There are many holes in your argument. First:

''Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually'' How is this known?

Let's say for a moment that it's true, what does it matter for us? Humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers and even if somehow someone could, how would we ever know?

Your arguments fail to really prove anything as they offer 0 evidence of anything that it's claimed there.

What a subtle way to tell him he's not human.    

First define God. Then go from there.

Embrace God? What are you talking about?  You make no sense.

It is like me saying embrace Goo Goo.

Rational thinking is objective. Problem is that very few people can stay objective.

For example, faced with no evidence in the existence of the supernatural, some people “deduce” that it might exist, yourself included.

Logical, objective conclusion should have been “we cannot say that the supernatural does exist in lieu of any evidence”. PERIOD.

To help us stay objective we have developed the scientific method.  It is the best epistemic tool we have.

You should use it to stay objective.

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not... how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''

Let me try again. Your “truth” is based on mythological fiction.

BTW, we have codified what is an acceptable behavior in our Criminal Code.  Believe it. LOL.

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

Superrationality is a special application of non-causal decision theories – that is, theories of rational decision making that not only take the causal implications of an action into account but also other information that making this decision would give us. In the case of superrationality, that information is always about the other agents.

Importantly, superrationality itself falls under this general rule. That is, if you do something for superrationality-related reasons, then this does not tell you anything about how people who do not accept superrationality would behave. As a trivial example, consider playing a donation game against 19 people whom you all know to make fun of superrationality whenever the opportunity avails itself. Attempting to superrationally cooperate with those people seems rather fruitless.

Superrational cooperation requires no reciprocity. That is, none of the agents who benefit from our cooperation have to benefit us. Recall the basic argument for superrationality as based on non-causal decision theories: given that we are friendly, it is more probable that other agents facing similar choices will be friendly toward us and our values. Crucially, this argument does not require that the agents whose choices we acausally affect are the same as those who benefit from our own friendliness.

Only helping superrational cooperators helps you superrationally. Cooperation usually excludes agents who are known to be unable to reciprocate. Yet superrationality does allow for cooperation with non-reciprocating agents if helping them makes it more likely that other agents help us. There is, however, at least one limitation on the set of our beneficiaries that comes without negative side-effects. We can exclude from superrational cooperation all agents who do not cooperate superrationally at all. After all, every superrational cooperator knows that this exclusion will not affect her, and the exclusion appears to be symmetrical among all superrational agents. That is, it makes it more likely that other superrational cooperators make the same choice (rather than incurring some other limitation that excludes us).

What kind of agents can join multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (MSR) at all? In particular, what sorts of values do they need to have, independent of whether or how many such agents or value systems actually exist in the multiverse? We already know that only helping superrational or correlated agents benefits us. However, the values of the superrationalists must also be open to the opportunity of gains from compromise.

In some cases, it will not be in our power to help other value systems at all. Since any will to cooperate with these agents cannot possibly be action-guiding, we do not have to help them. Other agents in the universe may have other resources available to them and thus choose to behave in a friendly way toward these values. If, on the other hand, agents know that nobody else can help them to achieve their goals, multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (in particular, any version of it in which they just give resources away) becomes less attractive to them. One example of a value system that we cannot help is the following version of speciesism:
...
The Namuh-centrists. One day, scientists inform you about a highly intelligent species of extraterrestrials known as “Namuhs”. Like us, the Namuhs have built a flourishing civilization with art, trade, science, language, humor, philosophy (including advanced decision theory research), and so on. However, the Namuhs do not live in our universe, but in a distant part of the multiverse, completely inaccessible to us. In fact, they could not even exist in our part of the multiverse, as their bodies require slightly different laws of physics to function. Knowing about superrational cooperation, you hasten to ask whether they have thought about problems analogous to Newcomb’s problem and the donation games between similar agents. A trustworthy scientist explains that their minds are indeed prone to thinking about such topics – much more so than those of humans, in fact! Understandably thrilled, you ask what values the Namuhs have, and specifically what values are held by those who have thought about acausal cooperation. The scientist then informs you that all Namuhs are very narrowly focused on their own species. They are Namuh-centrists who do not care one bit about anything that does not involve fellow Namuhs. For example, they shrug at the thought of non-Namuh suffering, the flourishing of non-Namuh civilizations, or non-Namuh well-being. In fact, they are so strict that they do not even care about simulated Namuhs or other approximations.

