WMN: t3_31olrn_t1_cq3izee

[TITLE]

CMV: there is no rational reason to believe in the Christian (or any other religion's) God

[RealitySubsides]

I think this is a very simple view that will be easy to change. Just give me a reason to believe in God that doesn't involve the Bible or personal experiences. I'm looking for a legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of higher power. I think not believing in any kind of god is simply the logical way to look at it. Let's say we're talking about Christianity. Being a Christian requires you be an atheist. Not an atheist to your favorite god, of course, but to the hundreds of other gods that existed before yours. Not only that, but your belief is very strongly related to your geography. If you were raised a Christian, chances are you'll continue to be one into adulthood. Let's say we have Ted. Ted was raised in the Bible Belt and is, naturally, a Christian. To Ted, Christianity makes the most sense. Now let's say Ted wasn't a white guy from Alabama, but a Middle Eastern man from Iraq. Ted would, naturally, be a Muslim. But to both of these versions of Ted, his religion is as true as it could possibly be. To all the Teds of the world, their religion is absolute fact, exactly as your's is. So who's to say you're any more right than anybody else? This is the thing with religion. Probability wise, it's more likely you were born into the wrong religion than the right one. Let's say we create ants with consciousness. I don't care that it's impossible, this is just a thought experiment. These ants would, naturally, begin to question why things happen. Why is there a sun, why does it rain, what makes the wind blow. They could easily shake these questions off as "I don't know" (these are very humble conscious ants). But then, inevitably, they would come to the point when they began to question their own existence. How they got there, what it all means, what happens after they die. These are extremely troubling questions, questions that have plagued conscious thought for its entirety. These ants would, most likely, create gods to help calm these questions. When one of the ants dies, he isn't gone forever anymore. No, instead, he's relaxing in a beautiful ant paradise, where all his friends and family are waiting for him. There's no reason to be afraid of death anymore, because after you die, everything gets better! These ants would all believe in this wholeheartedly. Now my question to you is: does this ant god actually exist? No, of course it doesn't. Yet they believed in it, exactly as the vast majority of people believes in a human god. God is a very heartwarming thought. Ideas like "everything happens for a reason" perfectly show that people are willing to believe things that make them feel better, but that actually make absolutely no sense. I think religion is just another one of those things. So please, change my view. I would (honestly) love to have my beliefs shaken a little bit. Being an atheist is a bummer, I want to believe in a magical paradise where all the people I miss are waiting for me.

[Ajorahai]

[STA-CITE]>Just give me a reason to believe in God that doesn't involve the Bible or personal experiences. [END-CITE]Why are personal expieriences neccessarily irrational? Some people claim that God telepathically communicates with them telling them that he exists. Some people claim that God also telepathically communicated knowledge to them which accurately predicted the future. If you were the recipient of such telepathic forms of communication from God, why would it be irrational for you to believe in him?

[2_Suns]

Have you ever heard of ["Pascal's Wager"](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) [STA-CITE]>* If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>* If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to hell forever: thus an infinite loss. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>* If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>* If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain. [END-CITE]Basically, whether god exists or not is irrelevant, you should live your life as if god exists to guarantee the least negative outcome of the four options.

[Hraesvelg7]

But which god's requirements do you live by to be safe? There are thousands of gods in human history. Even the popular abrahamic one has thousands of different denominations that disagree on virtually everything he wants. What if he prefers Quakers, snake-handlers or only Hasidic Jews?

[2_Suns]

I would imagine you should research all religions, and determine a few things. 1) does the religion require you to be a member to go to heaven? Some religions allow nonbelievers, or non-members to still go to heaven if they are good people. All of these types of religions can be ruled out as ones that should be followed. 2) does the religion believe in hell? If they don't believe in hell, there is no risk in not believing in them 3) do they believe in heaven? Same reasoning as 2) These things can help minimize your risk, I'm sure there are other good options to weigh as well.

[Hraesvelg7]

I'll even allow it to be narrowed down to christianity, just for the sake of argument. Which version is the safe one? What if Jesus was serious when he said to love him more than your family and leave them to follow him? Anyone who doesn't abandon any unbelieving family would go to Hell then. What if he was serious about following the old law, like he said to? Then only the rarest of Jews is getting into Heaven. There's thousands of versions of christianity. The odds you pick the right one to get into heaven are extremely small. What if God sees through your ruse and punishes you for not actually having faith, but just hedging your bets?

