Відео

you are speaking about Buddhism and hippy culture... I had to stop at 45s

Interesting that you refer to the Christian monks who brought Christianity to Ireland. When Saint Patrick was in North Ireland trying to eradicate the burning of children as human sacrifices his monks where building the monastery of Iona. Saint Columba gave a speech to the assembled monks. "It good for us that our roots should go under the earth here; it is permitted that one of you should go under the earth here; it is permitted that one of you go under the clay of this island to hallow it". He was buried alive, but went straight to heaven with no purgatory. This is human sacrifice practised on every continent on earth. Foundation sacrifice. Christianity was fighting against the old religion while practicing it. Our bible tells us that sin can only be forgiven by suffering or death . A human sacrifice dogma. We continue to live on the Planet of the Vampire Gods. Our suffering is being fed upon.

It would be so much easier if you just turn to Orthodox Christianity and read the tons of ascetic literature on which teachings it emphasises. For example "Dorotheus of Gaza". His writings are a must to understanding the Christ teachings in practice. And there are many, many more which are totally ignored in western Christianity. But you also need to know that "Monasticism" appeared quite late in the Christianity history (almost 300 years later - Antony the Great) and at first it was quite organised and this is quite clear from the Saint Paul writings in the New Testament. Also you need to be very careful in trying interpreting the Christ worlds by yourself. This might lead you to quite wrong conclusions which happened a lot of times through the history and which is the reason why there are so many protestant deviations. Orthodox Christianity accepts only the sum of common understanding of Christ teachings by all the holly man which lived for the last two thousand years and who devoted all their lives to Christ.

The real teacher is the Buddha, Christ is just a copy paste of Buddha's teaching in Europe and then used as a political instrument

Alot of people get "turn the other cheek" wrong too . Do you know what turning the other cheek is good for ?

This critique of Peterson is shallow and ultimately biased. Peterson explore the Bible as a cultural treasure that must be used as a key for enriching life with meaning. As a very spiritual and altruistic person, Peterson incarnates the Gospel and Christianity through his good deeds and benign influence over million people. Left-wing academics, politicians, and their flocks have chosen Peterson as their favorite enemy. They hate Peterson's acute criticism on their bad-faith, doctrination strategies, and, most of all, incomplete and wrong understanding of the world.

I love your channel.

i found your closing remark uniquely meaningful, if not memorable as well, and when looking to find some other videos on the channel and seeing that you espouse pursuing wisdom traditions without ties to any i found it to be surprisingly contradictory with reference to your closing remarks being about a daily connection with Christ . .how can you have a sincere dialogue with Christ if you don't hold ties to any wisdom traditions,. . . indeed, if someone lives such a mandate to interact with Christ on a daily level i think they would indeed flourish in or within a Godly relationship as such, well for the record remember this, Christ did not say the most important thing in life was to love thy neighbour he said it was to love the lord God with all your heart and to ' love your neighbour as yourself,' and so, leaving out loving God is not optional . .that said i still think that your intent to answer to or speak to Christ each day was brilliant and beautiful, God bless and much love .. : ) . .

I like Dr. Gabor Mate's assessment of Dr, Jordon Peterson. That Jordon is an extremely angry man who doesn't seem to really understand where all of his anger is coming from. But isn't this true of a lot of Christians? 💙

