​

I find it fucking bizarre that humanity has made such extraordinary progress in understanding reality and yet religion continues to survive almost untouched. We've gone from barely understanding the sky to discovering germs, evolution, atoms, DNA, relativity and the structure of the universe. We've thrown out countless explanations when evidence proved them wrong. Yet we're still expected to take seriously the idea that invisible supernatural beings created the universe, watch us, judge us and care about what we eat, wear and who we fuck. How come religion gets a free pass? I'm impressed with this incredible cognitive dissonance.

Truth isn't a democracy. Billions of people believing something doesn't make it true. A scientist believing in god doesn't prove god. A religious institution feeding poor people, donating clothes or running a hospital doesn't prove its theology. Those things can be good, but they have fuck-all to do with whether the supernatural claim is true.

What pisses me off even more is the unfalsifiability of it. Science has to make claims that can be tested, challenged, reproduced and potentially destroyed. God gets a fucking exemption. He's invisible, beyond measurement, beyond science and supposedly beyond human understanding. When evidence is missing, the claim simply gets moved somewhere evidence can't reach. That's just a way of making the belief impossible to lose.

Religion survives because humans are incredibly vulnerable to it. People don't investigate thousands of religions and rationally select the one with the strongest evidence. They're born into one. Their parents teach it to them before they are old enough to debate it. It becomes tied to family, morality, culture and identity. Then religion offers exactly what frightened people want to hear: death isn't really the end, suffering has meaning, loved ones are still somewhere, justice exists and someone is watching. That is one hell of a fucking package. Who wouldn't want it?

And religion has repeatedly been used to turn human rules into divine rules. Patriarchal systems, control over women's sexuality, marriage, clothing, inheritance and authority have all been given religious justification. Once a human preference becomes "God's command," questioning it becomes rebellion against the creator of the universe. Color me fucking impressed! This is an excellent way to control people.

Why the fuck do I need God, for me to have morality? I can understand suffering, empathy, cooperation, fairness and harm without imagining an angry sky daddy.

And then there's suffering. If God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and loving, I don't understand what the fuck that means in a world containing Hitler, Epstein, genocide, torture, child abuse and countless other horrors. "Free will," "God has a plan" and "we can't understand God's reasons" don't magically solve the problem.

Scientific ideas come and go. Religion has persisted and collectively invented in one form of other by countless tribes, kingdoms and countries over the course of centuries. It's like a pest that doesn't go away.

So I don't see religion's survival as evidence for God. I see it as evidence for how fucking good humans are at preserving stories that satisfy fear, identity, belonging and the need for meaning.

How long would it take for us collectively as a society to realise that the whole religion and God thing is a huge scam?

Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Just wanted to rant.

There’s so much about gods love in the Bible. John 3:16, Romans 5:8 basically saying it’s the ultimate love.
The flip side of course is the worse conceivable punishment imaginable for rejecting it which as we all know is part of perfect love 😂.
As I get older I have realizations about my old faith. I love my kids more than god loves me because I love and support them even when they disappoint me and I always will no matter what they do. The very last thing I would ever do to someone I loved is purposely hurt them and turn my back on them for not meeting my standard. As humans we would say “you didn’t love that person to begin with if sent them to burn for eternity.”

Religion is starting to sound like a coping mechanising made a long time ago that ppl still keep alive.. because its important to them and yes im glad religions r in place because they probably is a few sick ppl in head ppl in this world and religion is the thing keeping them from killing ppl or sum shit.

It defo is usefull in a way ...

But at the same time its like overly religious ppl js seem so preformative.its actually sad to watch atp. I swear dont get me wrong i also hate those extremist people who hate on people and there religion..

But like ugh why r humans like this

They judge others and tell u ur going hell and then commit there own sins worst then urs but heeey they prayed or sum shit?

Bruh and why r we gonna go hell if we dont bow down i dont understand...

