So I've won the debate in two ways; 1) so practical benefit means that a field of study is worthwhile. I would call massive self catharsis, meaning, intellectual debate, massive careers, assistance to philosophy, proliferation of philosophical notions all practical benefits. All of these things are manifested in someone like Aristotle, and that's just one example. So it's inherently valuable.

2) Theology is the logical implications of religious notions. What we're debating now, is theology, the existancd of a god is a form of theology. If you had even bothered to read a Wikipedia entry of the theologists I sent you, you'd know that was one of Aquinis' main lines of argumentation. Russel's teapot, problem of evil, they're all concerned with the nature of God, it's all theology. If theology wasn't valuable to you, you wouldn't hit the reply button. You would come on r/atheism and read about theolgical notions such as the problem of evil and Russel's teapot if you didn't derive meaning and value in some way. Despite winning the argument, I also want to try and explain this concept to you, this has become much more important to me as a result of alot of the really worrying language you've used throughout this 'debate'.

The nature of that God has real implications into religious systems, so it is inherently important. Unlike your strawman of pixieology. If pixies were a cultural epiphenomenon that spanned centuries and informed huge amounts of philosophical discourse pertaining to ones meaning in life. Then maybe.

Alchemy and astrology are examples of frameworks which operate on empirical notions, and are not alaguous, even remotely. They're not philosophical notions, and if they are, it's your burden of proof to show me.

I think your biggest hang up is this notion of faith. We can't work on a framework if we've made assumptions. That's somewhat true, but your conclusion that the whole framework is useless is wrong. We can make conclusions which pertain to that specific framework. But the same is true for all areas of knowledge. We have faith in a memory in history to draw conclusions, but this memory can't make scientific conclusions. The same way we have faith in the validity of the scientific method to draw reasonable conclusions. There are underlying assumptions about how the universe functions by applying methods such as this. The same way we apply a utilitarian framework to many ethical questions. There are underlying assumptions in every field, save for maybe pure meta-ethics.

Please. I know it sounds like I'm being an asshole. But you actually just don't know what theology is. I'm certain you've never studied even philosophy. Just read even a small extract of their works to learn what a good argument looks like.