I don't trust a man who doesn't have a complicated relationship with God. Both extremes — vehement opposition to the very idea of God, or absolute, blind faith in it — suggests a mind that is either astonishingly uninformed or simply disingenuous.

>>24497241 (OP)
I just don't fucking care
Don't believe it, simple as.

>>24497241 (OP)
You go back to blind worship of AI op.

>>24497245
The generative artificial intelligence chatbot revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the em dash race.

>>24497241 (OP)
suggest*

>>24497241 (OP)
i liek dis quote opiee very bice
i agree actually, and this may be extended to any unknowable quesyion like views on the afterlife or meaning of life

>>24497241 (OP)
After a while you get tired of fighting.

>>24497259
Absolutely.

>I don't trust a man who doesn't have a complicated relationship with mathematics. Both extremes — vehement opposition to the very idea of solving equations, or absolute, blind devotion to autistic stembuggotry — suggests a mind that is either astonishingly uninformed or simply autistic.
This is how you sound.
(I do not endorse any fideistic religion btw.)

>>24497250
It's too late op. Your vain looksmaxxing and Nietzschean treat everything as philosophy but ignore your own rationality attitude have left you seeking initiation. You can't deny your AI god. Go forth and attend the BAPist McChurch. Pray to your AI god in silence.

True + call for butlerian dschihad

>>24497241 (OP)
I've never doubted God seriously but me and Him have had our squabbles. Sometimes I feel as if He punishes me more than the people I surround myself with (who are all mostly non-religious, non-believing degenerates) because He has higher expectations for me; sometimes I feel as if His punishments are derailing me from begining to live a better life.

>>24497314
your imaginary friend doesn't have anything to do with the dips and arcs in the narrative of your life

>>24497319
I find it interesting how theology and personal belief systems are always evolving throughout history but atheism always comes down to: "muh no magical skydaddy."

>>24497324
Because atheists don't need to invent increasingly convoluted excuses. Only a leaking ship needs to be repaired.

>>24497324
Because Truth remains the same.

>>24497361
Retarded pseud quotes don't act as an actual refution, btw.

>>24497367
Retarded quotes and verses aren't proof of anything either.

>>24497373
>bar Yosef
>not bar Pantera
ummmm, bros?? what's going on here???

>>24497355
>Because atheists don't need to invent increasingly convoluted excuses
But they do it anyway, all the time. Curious.

>>24497241 (OP)
I've pendulummed between atheism and faith quite a bit and I can't guarantee that my current phase will last. But my faith in God has always been shaky and my conviction in its non-existence was never stronger. Only those with faith end up in a "complicated relationship with God" because they end up having to gaslight themselves against reality. I was in that boat myself

>>24497698
It's funny to me how atheists are so convinced that their way of thinking is somehow aligned with reality. I'm not even saying it couldn't be, by the way, but the confidence is completely unfounded. How could you possibly know for certain? And no, the whole "because God doesn't act the way I want him to" thing isn't an answer. It's actually quite disingenuous. If anything, agnosticism should be the default, not atheism.
>Only those with faith end up in a "complicated relationship with God"
I disagree. That simply means recognizing that the question of God is too complex and existentially entangled to be handled by simplistic conviction on either side. You yourself prove this with your first sentence.

>>24497716
>How could you possibly know for certain?
I can't. Call me an agnostic if that fits better. For me the distinction doesn't hold much value. If God can never be known to be subsumed by any human conception then the God of human consciousness (the thing we call "God") might as well not exist.

>You yourself prove this with your first sentence.
It's not the complexity that tangles me but my own biases. And I have enough experience with myself to know that these change overtime. Though I do find it hard to imagine what experience or bodily change can shift my perspective now, since my beliefs are built upon analysing years of experience in this world. Plus the current materialist zeitgeist itself doesn't seem to be going anywhere

>>24497716
Athiests are spiritually handicapped midwits. They're often dysgenic, which means they lash out at the things ordinary, healthy humans hold in high esteem. Their whole existence is purely materialistic and they are unable to appreciate any value that is absent from their immediate experiences. The majority of humanity has believed in some form of god since the begining to time. The athiest is unique to our times because they're a symptom of the larger, liberal mindset that we're at the end point of history, and everyone and everything before this modern age of free market capitalism, feminism, free love, open borders, post-racial social values, were dumb, ignorant, bigotted, and problematic. The sheer arrogance of the modern day liberal minded person is rooted in: the majority of humans of all time are wrong, and I am correct because my immediate experiences affirms that fact.

