>discuss religion with christcucks
>i win
>feel bad about it after

anyone else like this?

>>81586567 (OP)
What benefit do I get out of becoming an atheist? Genuinely. I think it's better to be delusional about a religion on the slight off chance that it's actually real.

>>81586587
>it's better to be delusional about a religion
which one

>>81586587
i'm not an atheist either i just think it's absurd to pick a specific religion to believe in. yeah there is a non-zero chance that it's real but are you gonna dedicate your lifetime to it because of that practically zero percent chance? completely insane and irrational. don't you have more curiousity? how can you genuinely believe a religion? what a sad way to cap your potential

>>81586648
people who insist i need to accept jesus specifically is what can tilt me. and my impulse is to attack rather than help which makes me regret it when i calmed down later i guess
its just insane to me they that they can't see the connection between when and where they born and what the rest of their family believes and what they believe. i sound arrogant here but i had these thoughts at 6 or 7

>>81586648
You don't need to accept it for your entire life, just as long as you believe at the end of your life it's enough for most religions.

>>81586567 (OP)
You sound like a self absorbed narcissistic lmao

>>81586747
that's more or less the same thing though isnt it? in a way
if you are to genuinely accept something so closed-in and specific on your deathbed you can't have lived a very intellectually honest life imo, to be able to do that. maybe it's possible if you really fear death and become irrational but i just cant see it

>>81586790
I think to be an atheist is to not be intellectually honest, you have to be open to possibilities. Also just in a pragmatic sense I think it's worth it to have faith in something.

>>81586803
i agree..
>Also just in a pragmatic sense I think it's worth it to have faith in something.
right, but why pick one of thousands of very specific religions? why not have faith in some unspecific universal force, or "good", or "energy" or whatever. like, surely it's more pragmatic to zoom out (alot) to catch more potential truths? throwing out a bigger net so to speak. why pick roman coptic orthodox calvinism? or whatever

>>81586567 (OP)
Now discuss religion with Jews, cuck

>>81586861
sure, i just usually come across christcucks. many jews are cucked too (by their own dogmatic beliefs) though i suspect that many of them are more pragmatic and less literal in them

>>81586895
i'm also a cuck btw just not to organised religion

>>81586587
Pascals wager in 2025? Open a fucking book retard.

>>81586713
if jesus specifically tilts you, you have been heavily propagandized, if youre going to be an edgy atheist at least go whole hog and hate all religions instead of simply being a mindraped bitch

>>81587094
who said i hate religions? and why do you think i'm not critical of all religions?
i also specifically stated i wasn't an atheist
almost everything is wrong with your post

>>81587137
i would say i'm actually more critical of other religions, less refined ones like islam for example

>>81587094
you also clearly didn't understand why jesus "specifically" tilts me

>>81586567 (OP)
god is real, OP. no amount of science coping can change that.

>>81586567 (OP)
>discuss race with blackcels
>i win
>feel bad about it after

that's pretty much how it is, yeah

>>81586832
because Christ walked the Earth

>>81587189
binary black and white thinking is common in you religious people. like if team god is wrong then atheists must be right? like all these people in your picture? but everyone can intuit that something is lacking in their lives as well.
but why is it Jesus' love, though? lol
you're so uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity that when presented with the options you feel compelled to choose a specific religion (coincidentally usually the dominant one in the place and time where you were born)
it's understandable but not rational

>>81587298
>>81587189
you are like the third or fourth person to assume i'm an edgy atheist in this thread btw

>>81587298
it's actually the hindui pantheon that is real.

here's what athiests get wrong. they think
>"hmmm, god seems pretty illogical and irrational. I mean why would a GOOD god be such a prick like these examples in the bible"

hate to break it to you fool, but gods and goddesses exist. And they ARE just as big a faggots as you think. you ever think of that? that god does exist and he actually is just a faggot?

>>81587367
i'm fascinated by hinduism. not so much specific gods and goddesses but the idea of brahman himself/itself being identical to atman. and their cyclical and fractal view of reality. much more refined and clear than most other religions

>>81586567 (OP)
You didnt win. They will be happier in their delusions that you ever will be. The actually smart thing to do would be to give yourself permanent braindamage, such as through drug use, so that you too can become a Christian.