The Christian Trinity which isn’t Biblical at all should be understood to symbolize the union of the Flavians and the Alexanders and the Pisos. Ever notice how the narrator of the writings attributed to Saul/Paul and those of Josephus have a psychological similarity? They both started out on one side and then converted to the other. Epistolary Fiction was extremely popular in the ancient Greco-Roman world. As was Midrash in the ancient Jewish world. And Emperor Vespasian was a big believer in propaganda. If the Flavians were capable of creating something like the Roman Coliseum. Just think what they might be capable of had they wanted to create a new parental deity religion? Which the ancient world had been doing for quite a long time. When the Greeks conquered Kemet which they called Egypt. They created a hybrid parental deity in order to combine Egyptian mythology with Greek mythology. So they combined the Egyptian God Thoth with the Greek God Hermes. They called him Hermes Trismegistus III. Which means… “The Thrice Great.” He was famous for triumphing over the season of death. Which is what the number 3 almost always symbolizes in World Mythology. Isn't this what the Flavian Dynasty did after conquering the Jews? Didn't they create a new hybrid form of Greco-Roman Judaism? To integrate Jewish mythology with Greco-Roman mythology? Calling him… “Jesus The Christ.” Who is also famous for triumphing over the season of death. As represented by… “The Trinity.” Again the sacred number 3. Isn't this a better explanation for the origins of Christianity rather than Harry Houdini magic? Wasn't Paul secretly working for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original Roman Catholic Saints' members of the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original symbols used by the earliest Christians identical to those of the Flavian Dynasty? And wasn't the earliest iconographic image of Jesus The Christ, in a catacomb, under the city of Rome, which was owned by a Flavian Princess? Weren't all of the original Jesus cult texts produced under the oversight of the Flavian Dynasty? Didn't the Flavian Dynasty posses the only remaining copy of the Hebrew Tanakh other than the Greek Septuagint translation? Isn't there Flavian typology in the Gospels? Weren't the canonical texts all back dated like the historical fiction of Gone With The Wind? Which was written in the 193O's but back-dated to the 185O's and 186O's. Wasn't Emperor Vespasian known as the Jewish Messiah? Wasn’t Pope Clement of Rome a Flavian? Wasn't Josephus a temple whore for the Flavian Dynasty? Just like Tacitus. Weren't the Flavian’s, as well as Paul, descended from King Herod? There was no separation of Church and State in the Roman Empire. And Christianity is clearly a Greco-Roman hybrid form of Judaism created by the Flavian Dynasty. As an attempt to adapt, pacify, and integrate the rebellious and defiant Jews into the rest of the Greco-Roman Empire. Just like the Greeks created Hermes Trismegistus to integrate Egyptian mythology with Greek mythology. Then finally Neo-Flavian Constantine chose the Flavian family religion to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. In order to consolidate power in his fractured Empire. As well as to generate revenue for his depleted treasury. And then Eusebius edited and rewrote the history of the previous 3OO years. Destroying all contradictory evidence. Such as all of the non-canonical Jesus cult texts. It isn't history it is all simply Greco-Roman mythopoetic literature. Today it is known as Historical Fiction. “What profit hath not this fable of Christ brought us.” Pope Leo X 💙

What an absolute dipshit elitist take...

Why are you talking about relationships with sentient beings while hunting them? Eat a can of beans, it won’t make you weaker. A vegan was literally World’s strongest man. Many Marathon runners are vegan. Protein is protein. It’s a molecular compound. You don’t lose anything by getting it from plants. Eating flesh is closer to cannibalism than eating plants is to “rabbit food” or some other pathetic fake macho view of veganism…

ya, a thousand years from now they'll probably the mistreatment of animals similar to how we view racism and slavery now, obviously wrong but accepted by almost everyone at the time

hunted food is only availeable to few people and is not sustainable for world population at all, people kill 82 000 000 000 land animals every year, now imagine how much land it would take, there's not enough on this planet with current population. hunting in larger scale requires breeding animals into existance just to be killed and eaten at the end and you know that life of wild animals isn't full of joy, it's cruel, so why force them to experiance that by billions?

what deg*nerate cr*p did the algorithm provide me once again

I read the title as "Alex O'Connor No Longer Matters".

Why does it matter how an animal is killed? In the name of God? If that’s what God asks, then what role does the devil have? What did they eat in paradise before the world was thrown into sin? Why was Jesus outraged in the temple? “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” I can go on. If you listen to Vegan UA-camrs, and if you are honest with yourself, you will realise there is no excuse for animal cruelty. And I also recommend watching Christspiracy.

Excellent video brother

Why use phrase "self-proclaimed atheist", what are you trying to achieve by that, sound smart? Also: who else coming from Aron Ra's video?

Sometimes, we don't know all the facts. Discourse is a real-world issue.

You and the critic are picking and choosing from Peterson who, only recently, has talked about the need for Christ in our lives. You talk rubbish now, and you were rubbish on the new Top Gear.

The answer to the questions, Does it matter? Is there proof of a god? As far as atheism that is my only question, the rest is fluff. Cigarettes give a rush and make smokers feel good, so is the feeling good beneficial? Religion has been the most successful intellectual road block for humankind. One can only imagine where would be without centuries of stifling religious demands. The examples are endless. Sure it was helpful but now taken too far. It is silly and sad to see grown men and women spend their lives defending fables from old books.

"Selfproclaimed atheist." What a sheep-like and sequacious way to construct an expression. It has the same redundancy as, let's say self-proclaimed pacifist. It isn’t a title or rank someone bestows on you.