[plasticdracula]

There's no rational reason to do, believe, think, feel, or <verb> anything. Ask "why?" enough times and you'll eventually find yourself with no answer. Believe what you want - until you die and actually find out whether there is an overriding divine yardstick, everything is subjective. If it's not doing it for you emotionally, that's your obstacle to overcome, not the universe's.

[RealitySubsides]

I agree that everything is subjective, but there must be an objective reality. Even with solipsism there's an objective reality, whether that reality is that we're really all in the matrix, being batteries for some robots, or that everything is just a dream. Saying religion is a subjective concept is nonsense. For you, there's a god (I assume) and for me there isn't. These are two subjective realities in conflict with the true objective one, whatever that may be. I'm interested in learning what *really* exists, not just what subjectively does.

[plasticdracula]

There isn't necessarily a single objective reality. There might very well be, but it can't ever be known or proven - if things can only be witnessed from a perspective, through a biased perception, then they will always be subjective. If this objective reality can't ever be viewed, can we be sure it even exists at all? Obviously you're right in that if there is a divine being then there is an objective reality, but that's beyond our reach, which brings me back to my original statement. In this life, seeking an objective truth is pointless. You can't ever know what the real answers are, so if you're stuck with making up your own, you might as well enjoy the ride. Believe what you want.

[RealitySubsides]

I completely agree with the possibility that nothing outside the mind exists. But because my knowledge of this wouldn't change anything about the way my life works, it makes more sense to assume it isn't true and that an objective reality does exist. [STA-CITE]>seeking an objective truth is pointless [END-CITE]In a way, all truth is pointless. Knowing that evolution is why animals look the way they do serves no real purpose, it's just an interesting thing to know (unless there are medical implications I don't know about). Just because it's pointless doesn't mean there's no reason to learn about it. That's the way I try to go in to figuring out the way things really work. I love philosophy because there's never really a definitive answer. You can believe in free will if that's the conclusion you've come to, there's no real way to either prove it or disprove it. With this religion stuff, I'd like to get every single possible thought about it in my head to let them stew for a little bit. I'm pretty sure there is no god because of contemplation, but I could just as easily come to the opposite conclusion simply by thinking about it for a while. So I dunno, that was my goal for this CMV. I'd like to get some other opinions in my head.

[KuulGryphun]

I think an important thing you need to add to your view is "There is no rational reason to believe that the Christian God *actually exists*". There is a potentially perfectly rational reason to believe in the Christian God, whether or not he really exists - your life is much easier when you fit in with your peers.

[RealitySubsides]

That's a good point.

[ghotionInABarrel]

Does pragmatism count as rational? Pretty much by definition, faith is unprovable. But since a ton of social structures are built around faith, it can be more convenient to at least go through the motions, and just not question it, since questioning won't really get you anywhere. Especially in the case of the Ted from Iraq, he has a very good reason to keep believing since that keeps his neighbors from killing him.

[RealitySubsides]

While that's a good point, it doesn't say anything about the validity of the religion itself. Sure, pretending to be a member of a certain religion could work out in your favor. That doesn't mean the religion is true, and I'm more interested in the truth.

[UncleTrustworthy]

[STA-CITE]>I'm looking for a legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of higher power. [END-CITE]You won't find one. What were you expecting? *"Well OP, you clearly haven't heard of the Equation that Proves God Exists™"* My question is: why does it have to be rational? Why does absolutely everything in life have to be based in logic? Is there nothing of value that exists for only emotional reasons? What of love-based relationships or aesthetics? Where is the logic or rationality in these things? If you look at religion as an art form, as a form of self-expression, meditation and introspection, then you'll realize that it doesn't need a rational explanation other than that it makes people happy. And yes, I am well aware of the counter argument. *Making people happy is one thing, but religion is used to justify murder and oppression.* To this, all I can say is that you shouldn't judge an entire group by a vocal/murderous minority.