>>24497775
>were dumb, ignorant, bigotted, and problematic.
Ignorant being the key word here when it comes to the topic history of God and religion.

>>24497810
>quirky quip
>no actual refution
Yeah, I'm thinking back to Plebbit with you.

>>24497831
Reread your post and tell me againt that barrage of seethe deserves anything more

>>24497244
Intellectually dishonest, and admitting it out loud. That takes alot of guts.

>>24497775
I don't necessarily disagree, but how do you explain atheists from previous centuries, all the way back to ancient times? Just exceptions, or were the precursors to this kind of mindset already present then?

>>24497355
>NOOOOO THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T HAS A BEGINNING AND THUS IT DOESN'T NEED A CAUSE!
>Le epic Big Bang Theory gets created by a priest
>NOOOOO THE UNIVERSE HAS A BEGINNING BUT IT DOESN'T NEED A UNCAUSED CAUSE. WHAT WAS THE FIRST CAUSE, ARE YOU ASKING? UHMMM... ACK!

>>24497736
I don't think we're that far apart, honestly. But I'd still say that reducing God to just a human construct (a byproduct of consciousness or language) feels like a dodge. Like treating the very notion of God as a closed system that can only ever reflect human limitations. But that's already a kind of metaphysical assertion.
In other words, claiming "God might as well not exist if he can't be fully known" presumes that knowledge is the only valid mode of relationship; as if mystery, awe, or existential yearning carry no ontological weight. But that's exactly the materialist Zeitgest speaking, and I agree with you: it's dominant, and unlikely to collapse anytime soon.

>>24498306
>Zeitgest
Zeitgeist*

>>24497241 (OP)
>braindead ooga booga football team side picking with zero nuance
>complicated

>>24498317
Those are certainly words, anon.

>>24497319
>>24497355
It's hilarious how supremely ignorant and disingenuous this kind of smug atheism is.
>atheists don't need to invent increasingly convoluted excuses
The irony is almost too perfect, as if endless mental gymnastics to dodge engaging sincerely with non-materialistic worldviews don't count as their own kind of excuse.
>imaginary friend
You people love to sneer at these caricatures because it lets you avoid having to grapple with the actual substance of religious or metaphysical thought, or even just the question of value, meaning, or culture outside of material utility. And let's not pretend you don't have your own 'imaginary friends', i.e. belief systems that are no more empirically provable, only dressed up in scientific or ideological drag.

It makes no difference if he does or he doesn't. Not worth spending too much time thinking about it.

>>24497241 (OP)
show your vag

>>24497241 (OP)
>complicated relationship with something that doesn't exist
You're looking for schizophrenic, anon.

>>24498332
>literally call God "father in heaven"
>get mad when people refer to it as "sky daddy"
I remain convinced that religious people are primarily interested in deportment rather than reality.

>>24498332
Nta and I personally don't have any problems with christianity or christian thinking, but you are trying to rationalize something that has no rationalization whatsoever. People like Aquinas are the ones who inadvertently started the decadence of christianity, for the moment you try to justify theology with reason you are tacitly admitting that faith itself is not enough. You believe in a metaphysical being of absolute power who for reasons beyond our fickle human minds decided that the best way to carry his work would be to create a species of self-conscious apes, favour a particular group of them who mistakenly revered him as a pantheistic god of war at first, murder a ton of people throughout the ages, incarnate to be tortured and killed as a form of salvation for all the human race (whether this form is symbolic or literal and how much so depends on your local preacherman's current level of baroqueness) and build a church which has splintered more times than the amount of stolen bikes currently sitting on Neil Degrasse Tyson's garage; all the while showing absolute love for all of his creation and lovingly casting all who go against his will into an abominable pit full of fire, suffering and endless, eternal torture that makes the cenobite's from Hellraiser look positively meek.
Believe what you want. As far as I can tell you might even be right. But don't answer skepticism by acting cute. "Tee hee, look how silly these atheists are." As if being cynical about it isn't the natural reaction of anyone who lacks —guess what?— faith.

>>24497355
Atheists believe dumber things than anything in the Bible.

