[ 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.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 63 KB, 676x581, 1356345766210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406018 No.4406018[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>there are people right now on /lit/ that aren't atheists

>> No.4406035
File: 43 KB, 612x612, 1388061576463.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406035

>>4406018

>> No.4406038

>>4406035
What a nice-looking and intelligent young chap.

>> No.4406041

>>4406038
Just like op, both are classy enlightened gentlemen.

>> No.4406044

>>4406041
Do you believe in a god?

>> No.4406053

im an atheist

that's why i think tolstoy and dostoevsky are shit and i read fantasy novels instead

>> No.4406056

>>4406044
No, but I also don't believe in being a cunt about it.

>> No.4406063
File: 164 KB, 500x688, Euphoria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406063

>>4406018

>> No.4406066

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzLIAEXjl70

>> No.4406067

>>4406053
such elegant lel

>> No.4406069
File: 1.64 MB, 320x240, Fedora_tip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406069

>> No.4406075

Yeah, how dare people have a different to me.

>> No.4406077

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avep_1vbUOA

>> No.4406081

>>4406053
Atheists are the dorkiest dorks around.
The internet is generally their only real domain, but none the less their collective notepads should be slapped out of their hands, anon is the only man enough to do it.

>> No.4406083

>>4406056
I think there's something wrong with being oversensitive to the feelings of religious people.

>> No.4406090

>>4406083
What exactly? And why do you give a fuck? I mean, it's not like the majority of religious people are trying to convert you (contrary to what much of leddit seems to believe).

>> No.4406092

>>4406090

Religious belief is an opinion like any other. It shouldn't be afforded any special status.

>> No.4406093

>>4406077
10/10

>> No.4406096
File: 62 KB, 864x647, 1374174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406096

Is there any point in not being agnostic?

>> No.4406097

>>4406090
Because they fight science (evolution), medicine (stem cell research, abortion), basic health (contraception, prayer to heal), and undermine the ability for children to think clearly by forcefully instilling the idea that parts of the world are unquestionable truths.

Maybe if they stopped trying to use their religion to decide public policy, we could get along. As long as their idiotic beliefs affect the world I live in, I'll speak openly.

>> No.4406105

>>4406090
>it has no effect on your life
If you're american it does. There hasn't been a president in our history that's been anything other than Christian. If an atheist ran for office he wouldn't stand a chance, regardless of his positions on foreign policy, the economy, or social reform.

>> No.4406108

>>4406097
Oh my god... The vast majority of religious people are not like that. If you buy into that euphoric /r/atheism bullshit, they you are stupider than religious fundamentalists, who make up a minority so small it is barely even worth counting unless you are in a particularly backwards part of the world.

>> No.4406109

>>4406097
That's the nature of democracy, and the work mainly of American evangelicals. I'd concede that some of what happens in the Bible belt of the US in regard to religion and politics is problematic, but overall I think it is in most cases facile to take issue with the religious beliefs of individuals.

>> No.4406111

>>4406108
>>4406109
Their influence is not benign, and should be suppressed from public discourse.

>> No.4406115

>>4406111
We should probably incarcerate them in gulags as well for their dangerous opinions.

>> No.4406117

>>4406097
but the government forces their idiotic beliefs of private property, marriage, citizenship etc upon you and you don't do anything about it
*tips skullcap*

>> No.4406119

>>4406108
see
>>4406105

Maybe not in your little bubble, but outside of your college campus or your progressive liberal church, that's how a lot of religious people think. Get to know some people outside of your usual circles, and ask them their opinions on stem cell research. You'll see how thick the stupidity runs.

>> No.4406123

I just cant fucking understand why would someone choose to believe to a Santa instead of finding out the fucking truth.

>> No.4406124

>>4406115
reductio ad absurdum

>>4406119
he's probably a religious person who loves to think he's progressive.

>> No.4406126

>>4406123
But without Santa, you don't get Christmas gifts.

>> No.4406132

>>4406124
Suppression of certain kinds of speech is the beginning of the road toward gulags, secret police, political oppression etc.

inb4 slippery slope

>> No.4406136

>>4406132
>Suppression of certain kinds of speech is the beginning of the road toward gulags, secret police, political oppression etc.

So by suppressing the research of Holocaust in Europe we are heading towards the gulags, secret police, political oppression etc.

