Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?

Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?

Think about it.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

there is, belonging to a religious group has benefits

there isn't a single rational reason to believe in god

CURRENT YEAR

Probably not.

OP man created God, not the other way around

This is never going to be a thing.

Science pretty much has answered all the stuff theism asks about, so nope.

only if you have a phd in philosophy

meh

Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).

Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.

Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.

True
Origin of man
Origin of life
Origin of earth
Origin of the universe

are all stuff religion used god as an easy answer for, now we know the real natural occurences for all of them and don't need god as an explanation anymore

>things you can do if you are a theist
run for president in america
not pay tax on church related business
be part of a relatively safe group, less murderers etc
receive support, financial, emotional, medical etc from members hoping to earn their deities favour
be reasonably sure all the yung pussy in church is virgin
have access to church run enterprise, like child care, low interest money lending etc

i could go on im sure

Pretty much

Belief systems are an integral part in how our brains evolved. Manipulating your own belief system to empower yourself and strengthen your mind is an important toolset utilized by the strongest members of our society. There is no "rational" reason, but nothing about life or reality is rational by virtue of its own existence. If you believe life is "rational" than you are deluding yourself. Agents of order are unknowingly agents of chaos under the employ of someone or something stronger than themselves. The next stage of human evolution is remembering that we ourselves are god, and god is everything and everything is the same.

yes

>Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).
my country has an areligious majority.

>Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.
as opposed to secular charities?

>Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.
muh pascal's wager.

hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.

It's cool to believe in Jesus

no it aint

>rational
>believes in religion

Pick one.

what is it with you faggots not being able to tell the difference between religion and god

What is it with you pedants and pretending that they're mutually exclusive. They're intertwined, regardless of how hypocritical the faith may be.

OP is asking about believing in theism.

they aren't mutually exclusive, they are different things

you can't believe or not believe in religion, it is a real thing regardless of your opinion

I thought you fedora fuckers were meant to be intelligent

...

this

Well arn't you quite the antagonistic soul.

>my country has an areligious majority.
Sorry I assumed you were in a major country where religion is prevalent.

>as opposed to secular charities?
I did already point out that volunteer work from anywhere was looked upon as good, did I not?

>muh pascal's wager.
So what? It's still a compelling argument to some.

>hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.
It all depends on perspective. Also, who's to say there is a right or wrong god? Certainly not you.

If you don't want to believe, fine. You have that prerogative.
Enjoy that. Many people find solace and community in churches. Many find it in other ways.

Just because I don't believe myself, doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to make them feel bad for their own personal decisions. We are rational beings who have the choice to make our own decisions, dispite your feelings.

Belong to no religion and believe in God. It's the safest way.
Still an Atheist though

>safest

What makes it safe?

Can't we all just get along?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

...

>their own personal decisions
Nobody got a problem with that. it starts to become a problem when religion is used to carve out a privileged position in public policy.

>Discriminating at the workplace is ille-
>nuh-uh, religious family business!
>o-ok, i'm soooooo sorry, carry on with your discrimination then, god bless your soul

If a God exists, he certainly wouldn't want you to pray to the wrong God. Therefore, belong to no religion.
If a God exists, he wouldn't like to not be believed in either. So, believe in a God and stay religion free.

>believe in God
>Still an Atheist
what?

I am an atheist
To believe is safer

atheist = not believing.
so you're saying you don't believe but think it would be safer to believe? or are you saying you don't really believe but do sortof believe at the same time because it improves your safety?

have you considered that it might decrease your safety because god is a vengeful one and hates believers paying lipservice?

What makes you think a God would care what it's creation believes?

community involvement.

that answers how, not why.

There is no why.

not everyone wants to believe that.

I have
If God values logic, I am safe. If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
However, the point I am trying to make is "To belong to no religion and to believe in a God is safer" because if you don't belong to a religion you don't believe in one of the known Gods. But you still believe a superpower exists somewhere. God, if it exists, will appreciate it.

The how is the why, given they're natural occurrences.

...

Science has never discredited creationism, if anything it has empowered it.

I assume you made some kind of major typo there?

>If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
He could hate you for not-believing just as much as believing in false gods.

Unbelievers and heretics.

>God, if it exists, will appreciate it.
but you didn't live according to the holy scriptures, sinner!

agreed

No. Evolution, the Higgs Boson particle, and the Big Bang devalue theism about as much as understanding how children are born.

all of those discredit it

Creationism was proved to be bullshit in every area

But they don't. They're explanations of a process, not by any means a conclusion.

A natural process that needs zero supernatural bullshit

>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have know which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.

showing how a process works without external intervention takes many points where a previously-believed-to-be-necessary sentient creator would have to be present. Therefore it reduces the possibility-space of creationism.

Before evolution you could have argued that god created every modern species as it exists. After that you could only argue he created the original life. After a theory of biogenesis you can only argue he created the universe with the planet in it. After understanding the big bang you could only argue he set things into motion etc. etc.

I find it funny that no matter how eloquent arguments are in religious debates, they only serve to strengthen the resolve of the other person.

>"Oh yea?? I'll show you!"