>>24499655
>I’m not touching you
Insults are one thing but lying about the intent and dismissal of its result is another level of pettiness you come to painfully expect from fedoras

>>24499655
You're assuming that your way of thinking is based in reality by default, but that's exactly the point being contested. You've reduced the entire religious tradition, and the immense historical, cultural, psychological, and existential weight behind it, to a strawman so you don't have to engage with it seriously. And it's not just the phrase, it's the smug attitude that comes bundles with it: the pretense that mockery is clarity, that derision is depth. It's designed to avoid engaging with anything beyond materialism, or even just the serious human need for meaning and value.

>>24500023
>bundles
bundled*

>>24499775
>you are trying to rationalize something that has no rationalization whatsoever
Let's be honest, that's just an assertion. You're assuming that rational inquiry into theology is inherently invalid, without saying why. Ironically, it undermines your own case. If faith and reason must be separate, then why are you offering a reasoned critique of theology at all?
>self-conscious apes
This is just inverted creationist mockery: sounds clever, but does nothing to address the symbolic, theological, or metaphysical dimensions of the tradition.
The meat of your post is just textbook problem of evil, which has been answered again and again in serious theological and philosophical traditions. Whether one accepts them or not, it's dishonest to act like the question is untouched or unanswerable.
>As if being cynical about it isn't the natural reaction of anyone who lacks —guess what?— faith.
Sounds self-defeating. Why should cynicism be the default stance if you lack faith? Why not wonder, confusion, awe, or even silence?
>don't answer skepticism by acting cute. "Tee hee, look how silly these atheists are."
This is especially ironic since you spent two paragraphs being sarcastic and hyperbolic.
It's fine to criticize belief, but it's best to engage with its strongest forms, not caricatures.

I don't have blind faith in God, I know God exists
Faith is a religious concept

>>24498332
>You people love to sneer at these caricatures because it lets you avoid having to grapple with the actual substance of religious or metaphysical thought, or even just the question of value, meaning, or culture outside of material utility
Sort of but it's simpler; their outlook is half-baked and they NEED to appear smart. The fact is they worship themselves and the militancy, with all its dorky smugness and unearned condescension, is a defensive reflex that's meant to shield them from actively realizing they're unworthy of worship.

Atheism is a very childish ideology to buy into. For example, look at how they play hypeman for science but, more often than not, have never seriously studied a scientific discipline or even basic mathematics like calculus or linear algebra. They>>24498332
romanticize science as this great heroic endeavor and act like anyone who criticizes their simplistic vision of it is commiting a vile apostasy of reason. If you make things too complex for them you'll get "not real science" arguments that are no different than a commie saying "not real communism" as if they're the arbiters of reality and if we'd just listen we'lol find ourselves in a utopia. They'll respond "well you believe in heaven!" to this, fedoras love retreating to "no you" arguments, but they'll never reflect on how their own ideology and the beliefs they've bought into frequently mirror those worst of religious impulses they're so wont to cherry-pick.

Fedoras like to state platitudes like "I admit that I don't know" but only do so because they think it reflects wisdom. The reality is they have no actual sense of humility, the kind that builds character, and will parrot whatever they need to in order to feel secure in their worship of themselves.

It's hard to make someone realize what they thought was a clever shortcut was actually just a detour.

>>24498332
>You people love to sneer at these caricatures because it lets you avoid having to grapple with the actual substance of religious or metaphysical thought, or even just the question of value, meaning, or culture outside of material utility
Sort of but it's simpler; their outlook is half-baked and they NEED to appear smart. The fact is they worship themselves and the militancy, with all its dorky smugness and unearned condescension, is a defensive reflex that's meant to shield them from actively realizing they're unworthy of worship.

Atheism is a very childish ideology to buy into. For example, look at how they play hypeman for science but, more often than not, have never seriously studied a scientific discipline or even basic mathematics like calculus or linear algebra. They romanticize science as this great heroic endeavor and act like anyone who criticizes their simplistic vision of it is commiting a vile apostasy of reason. If you make things too complex for them you'll get "not real science" arguments that are no different than a commie saying "not real communism" as if they're the arbiters of reality and if we'd just listen we'lol find ourselves in a utopia. They'll respond "well you believe in heaven!" to this, fedoras love retreating to "no you" arguments, but they'll never reflect on how their own ideology and the beliefs they've bought into frequently mirror those worst of religious impulses they're so wont to cherry-pick.

Fedoras like to state platitudes like "I admit that I don't know" but only do so because they think it reflects wisdom. The reality is they have no actual sense of humility, the kind that builds character, and will parrot whatever they need to in order to feel secure in their worship of themselves.