>> No.4406138

>>4406132
Okay, that's not reasonable, clearly you can say what you will. You're just wrong, and you're going to cause problems because of it.

>> No.4406145

Yes, and you we talk with you often.

>> No.4406150

>>4406136
>So by suppressing the research of Holocaust in Europe we are heading towards the gulags, secret police, political oppression etc.

Well maybe, but this seems like sort of a loaded question.


>Okay, that's not reasonable, clearly you can say what you will. You're just wrong, and you're going to cause problems because of it.

The person I was responding to suggested that religious organisations should be "suppressed from public discourse." That is a direct throwback to totalitarianism. You might disagree with somebody, but you should seek to overcome them by "suppressing" them.

>> No.4406152

>>4406126
and there you have it.

>>4406111
>>4406124
the moment that you start suppressing speech is the moment that you stoop to the level of religious fundamentalism. Change happens slowly, and with greater communication and understanding of others. You can't force people to think the way you want them to think.

>> No.4406154

Who cares?

>> No.4406156

>>4406124
No actually, I'm just from the UK

>> No.4406158

>>4406154
I agree

>> No.4406159

>>4406150
>The person I was responding to suggested that religious organisations should be "suppressed from public discourse."

Yes, in the same way that we suppress racists and sexists from public discourse. It has nothing to do with fascism.

>>4406152
>the moment that you start suppressing speech is the moment that you stoop to the level of religious fundamentalism. Change happens slowly, and with greater communication and understanding of others. You can't force people to think the way you want them to think.

Religious people are sure trying to force their opinion into places deemed inappropriate (biology textbooks, much?)

>> No.4406160

>there are people on /lit/ RIGHT NOW who aren't autists

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC

>> No.4406162

>>4406159
>inb4 muh war on whites

>> No.4406165

>>4406162
Um.. what?

>>4406160
>there are people on /lit/ who think the lack of an ability to reason is a favorable trait

>> No.4406190

>>4406159
Listen you sack, what you are critiquing is a small segment of religious thought which is no where near global or representative. You haven't discovered anything that the rest of the world doesn't know about. You are too uneducated and narcissistic to know that there is a world outside of your country's borders. You are arguing for a shit solution to an issue that pertains only to your nation.

>> No.4406192

>>4406165
>there are people on /lit/ who think beliefs directly affect the ability to reason
i bet when you became a libertarian you're iq shot up 20 points

>> No.4406193
File: 974 KB, 500x220, tumblr_mrw7cwucxe1s89mq8o1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406193

>> No.4406200

Let's centre ourselves and remember that this is 4chan.

>> No.4406218

All theists on 4chan are Americans, right?

>> No.4406223

>>4406136
Are you saying that you don't think it's wrong to suppress research of the Holocaust?

>> No.4406250

>>4406077
Wow.
I can't even watch this. Maximum cringe.

>> No.4406545

Yes Religion is the problem and not the atavistic need to dominate and control. Using religious and government ideologies (in their interpretations of it) to justify genocide, rape, war, mass murder, etc, etc. Look at Eugenics and other "SCIENCES" during Hitlers rise; science became an occult rather then empirical study. At least the deist aren't bullshitting everyone about their "faith" in things. How much do you know as fact and how much do you take on faith? Do you understand the math behind the big bang theory? If not it is the exact same faith you have in it as the deists have in creation "theory."

The Choice between atheism and religion have less to do with intelligence then people like to think **it is nothing more then a choice**. It's ok though you're savage desire to feel superior to others will tell you I'm smarter then "them." Grow beyond your crap flinging ancestry and fucking think.

If you still think your better then someone religious or not show how you changed physics or contributed to the field. Maybe you helped form one of the most powerful nations to ever exist.

There are some things that are beyond the reach of current science and I assure you the proof or disproof of a divine being will not exist for many centuries if ever.

FUCK YOUR ARROAGANCE O.P. you unthinking narcissist; I hope you get everything you have ever wanted in the exact way in which you have wished for it.

>> No.4406617

>>4406218
I'm from europe

>> No.4406624

>>4406545
hahahaha so feckin mad.

this lad's mad.

what are you, mad?

what's your name? MADs mikkelsen?

hahahaha

>> No.4406643

>>4406223
No. I just used his logic in reality, no?