>>81586567 (OP)
>anyone else like this?
yes. can't rape the willing

>>81586567 (OP)
What was the debate topic and how did you win? A simple explanation of their point and yours.

Kike-on-a-stick worshippers are that way because they don't have much else to take pride in, so I get it. You just have to remember that this is their only life and they need kindness, actual kindness not meant to mislead them.

>>81586587
How do you know the other gods aren't real though?
Your bible proves that only your god exists but there are other bibles with other gods that say their god is the only one out there.

>>81588767
God exists outside of rational proof. There is no reason to believe that one is true over another except for
>1. Faith
>2. Probability
The first step is to acknowledge the possibility that some things may not be empirically verifiable, yet true. The second is realizing that it does not matter if you believe something that is either empirically unverifiable or simply not true. A belief has merit purely on account of its utility. A Christian gains utility for believing in the specific God that aligns with his desires and interests. These desires are shaped by social norms, as are an atheist's inclination and desire for a purely rationalistic world view. In either case, it only matters if the worldview brings the specific believer some utility. Belief in God is rational insofar as it brings utility to the believer.

In the Christian worldview (so as someone who has chosen to have faith) God reveals himself through Revelation. Revelation comes from the gift of the Holy Spirit. Choosing to believe, have faith, and be saved, results in the gift of a non-empirical force of divine revelation. Whether this is rational, unfalsifiable, or simply not true does not matter; The believer has chosen so because he desires so, meaning it is his own, and chosen with his desires in mind.

>>81588767
>>81588921
A second important note is that the average unconscious atheist is as irrational as the average unconscious Christian. There is quite literally nothing more or less rational about believing the Earth is hollow or flat than round or cubic. These are rather domains of knowledge. An atheist's domain of knowledge is typically much smaller than his domain of beliefs (the same as a Christian); for example, an atheist may believe the Earth is round. However, he does not, typically, know why it is round, or the science behind how gravity causes mass to aggregate as it does, or the counterarguments against the round Earth. He trusts that the academic establishment is truthful, skilled, and knowledgeable on the subject. A Christian similarly does not know the theological arguments for his beliefs. He trusts that the (Christian) academics and theologians are truthful, skilled, and knowledgeable on the subject.

In either case, primacy only arises from utility. Overwhelmingly, an atheist's only utility for believing God is not real is that he feels he can behave in accordance with his desires, or social pressures, or to feel a certain level of smug, unearned (yet nonetheless valid as regards to utility) satisfaction at being "rational". The same can be said of a Christian. There are very few people that are rational, and they are no more prevalent among either the irreligious or religious.

>>81586567 (OP)
Very likely you did not win, but it id also likely that neither of you were really arguing the same point. Do win an argument against me though, but don't worry about feeling bad afterwards should you trash me.

>>81586567 (OP)
>click on thread because I love rice and eggs
>it's actually about some gay religious debate
OP is always a faggot

>>81589174
>There are very few people that are rational, and they are no more prevalent among either the irreligious or religious.
nonsense. there may be very few rational people but you will not find them espousing nonsense like modern religion. or if they do it's symbolic, interpretative, like religion being music trying to describe silence. they would obviously never actually literally believe, and mistake the map for the territory as modern believers do and actually believe that specifically christianity explains creation and jesus' love can save people from eternal damnation and so on. lol
why would they?

>>81586567 (OP)
>discuss
>i win
um, anon?

you seem very hung up on utility, which may be very useful in describing why atheist and religious people are the way the are and believe what they believe but it isnt that relevant when talking about absolute actual truth. one would accept/go towards that no matter what if one was interested enough, no matter where it took it you. and that just would not be to organized religion. could you imagine intelligent lifeforms billions of lightyears away also arriving at the self evident truth that his roman catholicism? or whatever

>>81590349
yeah, kind of the problem. i started out arguing from reactivity and my energy was just stronger. i get triggered by religiosity sometimes and regret it after

>>81586567 (OP)
I am a deist and think discussing religion is pretty cringe unless explicitly asked to.

>>81590102
>I love rice and eggs
I hate rice and eggs, but love rice, eggs, and meat.