[RealitySubsides]

But I disagree that it's an art form, because it's asserting that it's the truth. The truth is what I'm interested in. I'd like to know whether there is, right now, a god. I completely agree that there are lots of good things that religion brings, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in an argument that's able to make me legitimately ponder the existence of God. There may not be one, I just figured if anybody is able to articulate it, it'd be someone on Reddit.

[UncleTrustworthy]

Oh, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. So you're looking for an example of something that makes a person ponder the existence of God. However, as stated in your view, you don't want to hear any "personal experiences." That's where you're going to run into trouble. For a lot of people who weren't indoctrinated by their parents/community, personal experiences are all they have to go on. Some event in the life that someone else might label as coincidence.

[RealitySubsides]

This is the problem I've had. When someone becomes a Christian instead of, say, an atheist, that's because of some kind of event in someone's life that changed everything about reality for them. The problem with personal experiences is they aren't definitive. There are people who've had Jesus, Muhammad, and Moses talk to them, each saying that their own religion is the correct one.

[UncleTrustworthy]

So you want definitive, *objective proof* of the existence of a specific God or set of gods? You won't find it. If such proof existed, nearly everyone in the world would belong to one religion. The best you can hope for with this CMV is for someone to share a personal experience in a way that doesn't seem like a personal experience, but rather makes you feel the way they felt when they opened their mind to the possibility of a certain God.

[RealitySubsides]

I suppose that's a good point. I've just gotten bored with being sure about what I believe, I was hoping I'd be able to get something working in my brain that would make me start to question things again. It's not that I don't question things, it's more like I've run out of things to question since I've come to (what I consider) good conclusions about them.

[UncleTrustworthy]

Oh man. Been there. It can be depressing. Entirely aside from your CMV, I'd advise you find something you aren't sure about and dive into it headlong. Gather some new experiences, broaden your horizons and never suspect that you have everything figured out. Because as soon as you think you have everything figured out, you tend to stop looking for new things.

[RealitySubsides]

What I've been doing a lot to make sure my beliefs don't just stagnate in my mind is watching debates about these kind of philosophical problems. Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris are some of my favorites. I think debates are good because if you were to read a book, you wouldn't get any opposing opinions. I really do everything I can to keep my mind as open as possible. I'll never reject anything simply because it conflicts with my beliefs. I'd rather hear conflicting arguments so that I can question things even more! That's kind of why I did this CMV, I thoroughly enjoy questioning things.

[Primatebuddy]

There is a hypothesis that the universe and reality is a simulation. If it is a simulation, then it's reasonable to assume that it was created to serve a purpose, and that everything born of that simulation is also to serve a purpose, directly or indirectly. If it was created to serve a purpose, then someone, whether a single entity, a race, or many races acting in unison, would have to be responsible. Wouldn't this fit the common understanding of a god, especially if the power to dissolve the simulation at *any* time looms over our existence?

[RealitySubsides]

This is an incredibly interesting thought. Of course, while it would fit the definition of a "god", it is not the god of the religious people of the planet. It has no relevance to the universe, since it is simply an outside observer with the capability to destroy us.

[Primatebuddy]

The interesting thing about simulations is that the experimenter has the ability to change the parameters of the simulation at will, sometimes even during the simulation. I think this is a lot more than an outside observer who can destroy, rather it's an active participant for a purpose that we are not, at least completely, aware of. What this means to me is that anything is possible. I could be walking down the sidewalk, completely in the moment, when a book suddenly appears at my feet. In this book is an explanation in, in modern terms, of how the universe works. I take this book, and construct a religion out of it, with billions of followers that lasts for generations. And all of this because the experimenter wanted to see what would happen. Perhaps it's not that way at all. Rather, it could be more aligned to the Deist way of thinking; the simulation runs as designed, and the experimenter does not interfere, allowing the simulation to be a test of the established laws of the simulated universe. Perhaps it's one of many simulations running together. But how does this take care of afterlife? Again, if we rethink what we mean by the afterlife, then we as simulation data can be saved, transplanted, and re-run again and again. What if individual people are merely "memory locations" where data runs again and again. This is all very weird, and it's starting to sound like new-age crackpot-ism. But damn it's fun to think about!