>>4406218
Am I atheist if I never even believed to anything
like, atheistm denies belief, right? But thats assuming it exists in the first place, right?

or is this pedantry?

whatvs

>> No.4406670

>>4406124
fun fact: contrary to what Big Bamg Theory states, reduction to absurd is a valid argumentation and even a valid mathematical proof
About the thread:
Jesus Christ, this thread teeks like Dawkins bullshit

>> No.4406686

>>4406670
why was Dawkins bullshitter?

>> No.4406700

>>4406686
because he's not religious.

what are you, stupid? you still don't get the memo? being an atheist and appreciating science isn't contrarian anymore, it's what reddit does, so all the kool kids here go against that.

>> No.4406704

>>4406700
you make me sad anon..

>> No.4406714

>>4406700
>appreciating science

This is something I don't get. What's with some atheists and their quasi-worshipful attitude toward this vague, idealized concept of "science"? What does "science" mean to you and how is religion supposed to be impeding it?

>> No.4406726

Like many in this thread I also feel no faith. Luckily I am smart enough to see this as a strength though. I'm essentially like Bill Maher in Real Time with Bill Maher, to others I seem logical and unattached, but I could snap and smash a fundie's face in at any second. On the other hand I am like Russell, I have become incredibly good at fooling idealists into thinking I am one of them. On the surface you may think society has rejected me and I am just a loser, but if you are intelligent enough you may catch that it is I who has rejected society. If you see me on the street give me a *tip* and keep moving. I'm live explosives. I'm the new Jehovah's Witness: I'm the one who knocks...

>> No.4406732

>>4406714
>How is religion fucking with progress in science

u gotta be pullin my keg leg, peg

>> No.4406737

>>4406714
This.
If you think all of existence is structure and formula and science then you're literally mindless.

>> No.4406738

>>4406737
How is it more than mathematics?

>> No.4406757

>>4406738
How is mathematics more than language?

>> No.4406770

>>4406732

Did you not understand the question or are you just unable to answer it?

>> No.4406773

>>4406704
don't cry ;_;

>>4406737
I suppose as humans, especially if you're an artist of some sort, you have to allow for the numinous, as Hitchens put it (inb4 fedora). But tell me, and I'm genuinely curious, what would you say there is outside of 'structure, formula and science'?

>>4406714
I can't speak for others, but what I appreciate about science is that it gives us some control over our surroundings.

And I also appreciate the mindset of curiosity and exactitude that goes with science.

>> No.4406775

>>4406686
Because he was a great scientist, but a pseudo-intellectual. In his lasts books he step out of evolutionary biology to talk about anthropology, sociology, theology, psychology/neuroscience and others. But the thing is he never read or seriously studied any of those (he debates Luther using as 'evidence' a few decontextualized quotes from a website).
So not only religious and atheist people hates him, but psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists and basically every.one with a degree on a human science

>> No.4406777

>>4406056
Where's your fedora, citizen?

>> No.4406779

>>4406773
>I can't speak for others, but what I appreciate about science is that it gives us some control over our surroundings.
>And I also appreciate the mindset of curiosity and exactitude that goes with science.

Okay, but it's still unclear to me what science is to you. I want to understand how you conceptualize science.

>> No.4406785

>>4406775
Oh, he was great scientist?

>> No.4406807

Would it be wrong to say that the beliefs of Scientologists are no more ridiculous than Christianity?

>> No.4406815

>>4406807
No.

Believing to a Santa is the same as any of these things, or flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns.

>> No.4406820

>>4406096
i dunno, maybe. maybe not

>> No.4406827

>>4406096
You can't logically prove if there is or if there isn't.

>> No.4406828

>>4406779
Knowledge of the material world, gained through experimentation and observation, and using this knowledge to make our lives more comfortable and make explanations and predictions about the universe in a testable form.

Verbose, I know, but it'll have to do for now.

>> No.4406831

>>4406737
Science must include everything outside of it's formulas and structures. Otherwise it can't propose, and therefore even study alternatives to existing ones, and it's entire endeavour is rendered meaningless.

Even the most anarchic, religious, postmodernist is swimming in science, whether they, or scientists, realize it.

