Many people have a way with words that guarantees they get the girl they desire without considerable effort. What advice would you give to those who have difficulty transitioning singlehood?
AI will possess human like intelligence and act like a human in thinking, acting, and making decisions. What should we be most excited about and what improvements in life overall should we look forward to?
I think the tried and tested strategies are exercise, a balanced diet of lots of veggies and fruits, vitamin C and E supplements, reading, cutting down on alcohol and cigarettes, mindfulness, and laughing alot.
Aging for some is a good experience and one they enjoy while for others they think it has come too soon and relish their younger days. However, definitely there are things you hate about being ten years older? I personally hate my forgetfulness.
9 African teams make it to the round of 32, 90% of the African teams that went to the worldcup, the highest percentage compared to other continents.
I don't want to talk about “AI writing assistant” or some chatbot. I mean some specific thing that would actually save you time, money, and energy.
What are you still waiting for?
There was Hitler, Then Cold War, Then Osama Bin Laden, Enter Sadaam Hussein, Then Gaddafi, Then Ukraine/Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Fuel Prices, Then Ebola? What do you predict will be the next global crisis?
With AI tools getting better every month, a lot of students are using them to build projects much faster.
If you’re majoring in computer science, do you think relying heavily on AI to generate code is a smart way to learn, or does it end up hurting your fundamentals in the long run?
Where would you draw the line between using AI as a productivity tool and becoming too dependent on it?
Technology evolves so quickly that it's hard to know what will still be around 10 years from now. Curious to hear which technology or tool you think will disappear within the next decade and what might replace it.
I’m an atheist, and recently I’ve been debating religion a lot with one of my close friends.
For context: he’s a very intelligent guy, studied at Oxford, but unfortunately, he genuinely believes Christianity is true. Since our debates kept going nowhere, he invited me to a church program for non-believers. Every Saturday for about 10 weeks, we had dinner together, discussed Christianity, listened to talks, and openly debated questions about God.
And honestly? I appreciated the experience. Most people there were kind, thoughtful, and sincere.
But after all of that, I still walked away completely unconvinced.
There were several questions that nobody, including the pastor, could really answer.
So I’m curious what Reddit thinks.
There have been thousands of gods throughout human history.
You already reject almost all of them.
You don’t believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, Ra, or Apollo. Muslims reject Jesus as God. Hindus believe something entirely different.
So what exactly makes Christianity uniquely convincing beyond:
“I was born into it,”
or
“My holy book says it’s true”?
And be honest with yourself for a second,
If you were born in rural Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, do you genuinely think you would still become Christian?
Or would you most likely believe Islam with the exact same confidence you currently believe Christianity?
Because if location changes your religion for most people on Earth, doesn’t that suggest belief is driven more by culture than truth?
If you answer that, you would still choose Christianity. If you believe that you should be able to find truth no matter other religions and your current environment, because Christianity is the truth, why can't people there see that truth? What do you think of the Middle East 93~94% population who believe in Islam? Do you think you are somewhat smarter than the average of 93~94% people there or even combined?
One thing my friend kept telling me was:
“Many brilliant scientists believed in God.”
“The more science you learn, the closer you get to religion.”
“Even Einstein believed in God.”
First of all: did Einstein believe in God?
Technically, yes, but not in the Christian sense people usually imply.
Einstein explicitly said he believed in Spinoza’s God, essentially the laws and harmony of nature itself, not a personal God who answers prayers, judges morality, or sends people to heaven and hell.
And honestly, this reveals something that bothers me a lot:
Religious people often use anything as evidence for religion without checking whether it actually supports their claim.
Newton was Christian. Sure.
But does “a genius believed X” automatically make X true?
Newton was probably unbelievably intelligent, but no single human being stands above collective scientific systems and evidence itself.
Science is not built around authority.
It’s built around reproducibility, skepticism, peer criticism, and constantly proving yourself wrong.
So unless the scientific method itself suddenly starts pointing toward Christianity, saying:
“Some smart scientists believed in God”
It is incredibly weak evidence.