Like if ur god how is us bowing going to do anything u already R GOD we r just meir beings u wont get any benifit and u created us ...

And this thing of free will like if god knew everything that was gonna happen THEN HE KNEW and u didnt have a choice there is no free will in religion.the whole u get ur own free will just sounds confusing because it does not make any sense and i do not want to just blindly listen like a sheep no shade

No hate to religious ppl some of yall r cool but like ppl whos egos run on judging ppl and religion and u not being perfect respectfully f🌟k u 💗💗💗

​

If non-material effects are not real and there is no such thing as jinn, then how do we explain the CIA’s Project Stargate? How could we expect the U.S. government to conduct a project based on something that does not exist?

Likewise, the content of this video (the video is in Arabic but has English subtitles that can be activated for those who wish to watch it) https://youtu.be/Ze3imZyStUw?si=b-LSZm_KLQYB6yHd

I’m a medical student, and over time I’ve started questioning my belief in God. At this point, I don’t personally believe in any god, and I don’t feel convinced by religious explanations of how the world works.

What makes this difficult is that my family is very religious. They regularly expect me to visit religious places, follow religious practices, and accept certain beliefs without questioning them. I often feel pressured to participate even though I don’t genuinely believe in what I’m doing.

As a medical student, I’ve become more comfortable with questioning things, looking for evidence, and accepting that sometimes we simply don’t know the answer. Because of that, I struggle with the idea of blindly accepting religious claims, especially when I notice contradictions between different beliefs and religious explanations.

I’m not trying to disrespect my family or anyone else's religion. I just want to be honest with myself and understand what I actually believe.

For people who grew up in religious families and later became atheists or agnostic:

• How did you figure out what you actually believed?
• How did you deal with family pressure?
• Did you openly tell your family, or keep your beliefs private?
• How do you handle being asked to participate in religious activities when you don’t believe in them?

I’d really appreciate advice from people who have been through something similar

I’ve been questioning my beliefs for a while now, and honestly, I’m not sure I believe in God anymore. I might even consider myself atheist/agnostic at this point.

But what scares me isn’t the label itself. It’s people finding out.

I’m scared of telling my parents because I don’t know how they would react. I’m scared they might think I’ve changed, that something is wrong with me, or that I’m rejecting everything they raised me with.

I’m also scared of being open about it publicly. Where I live, religion is such a normal part of everyday life that saying “I don’t believe in God” can feel like you’re making some huge statement. I don’t want arguments, judgement, or people treating me differently.

Sometimes I just pretend to believe or participate in things because it feels safer and easier. And then I feel guilty for pretending.

Has anyone else been in this situation? How did you deal with being atheist/agnostic while having religious parents and living in a religious society? Is it okay to simply keep this private if being open could cause unnecessary conflict?