Learning about their values, you may be disappointed. There is nothing that you can do to help them and it is therefore irrelevant whether they use a decision theory similar to yours or not.

(They have adopted a value system incompatible with larger scale superrational cooperation)

Which moral views correlate with superrationality?

The issue of existence and justification of the Supreme Being is constantly approached by Immanuel Kant in his entire work. For Kant, the ultimate goal of the nature created by God is man as a moral being: the world was created according to man's moral needs. This is why it is said that, after Kant, teleology leads to a moral theology, one that is not about the possibility of proving rationally God's existence but which is about stating that moral life is possible only if God exists. Under these circumstances, though the “idea of God” is presupposed in most Kantian works, we insist, below, particularly on what is debated when appealing to practical reason. In the theoretical philosophy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God as Unconditioned, as a being that is absolutely necessary, is seen as a transcendental ideal determined through an idea as a prototype of perfection necessary to everything that is contingent and determined in our sensible world: what we can do to conciliate sensible experience with the Absolute Being is to presuppose an extra-phenomenal reality designated as transcendental object: we presuppose its existence but we cannot get to know it. Later, in Critique of Practical Reason, God is postulated (together with soul's immortality) as a condition of the supreme value of moral life, the Sovereign Good (union of virtue with happiness). Since in the sensible world moral conduct does not warrant proportional happiness, the virtuous ones has strong reasons to believe in the reparatory intervention of a superior power: God, as moral ideal and warranty of moral order. “Morality leads, inevitably, to religion, through which it (morality) extends over a moral Lawgiver”

I think one reason the irreligious have less children is they don't want to risk having children that they'd later find out they can't raise, especially since they don't believe there is a god to help them through it all. They are also more likely to be pro-abortion and birth control.

With regards to "overall" health, I think it boils down to the social network. Religion provide an extra set of network in addition to friends made from school, work, etc. There's more people to hold you accountable when you say stuff like "I'm gonna quit smoking". Also some religions have dietary restrictions (for example banning alcohol or coffee) and some traditionally have fasting periods (Ramadan, Lent, "vegan Fridays") whose effects might add up in the long run.

But is there really such thing as a selfless act because you are helping others to feel better about yourself?  So isn't it ultimately about yourself.

Being selfless means you care more about others than yourself. The change can only come from within. Study Eastern philosophies, learn more about human animals.

I am afraid your Bronze Age, psychopathic maniac will not help you to achieve any form of enlightenment.

You don’t need external God to be a good person.

Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless.

Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning.

I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name.

Waste of time either way.  You don’t enter, you lose.  You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph.

Like I said, a waste of my time.

Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation.

If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing.

We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails.

Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game.

Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.

IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process.  You are a prime example.

With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.

Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment...

Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.

You are not understanding the issue and that’s ok.

I will leave you with the words of the man himself who coined the term.
 
“My feeling is that the concept of superrationality is one whose truth will come to dominate among intelligent beings in the universe simply because its adherents will survive certain kinds of situations where its opponents will perish. Let’s wait a few spins of the galaxy and see. After all, healthy logic is whatever remains after evolution’s merciless pruning.”

Douglas Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas: Questing For The Essence Of Mind And Pattern

I agree with Mr. Hofstafter.

For now you are probably just have to add Mr. Hofstafter along with C.S Lewis and myself to your internal list of irrational illogical individuals. Quite the list you are drawing up.

Best Wishes

We humans will never be able to escape our neurophysiologically hardwired,  linguistic meaning making mechanisms - it is rooted to the core of our being. But science has indeed prodded religious linguistics as a superficial kind, a kind that needed a rude awakening, a disillusionment if you will. Yes, it is through the applied methodology of science that religious members became disappointed, dissatisfied  and utterly discontented with the cheap spells that their various sects have so lavishly kept casting on them to keep the poor parishioners illusioned  and falsely enchanted throughout the entirety of their miserable lives.

But you are right, we need new linguistic jargon that will unleash the exploring minds of humans, but keep us grounded in the materialistic reality, through which science has granted us a much fuller, clearer (disenchanted) and sense driven understanding.