That’s selection bias.
Imagine you can name 10 famous scientists who believed in God.
Okay.
Now compare that to the total number of influential scientists throughout history — thousands upon thousands.
Even if we pretend that statistic means something meaningful, you’re still taking an extremely selective sample and building a giant conclusion from it.
And honestly, the irony is that the argument itself relies on the same kind of weak assumptions and emotional reasoning that religion criticizes in other belief systems.
So, honestly, this argument seems very weak and therefore has no meaning.
The church program told me the Bible is reliable because there are around 25,000 manuscripts telling one coherent story.
Okay.
But how do Christians deal with contradictions between the Old and New Testament, or contradictions within the Bible itself?
And honestly, that’s not even the main issue for me. That was just a warm up question.
The real question is this.
The Church was one of the most powerful institutions in human history for centuries.
History is written by the winners. Always.
The Church wasn’t just a spiritual organization. It was deeply tied to politics, empires, social control, wars, and power.
And without a doubt, we KNOW, everyone knows corruption existed:
- indulgences,
- crusades,
- witch hunts,
- political manipulation,
- persecution in the name of religion.
Even Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for violence committed by the Church.
So how can you be completely certain the Bible was never edited, shaped, translated selectively, or interpreted in ways that benefited institutions and power structures over centuries?
I’m not saying everything in it is false or fictional.
But I genuinely don’t understand how people jump from:
“ancient religious text”
to
“absolute divine truth.”
If you find a note written by a boy who lived in the year 232, saying "There is a dragon in my bed", will you now believe in the existence of a dragon? I hope you won't!
A lot of people at the church told me:
“You have to open your heart and experience God personally.”
But did you know that people from other religions say the exact same thing?
Ancient Greek priests claimed they heard Apollo.
People across religions report visions, voices, divine certainty, spiritual encounters, enlightenment, supernatural experiences.
So why are Christian experiences considered evidence, while everyone else’s experiences are dismissed?
And if your answer is:
“They’re mistaken.”
Then how do you know YOU aren’t mistaken too?
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to consider that humans are psychologically wired to experience spiritual feelings based on what they were TAUGHT to believe?
If a child is raised from birth being told:
“You will feel God.”
“You will hear God.”
“This feeling is the Holy Spirit.”
then eventually experiencing those feelings doesn’t necessarily prove God exists.
It may just prove humans are deeply suggestible emotional creatures.
One thing I kept hearing was:
“Faith does not come from evidence.”
But honestly, doesn’t that sound ridiculous?
Because once you stop requiring evidence before believing extraordinary claims, people can justify believing literally anything.
If I tell you there’s a dragon living in my garage, and then I say:
“You just need faith.”
“You need to open your heart.”
“You won’t understand unless you believe first.”
Would you accept that?
Or would you ask for evidence?
So how do you distinguish genuine faith from simply being emotionally convinced of something?
If you want to say the Bible, I don't think so. How about the Quran?
This is probably the biggest one for me.
People often say:
“God answers prayers.”
Okay.
Sometimes good things happen.
Yes, amazing!
You recover from illness.
You get your dream job.
You find love.
You survive an accident.
And you thank God.
Yes, life is great, and God always has plans for you.
But then why do wars happen?
Why do children die praying for help?
Why do innocent people suffer horrific deaths while desperately begging God to save them?
Imagine a child praying while missiles are literally falling outside.
That child is probably praying harder for their life than you ever prayed for your career, relationship, or financial success.
And if your prayer for a promotion gets answered,
while that child dies anyway,
what exactly does that say about God?
And here’s the uncomfortable question.
If missiles were falling on YOUR house tomorrow, are you truly confident God would save you too?
Or would you suddenly realize prayer has never guaranteed protection at all?
How do Christians reconcile the idea of a loving, responsive God with the sheer scale of suffering and silence in the world?
I’m genuinely asking.
I spent weeks listening, debating respectfully, and trying to understand Christianity in good faith.
But I still haven’t heard answers that fully address these questions.