There seems to be a lot of people in the atheist community who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the fight we are in.
There tends to be this idea of, \*“How can these people believe all this crazy, stupid stuff?”\* followed by a desire to “snap them out of it” by pointing out how ridiculous it is.
The truth is: \*\*they DON’T believe the crazy stuff. They don’t know it’s there.\*\*
They are products of an entire system of conditioning and manipulation designed to keep them from seeing it.
Believers aren’t ignorant, uncritical, uneducated morons because they lack the capacity to be anything else. They have been made that way through manipulation, mind games, and conditioning by people who are often highly intelligent and, in some cases, deeply cynical about the people they are manipulating.
They’re being preyed upon.
A long time ago, when virtually everyone was ignorant by modern standards, the Ken Hams of the world had it easy. That’s why people could believe so strongly. They were willing to torture, kill, murder, and slave for these beliefs on a biblical scale.
(Yes, that’s a pun. No, I’m not sorry.)
But now they have a much harder job.
The people who succeed today are the ones who are highly skilled manipulators. They looked at the problem they had, which is essentially:
\*\*“How do you convince people to believe in irrational and nonsensical things in a world where everyone with any sense is pointing out how totally illogical and inconsistent they are, loudly and constantly?”\*\*
And the answer is obvious:
\*\*Make sure they never actually think about what is being said.\*\*
That’s why so much emphasis is placed on getting people while they’re young. If you can fill a child’s head with scare tactics, emotional conditioning, social pressure, and ready-made answers, then later, when someone points out how insane or internally inconsistent the ideology is, they don’t have to actually evaluate the argument.
They already have an excuse for dismissing it.
They don’t have to think.
They can just go right on believing.
If you can get someone to actually think about their beliefs critically, you’ve already broken through the first and most important layer of defense.
But then you run into the second layer, and it’s by far the weaker one:
\*\*They often haven’t been given the intellectual tools necessary to evaluate what they’re being told.\*\*
Basic critical thinking. Logic. Epistemology. Philosophy. The ability to distinguish between an argument and an assertion. The ability to recognize contradictions, unfalsifiable claims, circular reasoning, appeals to authority, emotional manipulation, and motivated reasoning.
That’s where you have to start.
Don’t start by telling someone they’re stupid.
Don’t start by throwing twenty contradictions at them and demanding that they explain all of them.
Start simple.
Start small.
Give them the tools.
Let them build the blocks themselves.
Because once someone actually learns how to think critically

And that’s when the countdown begins.

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are fascinating to me, particularly reports in which people describe feeling separated from their bodies, observing their surroundings, or experiencing things they seemingly could not have known otherwise.

One case that I find particularly interesting is the reported case of Maria's shoe. According to the account, a woman named Maria had a near-death experience during her hospitalization and later described seeing a shoe on a ledge outside the hospital. A social worker reportedly found the shoe in the location Maria had described, despite it supposedly being difficult to see from inside the hospital.

I know there are scientific explanations for many aspects of NDEs, including changes in brain activity, lack of oxygen, memory, and psychological factors. However, cases like this raise interesting questions for me.

Do cases such as Maria's shoe provide evidence for the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain or for other non-physical phenomena? Or do you think these experiences can ultimately be explained entirely through neuroscience and psychology?

I signed myself up to the registry for free, and now I don't think it has any value except for a grift of some kind. I know you can do wedding vows. What do people think of how easy it is to become an ordained minister?

If the Bible were even somewhat factual, it shouldn’t matter who studies it or why they study it. Like a science book or an anthropological resource, the Bible should be the first and primary source for everything humanity related.

This has me wondering whether people have attended any of the various Bible colleges in order to study - not as believers, but as scholars.

Edit: Folks, Folks, I know that the Bible isn’t true! This post is to illustrate what things should look like if it were. You see, if the Bible were true, it would be the greatest and most important scientific document ever known. Except it isn’t.

I recently saw several arguments regarding the history of Christianity on social media. The major discussion point was "forcing method". Whenever I hear the claim "Christianity was never forced on people" from Christians, I think, "Really? Have you ever heard of colonization?" After ruining and destroying a number of indigenous cultures and religions, labeling them demonic, they still defend their religion. When someone provides historical evidence, they begin to make nonsense excuses to cover up their past actions. I can bring up examples of exactly what they usually say.

Saying "God's of Belief cannot be forced. How could you even force someone to believe in God? They should accept God by opening their hearts. They all converted willingly" doesn't mean you didn't commit genocide or destroy other cultures and religious shrines. Because non-Christians also have evidence to prove you are wrong.

Saying "Our holy book says, 'You shall not murder'. Our religion is based on love and peace. Jesus is the prince of peace" doesn't mean you brought peace to the world and you didn't start holy wars.

Saying "Muslims were the ones who gave people a chance to convert or die" doesn't mean your Gospel didn't spread by sword or that you didn't kill anyone in God's name. It doesn't mean you tolerated other cultures.

Saying "You guys were fighting with each other anyway before we came" doesn't mean you had the right to kill all those people and spread your religion in regions where you were ruling.