Most of us were indoctrinated with one religion or another as children. A few of us were fortunate enough to have subsequent experiences that gave us the tools to undo that indoctrination. EUDEMONIA (or Human Flourishing) December 2024 Why is there SOMETHING, instead of NOTHING. It’s a mystery! It confounds philosophy, quantum physics, and cosmology. Whence came energy, and matter, and the laws of nature? Were they deftly ordained by a Divine Creator? No, a god can’t be the answer, it begets a two-part question, what begot that god, is there an infinite regression? Theology’s sophistries, with special pleading, used etiology, and the illusion of design, and tendentious teleology. Stone Age people, for want of any science education, invoked gods and spirits in their explication of forces of nature, both wondrous and frightening, like fire and flood and thunder and lightning. Their superstitious beliefs they thought made sense of a world incomprehensible, mired in their ignorance. From shamans in trances to praying priests on a mission, mankind’s ‘Original Sin’ was ‘The Fall’ for superstition. Since the brutal Bronze Age we’ve endured the Inquisition, Holy Crusades, the Holocaust, and the many Wars of Religion, and yet the gods in their abode remained silent and invisible, though they still begot theology that’s really quite risible. If a god were real, to spare us havoc, it should reveal its plan, but the gods, all, were made in the image of man. So, what confounds the concept of objective morality? Why, all the gods who condoned their own immorality. Could an ethical god create cruel congeries of carnivores, with canine teeth, raptorial beaks, venomous fangs, and claws? Did a god create parasites, bacteria, and viruses like herpes, but keep hidden from us that germs can cause diseases? Did it make men strong, but some, brutal in seduction, yet give women all the burdens of human reproduction? No! A moral agent, to be ethical, accepts their duty of care, so, not one of mankind’s gods could be ethical, just, or fair. Jehovah, Christianity's Almighty Lord God, lords it over Heaven, though he's a sordid old sod. He's malicious, capricious, jealous, and genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, and megalomaniacal. He tasks his sidekick, Satan, with cruel sadism in Hell, torturing 'sinners' for all eternity, and atheists as well! So, as the problems with theodicies remain unresolved, Jehovah, from his turpitude, cannot be absolved. See the Sikh, Muslim, Jain, and Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist, Spiritualist, Wiccan, Christian, and Jew, Confucianist, Shintoist, Taoist, and Hindu. Yea verily, the faithful at prayer look vacant and dopey; prayer doesn’t work, it's fatuous and hokey. If praying to your god really worked, just imagine, our world a better place, sans plague, sans war, sans famine. Well, why would yours be the 'One True Faith' in a magical, phantasmagorical, astral wraith? The varieties of religious experience reveal feelings of a god's immanence might seem quite real, but feelings of the numinous are clearly psychological, thus belief in your god is really quite illogical. So, does your faith afford you comfort, in times of strife, or do you fret about cruel punishment, in a mythic afterlife? It should be evident we have just this one life, with all its pleasures, challenges, toil, and strife. As social beings we evolved our moral sensibility, combating selfishness, lust, and venality. Human evolution's due to Natural Selection, so life derives no purpose, at any god’s direction. Purpose implies design, for it to make rational sense, but for a rational designer, there’s no objective evidence. To give your life meaning, choose a purpose or mission; it’s a betrayal of reason to put one’s faith in a religion. The faithful think their god bestows blessings or strife, so they’re judgmental, but it’s chance that rules one’s life. Religion’s harm exceeds its good, the rationalist laments; false beliefs foment fear, injustice, and malevolence. When faith deposes reason, tyranny stalks the land, where flames of fear and bigotry are furiously fanned. Religion should have no say in the politics of a nation; its revelations and dogmata lack a rational foundation. Aristotle’s eudemonia, or human flourishing, conflicts with the social engineering that religion inflicts on societies that could democratically endorse rationality-based ethics, mores and laws. The most religious nations often are the most barbarian, whereas the least religious are the most egalitarian. Religion validates discrimination and oppression; religious faith stifles policy on research and education. Moderate religion's like fertile soil, full of pious ordure, wherein extremism takes root, to terrorize and torture. Holy texts, from ancient times, in ignorance divine, were blind; LGBTQ and straight folk are all equally fine. See, a new era beckons, where humanity could be, as reason infers, one great family. You can blame wishful thinking, religious indoctrination, and maybe, psychotic delusion or hallucination. But there’s no need for you to blame your genes, your faith’s also fomented by religious memes. They corrupted your mind with a contagious infection of superstitious ideas that can’t stand close inspection. So, cast them out, get rid of that insanity, then you can revel in your unfettered Humanity!