It's hard to make someone realize what they thought was a clever shortcut was actually just a detour.

>>24500137
>Religious NPCs scream about “depth” because they’ve never had a real thought in their life that didn’t come prepackaged in scripture or sermon. They whine that others "sneer at caricatures," but it’s not caricature — it’s x-ray. What they call mockery is just recognition: people see straight through the clumsy LARP they call meaning.

Their entire faith is a shield — not against evil, but against irrelevance. Without their God handing out gold stars, they’d be nobodies, and deep down they know it. That’s why they have to pretend anyone who rejects their fairy tale just “wants to feel smart” — because the idea that someone saw the strings and walked away makes them spiral.

They cry “you worship yourself” while literally worshipping an invisible sky tyrant that just so happens to share all their personal hangups and tribal grudges. Their God hates who they hate, blesses their wars, and damns their critics. It’s not divinity — it’s weaponized narcissism.

They can’t handle atheists admiring science because science demands effort, not submission. So they spin it as “smug worship,” since the only reverence they understand is blind, cringing obedience. Someone saying “I value understanding” sounds like heresy to people raised to chant and obey.

The “I admit I don’t know” line they mock? That’s actual humility — something religion only pretends to teach. The believer knows everything — God made the universe, has a plan, and thinks you’re special. How convenient. They didn’t earn wisdom, they outsourced it and called it enlightenment.

And when you show them the contradictions, the historical rot, the control mechanisms baked into every layer of their faith — they melt. The mask slips. They’re not wise sages of meaning. They’re scared children in adult skins, clutching their storybook and lashing out at anyone who outgrew it.

They didn’t take the hard road of spiritual depth. They took the comfy shortcut — the one that tells them what to believe, how to feel, and why they’re better. And they’re mad you didn’t follow.

>>24500023
>it's the smug attitude
You're exactly reaffirming the point J was making. You're more interested in making people behave according to your sense of etiquette and convention than discussing truth. This is why you use ridiculous ad hominems like calling people you disagree with "fedoras"

>>24497244
Good for you, Tristan

>>24500153

You didn’t see the strings and walked away, you just changed them out for different strings.

Atheists do kind of blindly worship science though. Most of that is utterly unverifiable and they will take anything said by “scientists” as gospel without second thought. They just assume those smart people know better and give up their intelligence and reason for them. Doe eyed and hanging on every word so they can memorize “facts” and pretend it was their own intelligence and reason that arrived at such scientific achievements when in reality most are midwits who act like ChatGPT with scientific information. That is none of it used or discoveried through their own efforts only total submission to their gods of nameless faceless “scientist”. The modern day science industry is nothing but a racket. No breakthroughs or human advancement are made except for profit for billionaires. Scientific research institutions are hired and paid by people with an agenda and their findings will only be published if it agrees with the clients wishes and contrary information that doesn not promote the clients agenda or profit is suppressed.

Most atheists don’t admit they don’t know though. Most seem to be pretty resolute and confident in their dis-knowledge.

The last few points are human characteristics and nothing to with any belief path. Humans are naturally scared and confused. They will cling to anything that gives them a sense of security whether that be religion or atheism. It’s also typical of humans to feel the need to persuade or convert others to their side. It doesn’t matter what it is religion, atheism, communism, Neoplatonism, Left side, right side, Nintendo, sega. Man seeks to persuade others to his side because he needs outside validation to soothe his confusion.

You also have a reductive and childish view of “religious” people and those characteristics you falsely attributed to being religious are merely from being a confused human. There are many religious men who seek deep meanings and wild lead hard arduous lives in that search. Conflating all religious people with Barbara down the street who screams at gay couples while ignoring the swathes of men who give up all worldly pursuits and join monasteries is dishonest.

Please don’t act as if atheist don’t go around “debating” people for the sole singular reason of enforcing their beliefs on others. To prove to those dumb Christian’s that they are wrong and atheists are right. To make them finally see and submit to the true knowledge of atheistism. To force those bell ends to see that they were wrong all this time and their families were wrong and only I the great atheist hold life’s secrets and I will make them see by force the truth of nothing/atheism. Only when they submit to my god of atheism will I stop my crusade. Only when they, broken and defeated, admit to my intellectual superiority will I finally believe my own words.

