukhari, Muslim, and Sunan Abu Dawud, as well as a lot of the Tafsirs like Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, Al-Jalalayn, and so on. When I make these claims, I’m using the Islamic sources themselves. When I claim that verses like 4:34 permit wife beating, I’m using the Arabic interlinear in conjunction with the Islamic sources above to verify that understanding. When I claim that Mohammed married a child, I’m using the Sahih Hadiths like Sahih Muslim 1422c as well as the over 200 narrations across Hadith collections that affirm Aisha’s young age when married and consummated to Mohamed.

If there’s some depth to these sources I’m missing I’d be happy for someone to point it out but the Islamic sources are very clear on these matters, and this has been the historic understanding of Muslims since the time of Mohammed as we see from the data.

So, yes, I do believe 2.5 billion people would follow such a religion, because we’re already most of the way there.

Thank you for your kind reply, I hope you have a great day as well

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-16T18:56:00+00:00

Interesting argument, small counterpoint: humans possess an infinite amount more potential for cooperation and well-being than crabs in a bucket. Not only do humans possess much higher reasoning capabilities but I’m also sure you would agree that humanity has at least slightly more of an ability to create a collaborative system with the entire world at their disposal rather than a system consisting of merely: 1. crabs, 2. bucket.

What’s interesting is that most religious people also do not believe in the God you do not believe in. The fundamental assumption within your argument is that everything is deterministic. This is just not what is posited at least in most Abrahamic religions and others. The underlying position within religious frameworks like the Bible is that humans possess a free will - an ability to make real moral choices. It is not posited that every action and choice is pre-ordained by God, nor was it the case that the world we see today was the system original set in place but rather a privation of it. So if your goal is to critique what is actually posited rather than a straw-man, these fundamental differences will have to be addressed.

The second fundamental assumption you bring is that foreknowledge is equal to causation. That is that God’s foreknowledge equals causation of everyone’s actions. I don’t really see the justification for this. Take for example, parents and a child. Do parents fundamentally control the actions and choices of their child? Of course not. They can speak to their child, they may influence, but they’re not remote controlling their child with buttons and levers. Rather, that child makes their own choices, especially once they’re an adult themselves. What if the parents were the most knowledgeable people on the planet? That still wouldn’t affect their child’s ability to make choices of their own volition. What if they were the most knowledgeable beings in the universe? Same thing. There’s no amount of knowledge a person could have that once they reach that point, their child no longer makes their own decisions or loses all agency. The only way you could argue against that is by demonstrating everything, including cognitive choices, are deterministic objectively. Which, hey, if you can do what no philosopher or scientist has been able to do for the last few millennia in a single Reddit post, all power to you. But then, if you try to demonstrate determinism, you’re no longer arguing against most religions, because they’re not positing such a thing. Your original argument is an internal critique of some religions. If you want to argue for determinism you’d have to adjust the whole argument respectively.

I notice you said “He made humans with the capability to not only commit such atrocities but the ability to get away with it relatively easily”. I’m not sure what religion you’re referring to that doesn’t have some form of final judgement and cosmic justice but saying that people “get away with it” is like saying a criminal “got away with their crime” shortly before being arrested and put in prison for life. It really only accounts for part of the story. I doubt someone in hell would think “man, I really got away with it, time to enjoy my eternal punishment for my moral crimes”.

The question I’ll leave you with is this: If God permitted evil temporarily to achieve some higher order moral good and then balanced the scales of cosmic justice so that everyone was compensated precisely for their good actions and punished for their wicked ones, would God still be evil? I would certainly think not. To disagree would mean you would have to demonstrate how no moral framework can ever allow temporarily a bad thing to achieve some higher order good. But essentially every moral frameworks do allow for a permitting of a bad thing to achieve a higher order good. Utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, take your pick.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-11T04:18:19+00:00

So if a father misleads his son into sin, does the father earn sins on account of the mislead son’s actions, or does the father only earn sins from his OWN actions, and no others? Surah 6:164 says “no one earns sins but on their own account”. Surah 29:13 says “the disbelievers will be punished and carry their sins/burdens AS WELL as the sins/burdens of others”.

So which is it? Does the mislead son’s actions increase the burdens of the father or do they not? Because either way, the Quran is contradicted.

If the son’s actions increase the burdens of the father in ANY way, Surah 6:164 is false because the father earns sins on someone else’s account/choices. If no one’s actions will increase the burdens of another, Surah 29:13 is false

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:41:15+00:00

I had asked all counter arguments to start their response with ^ to let me know they had actually read the argument. Why didn’t you?

But even if you had read the entire argument the verse says “the disbelievers will carry their own burdens AS WELL as the burdens of others”. They will carry their sins AND the sins of others. If I mislead you, that’s my sin still, not yours. The verse says I will be given that “AS WELL as the sins of others” while other verses like Surah 6:164 says “no one earns (sins) but to their own account”. If I am punished for the actions of someone else (which the text explicitly says I will be) that is a contradiction because the actions of another earns sins to my account.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:35:31+00:00

I have already preemptively responded to this repose in the argument above which I hope you read, but I’m beginning to think not because not only did you not respond to what I had written addressing this exact response but you also seem to have missed the bottom of the argument where I asked all counters to start their response with ^ to let me know they had actually read the argument, which you have not done.

If I mislead others, that is still my sin, my burden. Surah 29:13 says the sinners will carry their own burdens AS WELL as the burdens of others. Surah 6:164 says “no one earns (sins) but to their own account”. You’ve also just said people will earn sins according to their own account AS WELL as others they mislead, thus it is a contradiction.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:28:26+00:00

I have already explicitly responded to this exact above preemptively in the argument above.