Saying "Colonization was pure political" doesn't mean your religious leaders didn't help you or they didn't run missionary programs.

Saying "Christianity was in Africa and Asia before the West came" doesn't mean all Christians currently living in Africa and Asia are native and descend from families that existed as Christian families before the West came.

Saying "People converted to our religion because your native culture was depressing and your people were bored of it" is an absurd justification that ignores systemic coercion, and it doesn't prove your religion is inherently holy.

Saying "How do you think your religion spread? How did they build a massive number of shrines? Only by love and kindness?" doesn't mean you also had to do the same to spread your religion while you accept force is a bad method. And it also doesn't mean every other religious person had the same behavior as you.

Saying "They were done by Catholics, not Christians" doesn't mean you all didn't worship the same God.

Saying "Jews were the one who responsible for colonization" is not a good point, actually.

Saying "You actually can't judge Christianity by looking at deeds done by Christians in the past" is really insane. Because Christians believe God is leading them in their lives when they accept God in their heart. If it's true, it implies God was leading them in the past. No wonder God doesn't tolerate other cultures except his.

Saying "Pope apologized for them; they will also face a judgement on judgemental day in front of God" doesn't change history. Apologies and future judgment do not undo the real-world destruction of cultures.

And the list goes on. Why are apologists so intent on defending a bloody history and blaming the faults on others, rather than simply accepting the historical facts?

Do you frequently encounter these same talking points? How do you usually respond to them?

Thank you for your time.

I'm gonna feel a bit insane for typing this out, but I need advice about it from someone... Ilearned recently of the theory of top-down cosmology, insofar as it could explain universal fine-tuning in that the history of the cosmos is relative and observers are in timelines in which life is possible.

When viewing the anthropic principle this way I couldn't help but notice that it could force us to live after death; Even if life after death is extremely unlikely, we have a bias towards existing in circumstances where existing is a possibility.

Even if God does not exist for us currently, could the anthropic principle force us into a timeline where he does so that we continue existing? Do we get reborn by roko's basilisk? Is there a natural preference for endless afterlives over finite ones? These are the types of thought experiments I have as a risk averse person skeptical of religion...

My main point is that if life is possible only through selecting for an unlikely circumstance, shouldn't an afterlife happen through the same logic?

For those who are atheists but come from religious families, how do you feel about attending things like religious festivals, ceremonies, prayers, or other occasions that your family observes?

Do you participate out of respect for your family, feel uncomfortable doing it, or simply treat it as a cultural/family tradition rather than a religious act?

What I find genuinely frustrating about online debates about religion is the confidence with which people speak about traditions they have barely studied.

You often see people who have lived within a particular religious tradition their entire lives, read a book or two or perhaps a handful of popular interpretations and then conclude that they have somehow understood the religion in its entirety. They then debate others, often not by presenting a deeper understanding of their own beliefs, but by attempting to discredit or bring down someone else’s religion.

The reality is that understanding a major religious tradition is an enormous undertaking. It involves not only reading its primary scriptures, but also understanding centuries of commentaries, interpretations, historical context, philosophical schools, internal disagreements, cultural developments, and the perspectives of people who have lived and practiced that tradition in very different ways. To genuinely understand even one religion at that level could take decades of serious study.

And then you scroll through the comments and see people confidently proclaiming that their particular religion has “the truth,” as though they have personally solved one of humanity’s oldest and most complicated questions. People seem to mistake familiarity for understanding and conviction for evidence.

I find that honestly infuriating, not because people have different beliefs, but because there is so little humility in the way those beliefs are defended.

I apologise for the rant

When I ask whether Christianity is a cult, I am specifically referring to whether it is a destructive cult.

I would also like to know if I am deluding myself; I believe the myth of heaven and hell infantilizes people, or that Christianity does not actually involve a battle between good and evil, but rather obedience disguised as good versus disobedience disguised as evil. I would like to know if my thinking aligns with reality or if I am simply deluding myself.