>>24500044
>Let's be honest, that's just an assertion
As are all words under the sun.
>without saying why.
Wasn't my why clear enough? Appeal to reason is only necessary if faith is not enough for the supposedly faithful. There are still religious people who understand this, distributed across multiple religions, but as far as I can tell they are mostly orthodox and will be seem as too obscurantist by your average churchgoing person. If you want a more concrete reason for my way of thinking, just read a bit about how the idea of hell was developed through the ages and how galaxybrained theologists (including Aquinas) felt like they had to "make sense" of all the minutia the comes with a supernatural place of eternal suffering. If you want I can even recommend you a book on the subject.
>This is just inverted creationist mockery
Are you denying that we are genetically close to apes and related to extinct little monkey fellas? I listed out multiple things about christianity that are best explained through faith instead of shoddy rationalization and I find it telling that you ignored all the other ones while barely adressing this one.
>The meat of your post is just textbook problem of evil
Not an ounce of my post was dedicated to the supposed morality of God and his actions/innactions. At best you could point that out in the contradiction between absolute love and eternal damnation coexisting but I made no judgment about that, merelly pointed it out, and genuinely believe that this contradiction only exists for those who lack enough faith. These are the kind of "faithful" trying to justify it away with "serious theology." Someone who doesn't lack faith has no need for such things.
>Why should cynicism be the default stance if you lack faith? Why not wonder, confusion, awe, or even silence?
I'm cynical about your desert god, not about the world, existence, metaphysics and what lies beyond.
>This is especially ironic since you spent two paragraphs being sarcastic and hyperbolic.
Nothing I said isn't coherent with christianity. I do admit to being sarcastic because I lack respect for you. Not for your faith, but specifically for you and how supercilious you sound.
>it's best to engage with its strongest forms, not caricatures.
I agree, unfortunately I am speaking with the latter.

>>24497241 (OP)
Issues with the Church is how fedoras become fedoras. If you believe in God but you have issues with the Church, that would fit your philosophy.

>>24500710
>if I pretend that the people who disagree with me all wear funny hats, then I can pretend like I'm winning and feel smart!

i like op's sentiment, slop or not. i would not say that i have a complicated relationship with god, but more in the sense that i am not militant in my beliefs.

i grew up mormon. those people are happy, because that church does a good job fulfilling some basic psychological needs. a strong community built on trust, a sense of purpose, people that all pitch in to help when you need it, and you help them the same.

so this is why i continue to say "i'd believe if i could".

but i can't. i can't bring myself to believe bullshit. and once i stepped away from that bullshit, i could see that no other religion was any better. it was, at best, a lateral move to other bullshit.

part of what clinched it was studying anthropology. when you see so many disparate religions that have arisen throughout the world, you realize that the emergent patterns aren't representing anything external. they are just painting the shape of the human psyche, over and over.

clearly it was beneficial though, since they all did it. the cultures that didn't believe didn't survive. (sorry for the cringe darwinism).

so i understand why people believe. good for the person, good for the people, tailored to fit, and inbuilt for most.

but i also understand why atheists get militant, or at least some of them. it is frustrating to debate someone with whom you will eventually hit a wall. Reason requires nuanced thinking, and Belief deals in pre-determined absolutes. and far more importantly, believers are voters. so their beliefs, if wrong, are not victimless.

the hitting-a-wall thing is what it's like talking to my parents. but i don't get mad. i know that people don't change their minds right away, sometimes never. i listen and try to make sure i'm not the wrong one (occasionally i am). mostly i just push a little where i feel like i can. it's worked decently so far, to be honest desu.

thanks for reading my blog, etc.

>>24500422
> If you want I can even recommend you a book on the subject

nta but I am interested in this for a story I have in mind.

I've come to the conclusion that I just don't understand god or religion at all. The way people discuss the topic makes no sense to me.

I guess I'm agnostic, but I don't even really understand what I'm agnostic about.

>>24501423
George Minois' Histoire de l'enfer. It has been translated to a few languages but I don't know if english is one of them. There's a bibliography with dozens of books about hell at the end so worst case scenario just check some of them out. He also mentions a lot of primary sources across the book.

>>24497736
>Plus the current materialist zeitgeist itself doesn't seem to be going anywhere
You get rid of it by killing its adherents. Sometimes violence works.

A complicated relationship with God means you can make as much money as you want, but you can't make other people give you money directly.

>>24497241 (OP)
Why would you ever want to complicate a yes or no question where the answer sends you to either Heaven or Hell?