Is it to "love your neighbor" to feed a delusion they are experiencing that is in fact consuming them with darkness. Measured by a suicid* rate that is only raised by the "acceptance" and "treatment" they receive from the ppl who affirm them?

The Blacktail deer hunt on Kaua’i used to have a very low success rate. Because there were squatters in the game mgt areas who poached..a lot. After some well known squatters moved out / died about 12-15yrs ago, the deer numbers increased. The diversity of upland game bird species available in Hawai’i is amazing; 3 species of francolins, sand grouse, Kalij pheasants, CA, Mtn and Corturnix quail, 2 dove species, Ringneck pheasant, Rio Grande turkeys (and some very Merriams looking turkeys…Hmmm)

I am not a 'self-proclaimed' atheist along with whatever baggage you're trying to hang on that title. I simply don't believe there is a god of any sort. Would I rather be in love or would I rather be right? I would rather be right. Just because I'm right, I don't have to 'force anything down anyone's throat'. If they don't love me for who I am, they are not worthy of my love. I don't fervently believe in my point of view. I just don't believe in yours. You are exactly right that 'faith' is believing without knowledge, therefore, you are choosing to be wrong. If it is not true, it is not useful. These are extremely lame questions.

I'm not sure you (or in fact most theists or even atheists) really understand what subjective/objective/absolute morality means, I myself mixed it up few times. It's mostly just a misunderstanding based on not-understanding the terms or mixing them up and conflating one with another (and I don't blame you, semantics mixed with philosophy - basically grammar mixed with opinions)... Anyway, let's not lose time with pure semantics and let's dive into it from a bit different angle with examples. 1) First of all, morality is directly derived from empathy (or at least the important morality - not the religious useless fillers like "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material". I'm not sure whether you recognize evolution or not, but most Christians are not young earth creationists, so let's assume you are not either so we can skip some explanations (if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask) - empathy is one of crucial evolutionary tools we have as a species, which made complex relationships and cooperation possible and more efficient - there is a very specific area in brain that is responsible for empathy, and we know that since when that area is damaged or underdeveloped (inactive), those people can not feel empathy anymore (by older but welll-known term - psychopaths, sociopaths..) - It's a sense, you cannot willingly turn that off, just like you cannot turn off smelling or tasting. It was a crucial part of our species' ability to survive, and it also means people are good and altruistic by default - this is why no God is required to tell us that for example murder is wrong. In fact, people convinced that we need a book to tell us that slaughter is wrong, are likely those earlier mentioned psychopaths and sociopaths - the actual potential monsters of humanity 2) Subjective morality is often misrepresented by theistic preachers and apologists as moral relativism where "anything goes." This is not the case. It is similar to this example: Can you say that "poison is *objectively* bad"? No, you cant say that. It's *subjectively* bad because it depends on many factors. For whom? Used for what purpose? It can be something that kills you or it can be something that cures a disease. Or it can be good for a tropical frog because it uses it as a defense mechanism but bad for the predator. On the other hand, when you specify the issue, you can say "Drinking high doses of Ricin poison is *objectively* bad for human survival". This is the difference between objective and subjective. It doesn't mean that "anything goes", it is still strictly based on reality and causes and effects and subjects involved. Just to sum it up, no - subjective morality doesn't mean that you have no basis on which it's judged, neither does it mean that you can choose whatever you perceive as good/bad. 3) Absolute morality is by far the most ridiculous concept of all 3 of these (and this is often what apologists mean when saying objective morality). It means that things are moral/immoral always regardless of any circumstances or objects/subjects. For example: Claim: Stealing is immoral Situation: Some kid is having a diabetic shock, and you know your neighbor has insulin injection in his house, so you break in and steal it and save the kid. According to the absolute morality view, stealing being wrong is part of the universe and existence of everything (for example god said it), so this action is immoral according to absolutist with the claim 4) That being said, I'm not aware of anything that Jesus said that is either original to him (not used commonly before him), or that isn't a direct derivation from pure sense of empathy we have. I'm not saying that he was not a good person, I'm not saying that he wasn't a good example of some use of empathy, but he was by any means not essential to establish any morality system. In fact he just did used the evolutionary sense of empathy I was talking about. Moreover, some of "his" highly regarded concepts (that btw appeared long before him many times in historical records) like the golden rule ("do to others what you would have them do to you") can be significantly improved by pure use of empathy instead of this derived version -> since everyone likes/doesn't like something else, you should consider that many things you would have done to you would someone else still heavily dislike when being done to them anyway I tried to be as friendly and non-condescending as possible, hopefully I fulfilled that to invite honest conversation. Feel free to react

He did answer, you just didn't get it. There is no such thing as absolute morality, because morality evolves.