>>81590505
it can be frustrating though to see some of them try to impose their copes on others in ways that are damaging and so on, and you want to do something. but you need to be grounded and tactful which i can struggle with. you could inadvertently just make things worse. as not being grounded is kind of what causes their confusion to begin with

>>81590277
You should generally avoid discussing a topic if you do not understand it. What do you think rationality is?

>>81590389
>but it isnt that relevant when talking about absolute actual truth.
Do you know the absolute, actual truth?
>one would accept/go towards that no matter what if one was interested enough, no matter where it took it you.
How do you know?
>and that just would not be to organized religion. could you imagine intelligent lifeforms billions of lightyears away also arriving at the self evident truth that his roman catholicism?
What is your sample size of alien life forms?

>>81590532
Now we're talking. What kind of meat?

>>81590667
Do you know the absolute, actual truth?
no
How do you know?
because it follows that if truth and not utility was prio number one then you would sacrifice utility if required
>What is your sample size of alien life forms?
any, it was more to illustrate the point of how dependent your belief is to spawning at these very precise coordinates in this very very small segment of time

>>81590845
>any, it was more to illustrate the point of how dependent your belief is to spawning at these very precise coordinates in this very very small segment of time
The locality of a particular truth does not negate the truth. There are truths specific to your life that no one else will ever know, and they must have faith that you are reliable and truthful. The assumption that a truth must be uniformly distributed or accessible across the universe is irrational, and further, the assumption that an alien life form inherently cannot come to this supposed self-evident* conclusion is also irrational.
Pursuing this leads us to discussing probabilities, and is rather pointless because they aren't useful in these cases except as a form of rhetoric; For example, by using the hypothetical improbability of an alien life form believing something as a substitute for a real argument.

>if truth and not utility was prio number one then you would sacrifice utility if required
My argument for utility was one component of rationality. Namely, I explained that no matter if you believe the given belief is true or not, it can be from a rational motive. However, it is not all of it. A Christian's belief can be the result of purely rational inquiry, skepticism, evidence, and probability, and rational insofar as there is sufficient evidence for him to accept it, and he can choose to pursue that truth regardless of its utility.

You say rationality is where one goes towards the truth no matter where it takes them; Show a Christian proof that God is not real and he may believe you, no matter where it took him. What makes it less rational?

*Catholics generally believe that Catholicism is not self-evident. The official position is that the Catholic faith is not self-evident. It is revealed through general and special revelation (simply) and other means which make it local to Earth and those with access to these revelations. This, however, is outside the scope of this discussion.

>>81591503
>The assumption that a truth must be uniformly distributed or accessible across the universe is irrational
ultimate, foundational truth which at least i am interested in must be universal. like for example how or why anything exists at all.

>A Christian's belief can be the result of purely rational inquiry, skepticism, evidence, and probability, and rational insofar as there is sufficient evidence for him to accept it, and he can choose to pursue that truth regardless of its utility.
to lock in on something so rigid and limiting like any modern religion as a result of rational inquiry, evidence and probability seems absurd. what would any of those be based on? you say rational inquiry but it's just dogmatic belief. i cannot see how one can land on christianity through these methods any more than any other religion. actually the opposite, many religions are much more unrestricted and unassuming and therefore more likely candidates.
>My argument for utility was one component of rationality
yes i understand
>You say rationality is where one goes towards the truth no matter where it takes them; Show a Christian proof that God is not real and he may believe you, no matter where it took him. What makes it less rational?
what makes what less rational?
if i somehow could prove that then he would drop his belief if he was rational. i'm just saying it's not rational to be in that position to begin with.
i am not saying that your god isn't or cannot be real, just that picking a specific one is not rational beyond utility. i can also intuit that there is something more to this experience than just physicalist happenstance but to go from that to actually dedicating your life to a specific (even maybe a subgenre) religion is the irrational part for me

>>81591943
>ultimate, foundational truth which at least i am interested in must be universal. like for example how or why anything exists at all.
I am not sure that the only truths are the ones that you are interested in. I am also not sure what you mean by "universal", as if the universal truths are the only things that are rational to believe.
Many people study historical figures who we believe existed soley based on textual sources. Would an alien believe in Julius Caesar? Is his existence, were he real, universally true? If no, and even as we have no proof of his existence besides testimony, is it not still based on rational inquiry to believe his existence?

