He isn't going to spoon feed you also, use your hands and type the names into google. Btw there are a lot more religions which have their own creation narratives.

Also what is the purpose of your inquiry? Since you already conceded personal anecdotes are unreliable, perhaps now you will turn to casting lots or looking at animal entrails for clues as a reliable means to determine which is the true religion.

This post was edited by addone on May 27 2026 04:17am

Hook, line and sinker. I wanted to see how they responded but you decided to do it on their behalf. You see the fact that your response was "use your hands and type the names into google" tells me everything I need to know. Imagine if someone came up to a Christian who was genuinely asking about what this whole Christian stuff is about by asking about Genesis in particular and our response is "Go and find out yourself." We would be doing Jesus a great miss-service by doing so. It's hard enough finding people who are genuinely interested in sitting down and studying The Word. Now here comes along someone coming to us instead. How much of a great joy that must be!

We Christians would love nothing more than for people to come to us and ask these questions as they are genuinely interested. We are excited about the fact that we get to teach others about The Bible as that is something we cannot do in Heaven.

Since you responded with "Go find out yourself on Google", that tells me that I shouldn't share any form of excitement and that you don't take these gods seriously, or maybe you are ashamed to talk about those listed gods yourself.

I guarantee if you go up to a Christian and ask them about any particular topic within The Bible, that they would be joyful and be more than happy to share it with you.

I'll just grant that Christianity is fake. Regardless, it's still best ethical frame work to govern society with. Who has a better ethical framework? The atheist/secularists have a subjective stance dependent view on morals. How can something be immoral if everything you believe is dependant on stance. Where the Christian has a objective moral stance to appeal too. Its unchanging and concrete.

We thought you wanted a list of religions that challenged creation narrative we delivered. But you didn't actually want the content, your strategy all along was to wear us down with your excessive demands spoon feeding you information you never were going to process anyway so that you can come in with "gotcha". Thanks for exposing yourself grifter.
You know that I am not religious yet you still expect me to be excited on behalf of other religions. Thats like expecting a dog to be excited to be a cat then concluding cats aren't real because a dog didn't meet your expectation of excitement.

Being excited and talking about a subject doesn't make the subject true. There are plenty of religious people who will happily spend entire day talking to you about their religion. For example there is a Hare Krishna on every corner jumping with excitement chanting does that mean Krishna is real? Another unreliable yardstick for measuring truth.

Also if you were so "happy and joyful" in talking about your religion how come there is radio silence when it comes to the matter of proving your god? How come christians scatter like cockroaches when "prove it" is mentioned?

your absolutely religious. especially your definition.
your faith is beyond measure even you cant define it.
your claim to godhood is even greater than your average 'atheist
the 'atheist who isnt a 'atheist who posts 'atheist memes

the irony of it all is the 'atheist is to moost religious kook of the whole group


This post was edited by TiStuff on May 27 2026 05:05pm

Yes it is fake thanks for acknowledging. Even though this thread isn't about the efficacy, christianity doesn't provide best ethical framework not even close. If you did exactly as the bible instructs you would be in jail.
Most if not all ethical framework that we have today didn't originate from the bible.

Christian god's objectivity rests on faith-based presuppositions not emperical verifiable facts. You cannot claim objective morality stance without engaging in circular logic or subjective religious preference.

The Euthyphro Dilemma:

Originating from Plato, this dilemma challenges the connection between God and goodness by asking: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

Arbitrariness Horn: If actions are good solely because God commands them, morality becomes arbitrary. In this view, God could theoretically command murder or theft, and those acts would instantly become "good." This makes morality a product of divine whim rather than intrinsic value.

Independence Horn: If God commands actions because they are already good, then morality exists independently of God. This implies a standard of goodness higher than or external to God, which contradicts the claim that God is the ultimate source and sovereign of all reality.

The "Nature" Response: While theologians often argue that God’s nature solves this (God cannot command evil because His nature is good), this merely shifts the problem. It raises the question of whether God’s nature is good by definition (circular) or if it adheres to an external standard of "goodness" that defines what a "good nature" looks like.

i'm off 2 bendryl rn about to see the hat man.

How would we be in jail if we did exactly as the bible instructs? Articulate this please.

What moral or ethical framework is not derivative of biblical instruction? Be specific.

This post was edited by Coerce on May 27 2026 07:59pm

Following Jesus's example would put us in jail?

Here is a few there are many more

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 kYou may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel lyou shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Exodus 21:17
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death

Let take any morals like you shall not kill/murder. This was a long established rule of law in most civilizations which predate any Bible, Torah or the Quran.
Do unto others or the golden rule has been long long established principle to live by. Before the phrase was coined it was just reciprocity. The earliest known formulation is found in ancient Egyptian texts, specifically The Eloquent Peasant (c. 2040–1650 BCE) and The Instructions of Ptahhotep (c. 2400 BCE), which advocate for reciprocity and harmony.

Specific enough for you?