[RealitySubsides]

It really is fun to think about. I love all this philosophical stuff about the nature of reality, since there's no right answer.

[Omega037]

What about religions whose deities are actual people that can be seen, touched, or photographed? For instance, at least until the end of WWII, the Japanese religion of Shinto believed their Emperor to be a deity who was a direct descendant of Amaterasu. Given that we have countless verifiable records of Emperor Hirohito, wouldn't it be irrational not to believe in him?

[RealitySubsides]

Of course, in that situation it would be rational to believe in him. That's a really good example. I think the thing about it is that we, as outside observers, understand that Hirohito has no supernatural powers (I'm not sure if he claimed to have them). His potential claims of an afterlife or reincarnation are most likely not true, and that conclusion can be come to by rational thought. While of course, WWII Japan didn't have access to the technology we do today that backs up a lot of my beliefs, but I don't think that adds anything to the possibility of Hirohito being a god, it just means that they didn't have as much evidence going against the religion's claims. It's like, it was perfectly rational to believe in creationism before Darwin came around. They just didn't have any kind of evidence to the contrary of Christianity's claims.

[Omega037]

So you agree that rational people believe this God exists, just that he lacked the supernatural powers that the Japanese ascribed to him? If that is the case, I think you need to alter your view to say there is no rational reason to believe in the supernatural, rather than belief in deities per se. Of course the problem with that is that it is a tautology, as supernatural is basically defined as those things that can't be rationally explained. The second such a thing could be rationally explained, it would cease to be supernatural.

[RealitySubsides]

You made a really good point, I was trying to come up with a counterargument. Because sure, rational people believed in a deity that *did* exist because he was a human being. That's different from the Christian belief of God though, because to believe in Hirohito required no faith. You got me though, it *can* be rational to believe in a deity in that specific scenario, but I feel like that's a semantical argument. To believe he has magic powers is irrational, but believing in his existence makes sense.

[Omega037]

Then do I get a delta for changing your view somewhat? If you really think about it, the distinction isn't far from believing Jesus was a real person but not believing that he performed miracles. The real thing you don't believe in are the supernatural miracles, not the "God" itself.

[RealitySubsides]

But the miracles are entirely because of the god itself. I believe Jesus was a real person, but that's entirely different from believing that he turned water to wine or came back to life. Just believing a person existed does not mean that you believed that he was a divine being, and that belief in his divinity, based on his miracles and supposed affiliation with god, is what makes it irrational. So you haven't really changed my view, you just showed me that I should've worded it more clearly.

[Omega037]

Yes, but like I said, the change in wording makes your entire view a tautology. Saying "belief in the supernatural is irrational" is like saying "belief in things that have no rational explanation is irrational".

[RealitySubsides]

Well belief in things with no rational explanation *is* irrational, which is why religion is irrational. Of course, things are only without explanation until we explain them, but I'd still say believing in something without a shred of scientific evidence supporting it is irrational.

[Omega037]

There is a large amount of scientific theories, especially in Physics, which has been hypothesized yet has not or cannot (with current technology) be tested. In fact, scientific hypotheses are supposed to come *before* empirical evidence, so saying that believing in a theory without any evidence is irrational is incorrect. Take for example the theory that there are other lifeforms and/or civilizations in the Universe besides our own. There is no scientific evidence supporting this view, yet it isn't really irrational to believe it and most scientists do. The key difference is not the lack of evidence but the lack of falsifiability. While technologically unfeasible, a scientist could visit each planet in the Universe, find that there is no life (according to our definitions), and then conclude that the theory is wrong. In the case of a supernatural belief, it can not be falsified. Evidence to the contrary can be argued as a "test of faith". For example, the fossil records and carbon dating don't disprove that the Earth is 6,000 years old, they are simply 6,000 year old fakes put there that seem older. The supernatural lives outside of the rules which govern the natural world.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of **higher power**. [END-CITE]The existence of the universe defies science. Even if all of our theories about the big bang are correct, science still does not answer the question "where did the stuff that went bang come from, and what caused it to go bang". Simplistically speaking, science tells us that matter cannot be created. Yet it exists. That defies science. So how is its existence logically explained? It is explained by a higher power beyond our comprehension. You can call the higher power whatever you want - God, Allah, Abraham, the Great Spaghetti Monster, the unknown, pre-science, etc. But if by "higher power" you mean something that can and does defy the rules of science and is unexplainable by humans with their current understanding, then it is perfectly logical (and I would say undebatable) to conclude that a higher power exists.