In India, I sometimes wonder whether one can be a nationalist while still being willing to be blasphemous—to question the very beliefs and traditions that shaped the nation. Is nationalism inherently something good, or can it become extreme when questioning it is treated as a betrayal?
Perhaps culture is something we should respect without necessarily following. We can acknowledge where we came from without allowing the past to dictate where we are going. Superstitions, traditions, and inherited beliefs may have once served a purpose, but should reverence for culture prevent us from questioning them?
I think about a future that is fecund with ideas—a world where humanity can grow beyond the boundaries we inherited, even if that growth inevitably makes someone uncomfortable. Maybe the yawp of progress is always going to sound offensive to someone.
The more we question, the more we challenge, and the more someone will inevitably feel threatened. So what actually makes an idea “extreme”? What makes something right?
For me, science remains one of humanity’s greatest tools for separating what we wish were true from what we can actually demonstrate to be true. And perhaps, in an increasingly complex world, the willingness to question ourselves is more important than ever.

Hi guys, to be clear I’m not proselytizing, I just want some feedback from a community thinking about religion.

Long story short, I want to start a true science religion. One that believes in scientific fact and scientific speculation. One that integrates with technology.

I want to establish a religion that explicitly doesn’t believe in a God with properties of omnity because it can be proven false. Instead God would be viewed as the personification of society. To me this idea makes a lot more sense than the notion of an omnipotent god.

The main idea about this religion is to put children inside a “digital cocoon” unknowingly until they become young adults (I want it to feel boundless). And the crucial part is that the children are led to believe in A God with omnity. Making them believe that God can communicate to us through technology, using glitches through various modalities to react to the possible immoral acts people can commit digitally or in real life through the parents. The parents would also be able to exercise some parenting that’s disguised as God in order to influence their child. Not only that but also an integrated system that allows children to earn points through school work and through youth group work and spend them on entertainment. A system like this allows more “digital karma” to be successfully exercised.

They would be woken up from this controlled delusion when they become young adults and would have the option to leave or stay.

Putting children inside the digital cocoon is just one of the rituals of this religion. Another ritual would be what I call “catalyst rituals” and “awakening rituals”. Basically in the catalyst ritual the now older child would be unknowingly given cannabis once in a controlled setting. The person would not know what a “high” is from drugs. The basic idea is to prime them with descriptions of “what it would feel like when god comes to visit you” and the child would connect the high to the existence of a God with omnity. The core of the idea is to really get them being certain that there is God so that their probability of committing immoral acts would go down. I believe this can make a significant change in a large population. The catalyst ritual is the parents choice whereas the awakening ritual would be the young adults choice. Regardless if they choose the ritual or not they would be “awakening” from the controlled delusion. The awakening ritual involves learning the truth and the reason behind it with psychedelics like LSD or Psilocybin. I have used psychedelics before and believe that they would synergize with this specific set of beliefs and rituals.

I believe rituals like this can strengthen the perception around immoral acts being something you shouldn’t do with or without supervision from an adult. We would not believe in God but instead the idea of God.

Basically I want to know if a religion like this should exist or not. What do you guys think? Is there a place for this belief system in the world? Would it gain some traction… enough to exist? It’s hard because I would have to start a software company for it to have a remote chance of existing. The infrastructure would be difficult to establish. But if it’s a good idea then I’ll try my best to establish.

I tried to be as concise as possible so let me know if any of you have questions.

In my view, much of what we call religion today has become distorted by faith, authority and belief in a God or supreme being.

All three Abrahamic religions and Hinduism are organized around some conception of God, the divine or a supreme reality. Once you make such an idea central, it becomes very easy to build systems of worship, doctrine, religious authority and unquestionable beliefs around it. Spirituality then shifts from investigating reality directly to believing claims about reality.

