[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 354 KB, 600x690, remilia18.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080615 No.10080615 [Reply] [Original]

What is sillier

believing in religion/god

or

believing in destiny

>> No.10080622

everything is a matter of fate

>> No.10080625

Chance is the one true God

>> No.10080630

not believing in aliens

>> No.10080628

I like how edgy atheists believe in determinism when they're the ones always making the point that science doesn't have to match human ideas.

>> No.10080629

Both are equally stupid.

>> No.10080633

If you don't believe in density, then how come rocks sink in water?

>> No.10080643

>>10080633
Higgs bosons. Density is an abstraction, like classical mechanics.

Just as quantum physics was cool in the later 20th century, particle physics is the new hotness.

>> No.10080636

>>10080633
You're on one right now
OWNED

>> No.10080640

destiny can mean a lot of things
it's a matter of perspective you buttblaster

>> No.10080645

>>10080636
And is it sinking? No. Why? Because God is keeping it up.

You can't refute this one, atheists.

>> No.10080654

Both are good things to believe in.

>> No.10080659

is all about faith

and having faith for something is not silly

>> No.10080670

>>10080645
So god holds up all the continental plates at once?
That would mean he is at the core of the earth, which is molten metal.
Does that mean god is a ball of molten metal?
If so, then is the sun also a god, an even bigger god at that, because it's a bigger fireball?

>> No.10080673

Belief in destiny is incompatible with atheism, so I will say that destiny is sillier.

>> No.10080677

>>10080633
i believe in maerty mcfly

>> No.10080680

Faith manages.

>> No.10080695
File: 325 KB, 749x1141, 1334527602164.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080695

>>10080670
It's gods all the way down.

>> No.10080699

>>10080673
You can believe in destiny but not in gods.

Hell there are tons of crazy supernatural and metaphysical concepts, they don't have to be tied to any sort of deity or organized religion.

>> No.10080700

Theism has a long history of robust intellectual defense. It isn't silly.

>> No.10080702

>>10080699
How are things destined in a godless universe? What is doing the determining?

>> No.10080704

>>10080700
Who gives a shit, nerd. People believed humans were made of clay for thousands of years.

>> No.10080707

>>10080704
Typical internet atheist response. Go back to /r/atheism and talk about unicorns and Santa Claus, retard.

>> No.10080713

>>10080702
Determinism? Plenty of atheists think we live in a clockwork universe. Go back in time five minutes, keep all the variables the same, identical events will occur. Everything is atoms whizzing around in a certain order having defined physical effects with no true randomness. Free will is a lie because our brains are controlled by electrical signals and neurons in a certain arrangement.

Now excuse me while I go cut myself and listen to Linkin Park.

>> No.10080718

>>10080707
It's called an argument by analogy, Dad.

A lot of people believing something for a long time does not make it true. If you go back to the Dark Ages and point out that the Earth might revolve around the Sun, plenty of natural philosophers will prove you wrong with intellectual arguments.

>> No.10080719

>>10080699
but if you believe in fate

then who controls that fate

>> No.10080720

>>10080713
Scientific determinism is not the same as destiny. Destiny necessitates that what will happen in the future is already determined now. What will happen 1,000 years from now is already determined at present.

>> No.10080722

>>10080718
I'm sorry to put it this way, but you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know how theism is defended intellectually and so you reduce it to nonsense so you can conveniently bypass actually learning something. You're not worth discussing this with.

>> No.10080724

>>10080718

Whoa! A father and son who both browse /jp/!

>> No.10080726

>>10080720
If that's the case then you can determine destiny by extrapolating from the present. If I have a function that adds 1 to a number, I can look at a number and determine what the function will produce.

Of course, you'd need an impossible computer to work everything out, but the fact is that your "destiny" is already mapped out. Your destiny will be the same tomorrow as it is today.

>> No.10080732

>>10080722
You argued that because something has longstanding intellectual arguments, that thing has some merit.
I argue that lots of things without merit have longstanding intellectual arguments.
Therefore: suck my cock, dude.

>> No.10080734

>>10080726
In other words, if we did something that's impossible for us to, we might have the same thing. It's almost like you'd need a God or something for this idea to make sense.

>> No.10080742

>>10080732
I doubt there's anything I can say to you to make you consider reading a book on the subject so I'll just leave you in your ignorance.

>> No.10080746

Guys, guys! Get over yourselves!

>> No.10080749

>>10080734
Nah, because there are plenty of tricky problems already. The sort of problems that, by the time you've solved them, the universe has died. A computer would never be able to simulate every atom in real-time, but you could work out specific things or use heuristics and search algorithms to cheat.

Now we just need that P=NP stuff solved so we can work out whether it would take 140,000,000,000 years or not.

>> No.10080752

>>10080707
Not him, but believing in Santa Claus has more to do with believing in God (no proof except written bullshit/myths) than not believing in one.

I present an idea: "My penis is god and you should serve him"
Everyone's response: "Get a help, psycho"

Theist says: "There's god and you should serve him"
Response of a majority of people: "YES!!!! CAN'T EAT MEAT AT FRIDAY! GOD IS GOD AND YOU SHOULD FOLLOW WHAT HE SAY" etc.