[RealitySubsides]

But how can you be sure that natural processes couldn't have caused the big bang? I know very little about science, but I know at a quantum level things come into existence completely randomly all the time, even though it only lasts for a very short amount of time. For all we know, the entire history of our universe is happening in milliseconds in some other universe. I don't think this says anything on the validity of religion, I just think it's something that happens. We could always keep saying "well what caused that" and take ourselves as far back as time could possibly go. I don't think this relates at all to a higher power, simply because I don't see any reason for belief in something that is transcendent in some way, something that communicates with humanity directly. For all we know, the big bang was some guy pushing enter on a computer and starting a simulation of a universe. That guy would, technically, be a higher power, but he wouldn't be the one people keep saying exists.

[EyeRedditDaily]

I was trying to pick our a part of your response to quote, but really its the whole thing. Your entire response, as I read, is kind of like "well it *could* be a higher power, just like it *could* be any of these other things that I'm pulling out of my ass; we just don't know". And I agree with that completely. But in your original post, you said: [STA-CITE]> I'm looking for a legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of higher power. [END-CITE]Wouldn't you agree that saying "we don't know, and can't know, so it could be that it is a higher power" is legitimately rational? I'm not necessarily saying that higher power has any objective or even any care or concern for human kind. But by definition, isn't something that defies science and is both unexplainable by, and incomprehensible to humans a "higher power"?

[RealitySubsides]

It's the burden of proof. Something doesn't exist by default. Our lack of knowledge of the truth doesn't mean it's automatically religion, it simply means we don't know yet. A lot of things in quantum physics defy science, in that they're unexplainable or don't go along with the laws of physics. But I wouldn't say that these things are a higher power, I would just say that they're interesting. That's the thing. Just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it religion. There is no legitimate evidence supporting it, so why would you believe in it? Again, just because you don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it religion. Arguing that God exists because there's nothing else that explains how the universe got here is entirely without evidence. It's just as likely God created the universe as a giant purple penguin named Fred did.

[EyeRedditDaily]

You mention religion in your response on at least 4 different occasions. I'm not talking about religion whatsoever. I'm talking about "a higher power". [STA-CITE]> That's the thing. Just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it ~~religion~~ **a higher power**. There is no legitimate evidence supporting it, so why would you believe in it? Arguing that ~~God~~ **a higher power** exists because there's nothing else that explains how the universe got here is entirely without evidence. [END-CITE]When you take the religion aspect out of it and simply retreat back to "a higher power", I would agree that there is no evidence identifying that a higher power created the universe. However, our knowledge of science says that the universe *can't* exists. Because our knowledge of science says that matter cannot be created out of nothingness. So it isn't just that "we don't know". It is that we think we *do* know; but what we *do* know tells us that what we're experiencing is impossible. The very existence of the universe *is* the evidence. Because based upon what we know, the universe can't exist. In my mind, that is, by definition, a "higher power" [STA-CITE]> It's just as likely God created the universe as a giant purple penguin named Fred did. [END-CITE]Yes. As I mentioned previously you can call the higher power whatever you want to call it: [STA-CITE]> > God, Allah, Abraham, the Great Spaghetti Monster, the unknown, pre-science, etc [END-CITE]I absent-mindedly left Fred the giant purple penguin off my list. But Fred could just as likely be the higher power as anything else. What is really boils down to is, when you said this: [STA-CITE]> I'm looking for a legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of **higher power**. [END-CITE]What did you mean by the phrase "higher power". To me, higher power simply means something that is beyond human comprehension and understanding. And by that definition, the existence of the universe is beyond human comprehension and understanding. A higher power certainly isn't the *only* possible explanation. But it is a **legitimately rational possibility; which is the threshold that you set.**

[RealitySubsides]

∆ you're right, you've got me there. It is a legitimate rational possibility EDIT: I was on mobile, so I just added the delta