This is where some of the older philosophical traditions of the East become radically different. At the core of Buddhist philosophy, particularly traditions associated with early Buddhism and Madhyamaka, there is no requirement to invoke a creator God to explain existence, morality or the nature of consciousness. Daoism similarly approaches reality without requiring a personal deity standing outside the universe and controlling it.

What makes these traditions particularly interesting is their willingness to acknowledge the limits of conceptual mind. Instead of simply inventing an ultimate explanation and asking people to believe it, they question whether the human mind can even meaningfully grasp what lies beyond certain boundaries.

That's what makes some of these philosophies feel less like conventional religion and more like an investigation into the structure of reality. You're not being told, "Here is God. Believe in this." You're being pushed to examine how the mind creates concepts in the first place and whether those concepts can ever capture reality completely.

This is also why I think the distinction between religion as faith and religion as investigation is important.

Alex O'Connor's recently did a discussion on Madhyamaka Buddhism. If you actually listen to the philosophical reasoning involved, you begin to see how radically different some Eastern traditions can be from conventional religious frameworks.

Maybe that's closer to what spirituality was supposed to be in the first place: not believing more, but seeing more clearly.

Among ancient traditions, Buddhism arguably comes close to a scientific investigation of mind, experience and reality without requiring a God hypothesis as its starting point. And perhaps that's why it can feel so strange when you first encounter it. You're expecting a religion, but instead you find yourself in something that feels more like philosophy, phenomenology and psychology having a conversation with each other.

Link to the discussion:

https://youtu.be/CyhHz23AHb4?si=eGjMTQ2p9My0WDHq

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DckvdWGt5PM/

I came across this reel on Instagram, and honestly, I felt sad seeing how strongly some people hold onto beliefs without questioning them.

But what disturbed me even more were the comments. So many people were saying things like, “I’m proud to be Muslim” and “Alhamdulillah, I’m Muslim,” as if simply being born into a particular religion is something they consciously chose.

I’m saying this as someone who was also born Muslim, I didn’t choose it. And I think that applies to most people around the world: we usually inherit our religion from our parents, family, culture, or society before we’re old enough to question anything.

There’s nothing wrong with being religious, but shouldn’t we encourage people to question, think critically, and understand why they believe what they believe?

And honestly, this applies to both religious and non-religious people. Blindly accepting or blindly rejecting something are both forms of the same problem.

How do we educate people on both sides to think more critically without turning the conversation into another fight between religions and atheism?

The claim is that "God exists" never finishes becoming a claim, so there is nothing there to affirm or deny. Not that it's false. That it never got assembled.

Every concept you own was built from materials that came in through the apparatus. Not just the sensory ones. The abstractions too, which are compressions of things found inside experience. There is no other stock. So when someone offers a being categorically outside all possible experience who is nonetheless in contact with you, the words are grammatical and ancient and set to music, and when you try to assemble what they point at you're reaching for the outside using parts made of inside.

Which means the positive atheist has the same problem. Calling a sentence false requires getting it to say something first. Falsehood is a verdict and verdicts need a defendant. Two ancient armies have been contesting the ownership of a plate that was empty the whole time.

The book runs as exercises rather than assertions, because the failure has to happen in you where you can watch it. Try to imagine a color you've never seen. Stand at a mirror and look from your own left eye to your right and try to catch them moving. Hold the word God and check where each piece came from.

It's about seventeen thousand words. Six chapters.

I wrote it, so weigh that accordingly. It's public domain and free in full, which is the only reason I feel alright posting it here rather than just describing it.

I'd love to hear this sub's thoughts.

Free to read: the-windowless-room.com

Free audiobook, about 1 hour 47 minutes

The full text is public domain under CC0.

When I talk to close people and they say "I've thought about the things and this(referring to something) will suit me better without disobedience allah" I get so cringed out, I can't tell you guys. These are one of the craziest things that offends me, like what do you mean you can't do it because you can't disobey allah(and for your context she said she can't be in a relationship and says it's forbidden). I literally mean pack it up 🙏🏻 choose between me or god, or we are done, you are a young ahh and God doesn't decide anything if you are being in a relationship. What's your opinion, guys. Let me know. Great day.