Slavery and Jesus? Family and Jesus? Do you want to talk about all of that and still say religion us moral and rational ppl are missing the mark? How much so you miss? Go and read , if your inside does not say anything about religion and morality then pls don't give lecture.

Dude you don't know what atheism means in general just like you don't know anything about deities. I am such a strong ATHEIST that I do not believe in God even if I could see Christ in heaven coming on the wings of his angels. Because if I saw Christ then I would KNOW but I would NEVER BELIEVE in God. What I BELIEVE and no one has PROVED to me yet is that God is EVIL. Well, that is something that is believed and not necessarily known. What you need to KNOW is whether God BELIEVES in you and where is the PROOF of God's faith in you. What you're talking about is, as Americans like to say, trash talk.

Atheists are not the least bit introspective ... and cannot even ask the most simple of questions. Atheists are self righteous and close minded in the EXTREME -

Unlike some responders I actually quite liked those questions. Many apologists post questions purely for the gotcha point scoring, but these questions caught me by surprise that they weren't the same old tired ones (where does the universe come from? and where does life come from? being the two most often repeated). Agree or disagree with the questions, but something that makes you think deeper than handwaving away the same old questions is a breath of fresh air. Rather be in love or right? - I would point out that theists do claim truth, and from their perspective they are right in a loving way. In real world situations this is a very circumstantial question, as you need to understand the impact that being right will have as to whether it is better than not hurting someone's feelings. If the truth I have is that something is dangerous, then I may need to push that truth regardless of it hurting my relationship. I can imagine situations where both answers are correct, depending on whether the fact is insignificant or important, then your position may change. Is it true or useful? - Is believing a lie good because it is useful or is the hard truth preferrable? Some people will fall on either side, but really no one holds a belief they believe is wrong, they have been convinced of an idea. You can't choose to believe what you are unconvinced of, so even if religion has benefits that alone cannot change someone's position. You show statistics saying that religion is a positive, but I would point to counter statistics showing that the most prosperous, safe and happy nations are also the least religious (Scandanavia and Oceania being the two most often at the top of such charts), while nations with majority Christian populations score worse. Theocracies have been poor governments and usually entrench tribal ideas of in-group vs out-group. Theocracies will ban other religions, enforce their own teachings and promote people based on adherence rather than merit, while a secular government will include freedom of religion in its founding ideals. The removal of religious conflict can be useful, so it is possible that atheism is both true and useful depending on the exact situation.

"Would I rather be right or in love" is a malformed question right out of the gates. For one, I'd rather not be wrong about the person that I love. Of course I'd rather be right

You have no clue of what love is, do you?

On "Would you rather be in love or right?" Being in love and being right are not mutually exclusive. Atheists often value truth because it fosters genuine relationships built on honesty and understanding, rather than delusion or pretense. If the analogy is about relationships, choosing love often requires compromise. But in matters of reality, compromising on truth for comfort is intellectually dishonest. Would you rather believe a comforting lie or face an uncomfortable truth? On "Is it true or useful?" Just because a belief is "useful" doesn’t make it true. Placebos can be useful but are still false. By this logic, should we advocate for falsehoods just because they make people feel good? Studies on well-being often fail to account for cultural factors, such as the stigma atheists face in religious societies. In secular societies, atheists report equal or greater well-being without the need for belief in a higher power. On "Faith vs. Rationality" Faith without evidence isn’t a virtue; it’s gullibility. Rationality doesn’t make people unloving or disconnected-it simply demands that beliefs align with evidence. Atheists are not devoid of connection or love; they just don't ground those feelings in unproven supernatural claims. On "Connection to something greater" Feeling awe or connected to something bigger (e.g., nature, humanity, the universe) doesn’t require invoking "God" or a higher power. Secular experiences can be just as profound without the baggage of unsupported metaphysical claims.