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/EyeRedditDaily. [^EyeRedditDaily's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/eyeredditdaily) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[Primatebuddy]

There are a few things that usually run through my mind when I think about this type of question. What if, due to the size of the universe, and the likely staggeringly huge number of habitable worlds throughout not just this galaxy but the billions beyond it, that we accept that there are other forms of life besides us. What if we then accept that at some point, some of these life forms will evolve such technology that death ultimately means nothing, and they have mastered space and time to such a degree that they would appear godlike to us. Now, what if these forms have visited us before, or have even created us for a specific purpose, for which we are not yet ready? Let's extend that. What if, given our limited knowledge of how the universe actually works, that there are spaces beyond what we can see where other life can exist, that each form of life occupies a specific area of space and time, but some have grown to the point where they can move across these areas? They would also appear godlike to us. Ultimately, this type of thinking boils down to 'what do we know' and 'how can we assume' type questions. The fact that humans have attached myth and mystery to what might be real is nothing new.

[RealitySubsides]

That's actually a super interesting proposition. The only problems I have with it is where did all these stories come from? If these beings came here, would we be able to see them? I might be wrong, but I don't think the ancient Greek people had ever expected to see Zeus or Poseidon, they just believed them to be true. Maybe the very concept of religion came from these multidimensional beings visiting very old ancestors of us which gave us the idea that gods exist. But if this was true, why did ancient religion have gods for most physical things? Sun gods, tree gods, water gods, wind gods. They did not believe in some kind of transcendent beings, they imagined the things around them to possess characteristics like their own. I'd like to agree with what you're saying, but I just don't think it works because of the stories of religions like Christianity. Heaven is a concept that I could only imagine being derived directly from humanity's fear of death. Jesus talked about heaven, though, it wasn't some kind of being that was unfamiliar to the people of Jerusalem. Maybe the concept of god came from these beings visiting the ancient humans, but with the way their religions worked, I just can't see this as a possibility. Sorry for the long reply. I was kind of thinking about it as I typed (I'm a writer, don't judge me)

[Primatebuddy]

I like long replies! Anyhow, I think we should distinguish between myths and the things they try to explain, and what you asked for in your original question, because I think we have two streams of thought going here. The myths and stories that have been generated to explain various things that people didn't understand may have come from common sources; flood myths, death and resurrection, etc. It's out of scope for this discussion, but I think one would need to view how people intermingled throughout history to understand the various origins of god-stories. However, it is totally understandable that a group of people would construct a reason for what they see happening in the world based on what they know about the universe at the time, then pass that on through conquest, or being conquered, or simply merging with other groups. A study of comparative mythology might be a good thing here. What is in scope is what you originally asked for; a reason to believe in a higher power and some form of afterlife. Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" novelization has a scene where an unseen alien hand plants a monolith near a group of primates over a million years ago. That monolith provided the impetus for evolution in those primates, making modern humans. Similar to what I mentioned above, it would seem to me that these unseen aliens would be thought of as gods, perhaps even creators (in a sense). This story *could* take care of the higher power, but what about afterlife? We tend to think of life as us being alive from end-to-end; born, live, die. But what if what we experience as "life" is not really anything more than another physical aspect of space? What would that mean for existence? I think it would mean that when we are born, we exist everywhere and everywhen at once, experiencing life much as we'd experience a room as we move through it. It would mean that we have to rethink what we expect in an afterlife, because we'll always be there. I think these scenarios could work to explain if we accept that the stories of various religions are actually separate from what may be reality. Essentially, I'd be asking you to accept a completely different explanation of what God might be than what you've taken away from religions and mythologies. I'd be asking you to accept that our existence might be more intertwined with the makeup of the universe than we realize now. And it's a universe that we barely understand.

[RealitySubsides]

∆ While I don't necessarily believe in the intertwining of humans and the universe (I believe we're just biological machines made to reproduce and die), I do think you changed my view in an effective way. By rethinking what words like "god" and "afterlife" actually mean, it changes the whole thought process a little bit. Thanks for the conversation!

[Primatebuddy]

It was a pleasure. Thank you!

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Primatebuddy. [^Primatebuddy's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/primatebuddy) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)