Why, when presenting idea and using word 'god' in the popular context my argument becomes more valid? It's the same effect. Both "Theist" and "I" present the same idea, that there's a thing that's 'god'.
There's no more proof of my penis being god nor the 'God' being one. I can write Penis Bible and get 100,000,000 followers for my penis too, but it doesn't make it real. And these 'atheists'(I mean, 'normal' people, not raging teenager faggots) are quite right, "God" idea was present since the dawn of times, and first concepts of that were created when Humans didn't know what math is. People just liked to explain it this way, because they didn't know what comes from where. When you add "God", magically everything becomes possible, yet the logical fallacies can be created, and their presence often are explained(by Christians mostly) as 'you can't understand God'. At the beginning, they try to prove that god exists (basing on bible and other mysterious sources) using logic, and when you beat them in logic, they will say exactly that one phrase. Think about it.

I'm not saying that the 'Almighty Entity' doesn't exist, because I simply can't disprove or prove it. Maybe one day someone will?

>> No.10080754

>>10080615

I'd say they're about equal. Now believing in loli religion is perfectly logical.

>> No.10080770

>>10080752
I know you think that what you are saying is a legitimate response to theist arguments, but it isn't. Can I recommend you a few books? You seem to suffer from the common problem on the internet of not knowing what the opposing side is actually saying and then refuting a silly, dumb-downed version of what you think they mean.

>> No.10080772

The question is, can you see "destiny"?

pic related. I think Remi's power "manipulating fate" is just made-up power, since we don't know what fate is, thus her power is "un-operational".

If PMiSS example were right, that means zillions of people actually fate manipulator.

>> No.10080780

>>10080770
Elaborate then. It shouldn't be hard enough to present.
Link me to their responses or something? You recommend me books about that but I doubt I'd read them; I read only reference books, and I don't consider 'theology' to fit that, since it's all just speculating.

>> No.10080794

>>10080770
Not that anusworshipper, but I could use some books I'm kinda dumb.

>> No.10080797
File: 357 KB, 1024x768, reimu2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080797

which is reimu religion

i could believe in that

>> No.10080805

Let's make a Touhou Church.

To sign in, you have to be a little girl and wear cure dresses all day.
Who's in?

>> No.10080806

>>10080752
God is a little more involved than that. The original argument can't be simplified the way you think it can. I don't refute physics because the idea of little balls or intrinsic forces seems mad. They're simplifications, abstractions and generalizations. Of course there's more to it than that.

Try reading the Bible. A lot of what you're saying is addressed in the source material you're arguing against (yes, the Christian God isn't the only God etc., but the Bible handles these arguments quite well).

>> No.10080809

>>10080752
>Maybe one day someone will?

Nope. It's not possible to prove the existence of the supernatural with the tools of methodological naturalism. Even if what you believe is God speaks directly to you, and you are able to record it somehow, you've still proven nothing. You can't get away from the infinite logical regression of 'who designed the designer.'

>> No.10080818

>>10080780
>>10080794
You could start here with one theism's modern proponents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

http://amzn.com/0195078624
http://amzn.com/0195078640
http://amzn.com/0195131932

>> No.10080820
File: 59 KB, 640x480, 1236925119264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080820

>>10080818
Fascinating.

>> No.10080824

I am my own god and I choose my own destiny!

>> No.10080826

>>10080752
>Maybe one day someone will?
Okay, question 1: How you "Create Universe"?

>> No.10080828

>>10080806
>Try reading the Bible.

Oh yeah, that'll do him a ton of good, I'm sure... If he can manage to wade through all the distasteful garbage, confusing contradiction, and outright inaccuracy.

Tell you what... Read Socrates in addition to the Bible. At least then you won't be intellectually defective.

>> No.10080831

>>10080826
>>10080828
who quotings

>> No.10080835

>>10080826
Push the "Create Universe" button.

>> No.10080837

>>10080826
Mystery. No one knows.

>> No.10080841

>>10080615
hahaha are you 12? you are free to believe in anything you want, including being a stupid, edgy faggot like you.

>> No.10080852

With the apparently faster-than-light neutrinos discovered and the mystery of gravity and Hadrons, physicists still have work to do. We will probably have a metaphysical/ quantum physics breakthrough in our lifetimes, and maybe even find how we can live a conscious existence even though the atoms in our body are always changing. It will be like finding the Elder Scroll.

>> No.10080850

>>10080704
>Who gives a shit
stay ignorant, fagget. you don't know a shit about philosophy.

>> No.10080851

>>10080809
How is it not possible? Now, assuming that bible is right, you can even summon a demon.

1. Get a decent HD camera, a couple of them in the room
2. Get some people to watch it live from another room, or from the room itself
3. Summon a demon
4. ???
5. Profit

Then, after showing it off, you go to scientists and they test how you summon demons.

How it can't be proven, if it's possible?

>> No.10080856

>>10080850
who are you quotng

>> No.10080857

>>10080826

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

>> No.10080861

>>10080828
>socrates

i dont like racism

>> No.10080864

>>10080752
>I simply can't disprove or prove it
positivist science trying to prove or disprove something that cannot be perceived by our senses therefore can't be known lel. this doesn't mean that the metaphysical doesn't exist.

>> No.10080867

>>10080852
> faster-than-light neutrinos discovered
No.

http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-than-light-neutrinos-caused-by-loose-wire-120222.html
>According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer.

What is mystic about gravity?

>> No.10080868
File: 126 KB, 510x607, 1352422641544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080868

I just read a book on postmodernism. Ask me anything.

>> No.10080875

>>10080861

Oh boy, then don't read the bible.

>> No.10080876

anuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus
anus anus anus
anus anus
anus

>> No.10080877
File: 14 KB, 220x303, 220px-Immanuel_Kant_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10080877

>>10080856
youre mother, my son

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action