Some people care about the truth, other people just want to pretend the things they like are true! I would rather know the truth than pretend otherwise.

Given that I see many atheists have already provided thoughtful answers, I will simply echo the basic answer: these are really bad false dichotomies, thus making your answers severely lacking and your thought experiments woefully incomplete. Please continue studying - you have a LOOONG way to go.

Question 1: This makes no sense and has no meaning but here we go. What will I be wrong about? What is the type of love with a person? Sometimes a are hard truth is better than getting a hug. Question 2: Again not a good question. You really have a knack for not making sense. So the me try to answer this question to the best of my understanding. I am happier as an atheist then I was as a believer. Can you watch this video again and make a follow up where you actually say what you mean.

yes, someone who was indoctrinated as a kid and is trying to push his beliefs on others.

1) Love is linked to knowledge on many levels, these two things are not mutually exclusive by any means. For example, I love my wife, but if I knew she didn't exist, I wouldn't love her. I perhaps could love my brain imagining my potential wife if I didn't have one, but at that point I would just love myself, which I despise. On top of that I love for example also honesty, which quite strictly forbids me from being dishonest and lying to anyone or myself if I don't want to be a hypocrite. 2) Again, truthfulness and usefulness are by far not exclusive to each other, and in more instances that none, truthfulness is absolutely essential for any usefullnes to emerge (basically all science resulting in existence of planes, phones, internet, and so on.. All of this require scientific method, which is an entire process of thinking many people adapted and it resulted in this). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Instances where lies could be useful if normalized can exist, but are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the other option. Also, I'm not sure you are aware of what this (and many other studies about wellbeing connected to religiosity) suggest. Yes, religion can indeed make some people happier as individuals, because it helps people coping with misery (effectively by trying to remove or misplace their full responsibility of their wrongdoings and miseries in the world). BUT sets of people are happier the more secular is the place they live in. The more secular countries are, the higher wellbeing their populations tend to have, and there are many reasons for that. Some of the most prominent reasons for this is how tightly is religion (especially Abrahamic religions) linked to increased war fervor and hate for outgroups (xenophobia, homophobia, etc..). Also the very fact that stronger coping mechanisms (i.e. religion) besides giving some people some comfort also makes those people much less likely to fix those issues and to fix the misery in society. I give you three exaggerated examples so it's clear enough for anyone to understand: a) people living in a region with religion-driven wars can be much happier if they are religious because it helps them coping with the harsh reality and gives their suffering some purpose, however as a result of that there is much lower chance of that religious conflict to ever stop and if it does stop there is much higher chance it will happen again ===> religious individual is happier than others, but whole society is living in much more misery as a direct result of that b) when religious people believe that diseases are caused by demons/curses/god's wrath, it makes individuals dying of cancer/plague/leprosis muuuuuuuuch happier and it makes much easier for them to cope with the sad reality. But as a result of that, research of medicine doesn't progress and the whole society is suffering immensely because of that. c) when someone is taught or anyhow convinced that it's okay to believe anything that makes him comfortable regardless of what empirical evidence says, it kills critical thinking in society. It can again help the individual for a while (or certainly makes their live and thinking process easier), but it makes it incredibly easy for any populist in politics (or elsewhere) to push their lies without any retaliation whatsoever, because you are not taught to be a sceptic and to verify reality and desire some evidence for it -> again, resulting in misery in any democratic country So this is it, I'm not sure if you have time to respond, but someone might find this "useful:P". Sorry for my mediocre english.

You. Are. Wrong.

Many religious apologists always start with straw manning atheism. I don't think most of them even know what atheism really is. They may get the face value definition right, but these types of questions show a deep-rooted ignorance that's prevalent and oftentimes regurgitated ad nauseam. Even 1,000 years from now, it seems like we'll be hearing the same nonsense from religious apologetics. It just never ends..

Yes, there are useful fictions! Also, I never met a Xtian that had faith without blabbing that it is THE TRUTH. Never! IF I had to choose between - right and love - I'd choose love. For truth and useful - truth!