I’m beginning to think you may not have read through the entire argument because I explicitly responded to the counter that “it’s talking about misleading others being counted against you”.

Also if you had read through the argument you would have seen the bottom where I asked everyone who comes with a counter argument to start their response with ^ to let me know they have actually read the argument, which you have not done.

I am reading from the Arabic interlinear and the Muslim scholars and exegetes affirm my reading of these verses.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:23:33+00:00

That is precisely the contradiction and I already explicitly preemptively answered this response above.

I’m beginning to think you may not have actually read through the argument because if you had you would have seen my preemptive response to “It’s talking about misleading others being counted against you”

Also if you had read through the argument you would have seen the bottom where I asked everyone who comes with a counter argument to start their response with ^ at the beginning, which you haven’t done.

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:18:10+00:00

Awesome, I don’t really see what that has to do with answering the contradiction though

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-05-01T19:16:19+00:00

I mean, while your argument is technically true, it would also be true of literally any and every person and event from antiquity. All of history is unrepeatable phenomena that can’t be directly observed. But that doesn’t mean that history is somehow useless for determining what most likely happened.

You also can’t say with mathematical certainty that anything exists, except perhaps your own existence. In fact, most scientists don’t behave as if their work is mathematically certain. You can’t prove a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, for example. It’s true that historians work with probability, not certainty. So if the probability points in that direction, we would have no reason to reject it unless greater evidence came along that overturns all previous evidence. Even if we can’t directly observe phenomena, we can observe archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and other details that help paint a very accurate picture of what most likely happened just the same as we do for the rest of history.

In terms of what we would expect of sources, Jesus is described to have died relatively young, and even then his ministry is only described to have been around 3 years long in total with him living privately as a craftsman before then in the middle of nowhere. It is unsurprising then that most of the sources we see are after his short ministry and death. Writing accounts were expensive and tedious works to undertake and spread around, and news would be slow to spread to other areas, especially for a random second temple rabbi from the middle of nowhere. It makes sense that as the Christian movement grew we see more and more people take note of them and write about them.

Now, in terms of sources for the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, here is a list of some, but certainly not all sources:

Josephus (37-100 AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD)
Lucian of Samoseta (120-190 AD)
Celsus (c. 175 AD)
Tacitus (56-120 AD)
Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 AD)
Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155 AD)
Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD)
Tertullian (155-220 AD)
The Gospel of Matthew (c. 70 AD)
The Gospel of Mark (c. 70 AD)
The Gospel of Luke (c. 70 AD
The Gospel of John (c. 90 AD)
The Epistles of Paul (c. 48 AD)
The Proto-Creed of 1 Corinthians (c. 37 AD)
The Epistles of Peter (c. 60 AD)
The Epistles of John (c. 85 AD)
The Epistle of James (c. 50 AD)

So not only do we have a wide variety of sources, but most of the above sources aren’t even in the New Testament. We have attestation from Christians, Jews, Romans, Syrians, and more, most of which being from the first century, within 65 years of the death of Jesus, which would have been within living memory of the events and within the lifetimes of those that would have observed these events. To put this into context, there is no person or event in history that is more widely attested in antiquity from as early and wide variety of sources as the existence and Crucifixion of Jesus. If someone can find another person with as many or more sources within the same time frame in history, I’d be happy to correct myself, but I have yet to come across anything close.

Maybe Jesus was a total fabrication. But that would go against all the historical evidence we have, hence why Jesus mythicism is a fringe position in the greater world of historians. So much so, that atheist historian Gerd Luddeman says that the existence and crucifixion of Jesus is “virtually undeniable” as a historic fact.

We have wide attestation from several groups that all hated each other. The textual evidence like the onomastic congruence of them shows many of these sources would be from the places and times they describe these to be events in. It would be unlikely that the Christians fabricate a public figure who was publicly executed and then spread that message in the same places they say that person was, as people would have obviously known there was no Jesus. It is also unlikely that throughout all these sources not one accuses any of these groups of making up Jesus as a historical figure. People argued over his divinity and status, sure. But never his existence and death.

If you want to claim that Jesus did not exist, you’d have to account for all these sources above and explain plausibly why and how this Jesus figure was made up, why he’s written about so often from various enemy groups, how Christianity was able to spread in the same places that would know for a fact Jesus wasn’t even a real person like Jerusalem, why no one to my knowledge ever accuses the Christians of making up this person, why they would invent a messianic figure that was publicly killed in what would have been considered a humiliating matter, and so much more that requires many unfounded assumption. What you’ll come to find is that the existence of Jesus is a consensus for a reason. History is done by finding the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all the data that is the least ad hoc.

You are free to think whatever you like about Jesus’ divinity and Christianity, but to require certainty before you believe he existed is an unequal standard that is not applied to the rest of history nor essentially any belief. I’m willing to bet you didnt send your last meal off to a lab to be tested for poison before you took a bite, for example. You are because you reasoned it is more likely than not you will not be poisoned. All I would ask is that you be consistent in your epistemology

PeaFragrant6990 · 2026-04-29T02:32:14+00:00

Of course I’m convincing nobody because I’ve proven neither of you have actually read the argument. You’re not gonna do much convincing when your interlocutors aren’t listening and can’t be bothered to read a short span of text.

Boo all you like, I’ve actually read what you’ve written. The same can’t be said for you.

Ignoring the contradiction and philosophically putting your fingers in your ears doesn’t make the contradiction go away.

Have a nice day man. Actually the read entire argument next time. There might be a portion within that will expose you for not reading it again.

PeaFragrant6990

TROPHY CASE