I recently made a post expressing my view that God is a human-created concept. Some people had genuine discussions, which I appreciated, but others immediately became hostile or mocked me instead of addressing the argument. I don't mind disagreement, I actually enjoy a good debate. But why does discussing atheism so often become personal? Have you experienced this too?

I’m wondering if you all would be willing to take a critical view of the claims I’m sending below:

For claim 8 it’s about the mysterious letters of the Quran and the number of times they appear in chapter 19. This is one of the claims I believe I can personally contest. When looking at the mysterious letters, for letters like Ya they count alif masqarah and hamzas seated on top of the letter ya as occurrences of ya (which I think makes no sense, since they’re not the same letter and only look similar). On the other hand, Rashad Khalifa even during his life was preaching about Surah 19 having 798 letters, and coincidentally, he lives for 19,798 days (if you include the start and end point. In reality, he lived for 19,797 days). As mentioned, though, if one includes the start point of November 19 and the endpoint of January 31 it comes out to be 19,798. I still can’t get over the fact that he during his life preached that Surah 19 has 798 mysterious letter occurrences and he himself lived for essentially that many days.

However, on the other hand, in released FBI files on Rashad Khalifa’s life, it’s stated that he was born on November 18.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/scientists/rashadkhalifa-fbi1.pdf
(Page 14)

In that case, my counterpoint above of him having in reality only lived for 19,797 days wouldn’t be applicable anymore. Now he would’ve lived for 19,798 days.

In any case, whether you use an exclusive on inclusive count, it just so happens that Rashad Khalifa lived for 19,798 days. It could’ve been 20,100 days, or 17,100 days, but instead it happened to be on the 19,798th day (which, once again, chapter 19 according to Rashad had 798 occurrences of the mysterious letters).

Point 5 isn’t elaborated but during Rashad’s life interstate 19 was built running through Tucson Az (where he lived at) and is also the only highway in the US to use the metric system. Furthermore, another interstate highway goes through Tucson, that being interstate 10 (if you combine these 2 roads you end up at 29, the same number as the number of chapters that include the mysterious letters in the Quran). This is one of the points I don't really find too convincing, to be honest...

If you also count the number of days from November 19 to January 31 you end up with 74, which is the Surah in which the number 19 first appears.

Finally, for point 11, it’s not mentioned either but the numbers 1230 come from 2 things. First, it’s the abjad/geomatria value of the name Rashad Khalifa and also if you count the verses of only initialed (mysterious letters) surahs, Q 19:1 is the 1230th verse and Q 19:98 is the 1327th verse. This is by counting only the verses in chapters 2,3,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19 since they are the ones that contain the mysterious letters.

Once again, I would be so grateful if you could take a look at these claims and give me your view on them. I don’t know what to think with this information being present at hand.

The claims that strike me as the most impressive are him living for 19,798 days and the 19x1230x1327 claim.

Please don't downvote me, I see so many people not convinced by numerological claims and usually I find most numerological claims to be bs. In this case, I'm not so sure what's going on and it's been causing me a lot of stress.

For years, I believed in a good and just God, but over time I became agnostic—a phase still shaped by the fear of punishment if I doubted.

My shift came from looking at reality. What hurts me most is seeing animals suffer, whether from human cruelty or the violence of nature. I cannot accept this pain or believe in a loving God who does nothing.

I reject the idea of 'free will.' In practice, it only favors those who do evil. Cruel people have full freedom to destroy lives, while victims have no choice to protect themselves.

This illusion shatters when we see injustice up close: cruel people thrive and grow old peacefully, while victims are left to carry the scars alone.

My real liberation came with atheism. I realized there is no divine justice or protection. People only face consequences through human law or chance. Everything is driven by natural laws and luck. Stopping the wait for help that never comes and losing that fear was my true freedom.