Religion is harmful. Religious belief is epistemically indefensible, because it prioritizes unevidenced faith. Holding unfounded beliefs leads theists to make bad decisions, such as when they vote against progressive social policies because they believe their good fortune is due to their god's blessings, and the less fortunate are undeserving. Furthermore, for some of the faithful, their belief in "spiritual warfare" warps their understanding of the events that influence our world, allowing them to ignore observable evidence and make poor decisions. This is very problematical given the role of manipulative online influencers using social media platforms. Religion is, above all, divisive; some religions or sects validate discrimination against, and oppression of, those who do not share their faith, thereby causing sectarian conflict, even warfare. Objective morality, typically sourced from ancient scriptures, is often antithetical to our modern ethical understanding. These anachronisms include misogyny, homophobia, promotion of genital mutilation, and death threats against apostates. Religion is said to be a source of comfort, however, it also causes fear through the threat of eternal punishment. Insidiously, religious institutions have enabled and covered up the sexual abuse of children. Believing unfounded dogmas that, for instance, conflict with our knowledge of the evolution of living organisms, along with other scientifically validated realities of our world, cannot be beneficial for us. We need good information in order to make good decisions. Poor information will only ever result in bad outcomes, unless we happen to be very fortunate. Relying on chance, and devaluing critical thinking, is foolhardy. It's clear to me that, on balance and according to my values, religion does far more harm than good in our modern world.

I'm an agnostic atheist. My position not only _contains_ an "I don't know", it *begins* with "I don't know". Like this: is there q GOD? I don't know, and because I don't know, I lack belief. So your entire premise is incorrect.

Q1: Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right? I’m not sure why these are contrasted and/or considered to be at odds. Sometimes, you might believe or know yourself to be right to the point that nothing else matters much, including whatever interpersonal relationships you have. But I imagine this is rare overall for most people. I don’t know why the notion of God is required to have or feel love towards anyone or anything. I really don’t get it. And if you feel attacked or persecuted, you needn’t be or feel validated in your sour feelings about this solely via the suffering of someone else, someone “superior”, who dealt with it before you did/have. You know, the whole “if the world hates you, know that it hated me first” stuff. Why can’t you feel what you feel in such a situation, or generally, for your own personal reasons? Q2: Is it true, or is it useful? Things can be true and useful, true and not useful, untrue and useful, or untrue and not useful. A belief in whatever that can cause positive results may not have anything to do with the validity of the belief itself. Christians often say that Christianity is what spurred on advancements in science. They say that the notion of an ordered universe is to be expected if Christianity is indeed true, which is basic and uncontroversial enough. But that doesn’t mean that what is found, that is- regularities, patterns, cycles and the like - legitimates such an account of the universe’s alleged ordering. Something else entirely could be responsible for these things we see. And it is possible that what we are able to know about them is very imperfect. I have heard that Michelangelo imagined that the figures he carved out of marble were inside the marble he chiseled at, and this is what made it possible for him to make those insanely awesome, life-like sculptures. A battered woman might get through her days by believing, against all odds and the past dealings with her partner should indicate, that her partner will change by either becoming a better person altogether or just treating them better than they have up until the present. Or take the “Act as if…” speech by the Ben Affleck character in Boiler Room. Lots of beliefs might be useful and either far-fetched or completely untrue. Relatedly, a lack of knowledge or awareness of something could be beneficial. This is not hard to figure out. I like what you were speaking of towards the end. People can indeed have profound experiences, or just qualitatively distinct experiences, that make them feel better or think about things differently. I like the idea of this; mysticism is an intriguing concept to me, and I don’t think it need be confined to gods or (the) God. Depending on the nature of the experience, it may or may not reflect reality. It may just reflect the needs of the person, and the experience is one that they are all too happy to interpret in a certain way. This last part is always something Christians need to keenly keep in mind. It applies to everyone, but strong beliefs that cannot be totally verified as being true seem more susceptible to this sort of occurrence.

I see order which produces consistent, purposeful action that no random process can produce. Is it good to teach your (or any) child disdain towards " those ridiculous, stupid people who believe in gods and ghosts and fairies, who you are so much more intelligent than." This teaches an ego-boosting pride which separates humanity, closes the mind, destroys potential relationships as fellow human beings, without prejudice.

Bull Shit... LOL...

Richard Dawkins did not make a career out of being an atheist: he is a biologist, widely respected in the scientific community and a distinguished academic and author. Likewise Alex O'Connor is a researcher and commentator on philosophy and theology, not some UA-cam jock making himself famous for controversial opinions. Alex has had many thougtful and well-presented dialogues with philosophers and relgious apologists and is widely respected for his penetrating insight into religious issues.