If there is a god and he's like he is in the books i wouldn't worship him anyway

Not far enough to have one side murder the other and settle things once and for all.

>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have known which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.

Dissecting the processes of doesn't discredit the belief that something put those processes in place. You guys seriously don't see how this argument pans out? We'd be better off arguing which came first; the chicken or the egg?

It was not for a lack of trying.

Would blindly believing in something fictional be also rational if it brought you happiness and peace of mind in this existence?

If you postulate that there MUST be something that puts the processes into place, then there also MUST be something that created god.

Otherwise you argue that there can be a final cause, and why not stop at physical processes for final causes?

You can't deny your own opinion. If you believe that science is the only option, then that is your opinion, or possibly truth.

>Atheist
>Win

Emphasis on natural occurences

Santa Clause was the shit. I totally wish that was a lifelong thing. I don't care about logistics.

If it weren't for mudslimes and niggers we would be winning.

shut up

Science can't rationalize the beginning of the universe anymore than theology. Arguing a "start" is no more reasonable than an "always", that there has always been a universe. Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God. It defies our understanding of finite and infinite. It's a quantum vacuum that mankind will never answer, but we're damn good at convincing ourselves we can. Cough.

Big Bang?

>Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God.
I do not follow that argument.

It's theology that argues that there must be a god because something must have been the first cause. But that's basically a +1 argument. why not +0 or +2. I.e. no god or a meta-god. Even if you accept their argument that there must be a first cause, it does not follow that that first cause is anything they call god.

There are plenty, yes.

Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people? No, not really.

What about it? You're telling me a giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere and exploded to create the universe as we know it? That's crazy. Sounds like something out of the Bible. Heh.

No, but really, did you read my post at all? The argument is a quantum vacuum with a recurring theme; what made that? What was before that? Infinity. Stuff we can't grasp because of mortality itself.

that doesn't sound like anything from the bible

>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people?
It is if they use those believes to justify anti-social behavior or political demands without other foundations.

You know, sharia law for example?

You can't quantify infinity and your insistence that the argument must be something created God for continuity's sake is proof of that. Omnipotency can't create omnipotency, it's a moot point.

The inference was it sounded crazy enough to be out of the bible, not that it literally sounded like something out of the book of Matthew, you daft cunt.

>giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere
First of all, that's not even close to what happened. Secondly, following the second law of thermodynamics we are basically feasting on the corpse of the big bang. it was one highly-ordered energetic state that has been decaying, becoming more chaotic, ever since.

So in a sense nothing was created. If you wanted a religious interpretation then maybe god died that moment and we are the maggots eating his corpse.

Maybe /tg/ knows of some necromancer religion worshipping death, that would be more in line with what happened.

>You can't quantify infinity
Math 101, F, see me after lectures.

You're literally agreeing that it must have always been there which breaks all logic

The integers never end either way. There is no beginning or end therefore it can't be quantified. Pi has not and never will be fully quantified, but it doesn't have to be because it's not a range. Who needs to go back to Math 101 again?

It doesn't sound crazy

You have oh so much to offer, don't you. What with your omnipotent opinions

Time only makes sense for our own universe. So if the big bang arose from a singularity, and not a big bounce for example, then there is no before. and even if it was a big bounce it's possible that the point where it happened basically erased causality between the old and the new.

This discussion trivializes way too many things.

I just hate Richard Dawkins.

Quantum. Vacuum.

I just got here, but are we really doing the irreducibly complex, creation debate right now? Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator. Then, why do we have a creator? I hope that wasn't too terribly butchered, but I'm pretty sure that argument has already been put to rest pretty thoroughly.

Taoist here. You're all wrong. Everything just is. Now shuttup and enjoy your life, or don't I don't mind.

Does it count if you worship money???

Yep. Your post is simple, yet says it all. I was trying to remember when I "found out" there wasn't a santa clause. Felt a combination of confidence, as I "figured something out". Growth/maturity. And the "end of something".
Ignorance is bliss? I don't know.

There is one reason. Believers usually go beyond metaphysics. But this is where science has explanations (facts about the universe, evoultion, biology, neuro-science, etc) and religion has no sense.

If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational. They say "ignorance is bliss." And it may be true.

Dawkins doesn't seem that happy tbh.

When you boil it down, for all his pontificating and postulating and eyebrow wiggling, he's wasted his life just as much as the religionfags. Maybe more.

The most rational thing would seem to be focusing on your own life, because it'll be over before you know it. And whatever happens after that... nobody knows.

Yep.

>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?
Low intelligence

>>
I'm sorry, but is fundamentally disagreeing with someone not a rational and or legitimate reason?

I take issue with your statement (what I would consider a belief) right here and now. If your beliefs infringe upon my beliefs, then who gets to prevail?

Fuck it, just cut off my hand and send me to jail. Turns out that I actually do feel bad for looking at that purple camel on the third tuesday of november. Nevermind.

Well nobody knows what happens till they are dead. If you keep to yourself you aren't hurting anyone.

When you're dead you're dead

You have to equate yourself to God for that argument to work, which is once again a matter of concept(flawed at that) not fact.

You cease to exist. We have zero evidence to the contrary.