Christians have similar historical testimony for the existence of Jesus, not merely from primary biblical sources, but some contemporary hostile sources:
>Tacitus, Annals 15.44: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Tac.+Ann.+15.44&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078
This desire for a truth that can be known uniformly throughout the universe does not negate specific truths. However, I will accept that believing any particular is inherently irrational (because we cannot know that what we know is true). This would mean that atheists believe in a lot of irrelevant, non-universal truths in good measure.

>to lock in on something so rigid and limiting like any modern religion as a result of rational inquiry, evidence and probability seems absurd.
"Rigid and limiting" is a value judgement, and "seems absurd" is just a guess on your part. It seems absurd, but where is the absurdity? As for dogmas, yes, every ethical and moral system has dogmas and is justified by some other rational belief. For example, I am sure you hold it dogmatically true that we shouldn't rape and kill people for fun. Even accepting a dogma can be rational if it is done with rational understanding. You can recognize that your moral beliefs are not based on a universal truth but are nonetheless justified by rational inquiry.

>>81591943
>>81592728
The Christian's belief then becomes one that is spawned from the observation of textual evidence, testimony, peer-review, institutional consensus and, accepting that non-empirical phenomenon (roughly supernatural) are possible, one of private revelation. His dogmas are much like an atheists views on epistemology, ethics, or reality as a whole, which are typically dogmatic in themselves.

The Christian's dogma is mutable; It is founded on his understanding of the truth. As he partakes in rational inquiry regarding the nature of God, his understanding changes, and accordingly the dogmas. Modern Catholic faith is already the result of deep rational inquiry and textual research regarding the nature of God.

The dogmas can be understood better as the ethical, moral, or theological frameworks that spring up from the Christian's rational beliefs about God. They are known to be contingent on his understanding of God; similarly, the atheist's dogmas, his ethics and epistemology, are built on his rational inquiry about the universal truths, and they are contingent on those things he understands about reality. They change, in both cases, based on the information available to each.

The atheist may know that reality is unprovable, and that he accepts it on a basis that is purely utilitarian; Why operate under the assumption that reality is not imagined? That is based on his own rational inquiry, and he chooses a certain epistemological view based on the evidence available to him, his own desires, or faith. Why choose one branch over another? Aside from utility, there is none. To have a position at all requires some faith or pragmatic view to utility; Accordingly, the Christian has chosen understanding of reality, informed by rational inquiry, utility, and Faith.

>>81586567 (OP)
Any asshole can destroy something. Offering a better alternative to what has served a vital purpose to humanity for thousands of years is something else entirely. Religion may not be needed but something is still needed. You feel bad because you don't have an answer.

>>81586587
>I think it's better to be delusional about a religion on the slight off chance that it's actually real.
i 100% agree. but i cannot force the delusion on myself.

>t. agnostic

>>81591943
>>81592728
>>81592734
I will sleep soon, and likely before you reply.

I am sure your replies will be;
>1. Christians have a tendency to accept dogmas more uncritically.
>2. Christian dogmas tend not to be so based on empirical evidence.
I would assume these are the strongest arguments. For the first, it only appears so because you have an inclination to see your own "side's" beliefs as being accepted rationally, when they tend to be accepted dogmatically. Try discussing something with an atheist that makes someone uncomfortable. It will make them angry. He likely does not know why it's wrong to hurt people or be racists other than "it hurts people and stuff". He has taken these values and accepted them uncritically, and one could doubt he has ever examined whether it is okay to be racist critically. This kind if criticality is far beyond his comfort zone.
There are many other beliefs that atheists have that are dogmatic and not held to any criticism, not just in ethics or morality.

For the second, one could hardly say there is no empirical evidence. One must judge one side's evidence as not enough, but again this is just a personal judgement. In the past, for instance, there may not have been enough empirical evidence for germ theory. The dogmas themselves, prior to crystallization in major institutions, very much were held to critical standards. The many ecumenical councils and debates, people like Origen and Augustine for example, demonstrate that very clearly. For many Christians today, they are still open to altering their core values in light of new understandings about God.

This is the short of it. Post somewhere tomorrow if the thread dies in my sleep and I may find it to continue after I awake.

>>81586587
If you wanna cope by believing a religion at least pick something harmless like Deism instead of Christianity.

>>81586567 (OP)
The heat from the egg cooks the rice