That's the main thrust of the new atheist position, and it's hardly new. Faggots on all sides attack this position because its inconvenient for them. Autists and SJWs both take a justificationist position, because it neatly cleaves science from other domains. They merely disagree on whether science is kool or it totes drools. But there's also those like Feyerabend, on the humanities side, who agree they overlap, but think that science shouldn't always work towards formulas and structures. Which is idiotic, for obvious reasons.

>> No.4406841
File: 18 KB, 274x305, Doc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406841

>>4406545
>then people like to think
>it is nothing more then a choice
>better then someone
>then

>> No.4406873

Religion is important to civilization because it gives the people a moral fiber and certain ideals to live by. Only a religious people can truly appreciate art and science.

Life is about Death. Man is inherently religious, even when he tries not to be. It is the power of belief that makes a Culture strong and self confident in itself. When the purpose and direction of life transitions to the outward, materialistic realm his values and attitudes change towards death. Life becomes valued by its length, people look for a "happy ending" to avoid the true nature of life: tragedy.

>> No.4406880

>>4406873
Religion is too structural to give just morals in an constantly restructuring world.

>> No.4406881

>>4406218
It's the opposite, atleast what i've seen from /int/

>> No.4406919 [DELETED] 

>>4406873
>Only a religious people can truly appreciate art and science.

Then why are most scientists non-religious?

Also, Michelangelo was a closet atheist, are you really saying that he couldn't appreciate art?

>> No.4406922

>>4406919
>Michelangelo was a closet atheist, are you really saying that he couldn't appreciate art?
yes
>why are most scientists non-religious?
yes

>> No.4406924

>>4406190
http://thinkafricapress.com/zambia/prayer-help-or-hindrance-fight-against-aids-choma

>> No.4406936

>>4406545
I'm already living in it, bud.

>>4406670
given the fact that it was a non-argument, i don't have to worry about it being anything

>>4406714
>not spending the hours of every day scratching the worms on your anus, hunting for food and sleeping on dirt

no science is the real life m8

>> No.4406944

>>4406827
not exactly. like I can't disprove that there's pink pixies that pull the invisible strings to make my heart work, but it's so ridiculous a premise and there's so little evidence as to not seriously consider it as an alternative for medicine and physics

>> No.4406953

>>4406873
>I_read_dostoevsky.txt

>> No.4406962

>>4406775
Lol

>A published and well-respected scientist is a hack because I said so

>> No.4406973

>>4406962
Stephen King is published and well-respected but he's still a hack.

>> No.4406979

>>4406973
Certainly, but that doesn't mean there is absolutely no merit to anything he wrote and it's all complete garbage

>> No.4406981

>>4406828

Thanks. I have a few more questions if you're willing to answer them... these are things that I think about pretty often and I haven't really come up with any satisfying answers myself.

Are there standards that methods of experimentation/observation must meet in order for their results to have value as scientific knowledge? What do you think of Feyerabend's 'epistemological anarchism' and other positions which deny the existence or utility of a single scientific method used by everyone?

Does our progress toward comfort and explaining/predicting the material universe ever end? IOW, are we moving toward specific goals in either of these realms?

Lastly, is our progress in both of these realms more or less linear, or what?

>> No.4406992

>>4406981
>Are there standards that methods of experimentation/observation must meet in order for their results to have value as scientific knowledge?
Absolutely yes..

>> No.4406993

>>4406924
Please don't use these people's deaths as a mere bargaining chip in your argument. There are plenty of churches in Africa that help get AIDS medication to people. Many of them do a better job than the government or anyone else in the area. Pentecostal "prosperity" preachers are the devil, but there are also churches who do more good than most atheists ever will.

>> No.4406998
File: 28 KB, 331x250, flannery-oconnor-self-portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4406998

>> No.4407001

>>4406111
The influence of any idea isn't benign if you assume the right things. Their influence is also just if you assume they're right.

Suppression doesn't destroy those assumptions, therefore it doesn't get rid of the problem.

>> No.4407010

>>4406993
>there are also churches who do more good than most atheists ever will

This is a wide claim, I demand evidence.

>Pentecostal "prosperity" preachers are the devil

I demand where the bible claims that medical science is preferred over miracle healing. As far as I can tell, what they're doing is fairly biblical.

>> No.4407013

>>4406880
>Religion is too structural to give just morals in an constantly restructuring world.

Is it though? It seems like every religion that has been adopted by a diverse plurality of people has an impressive capacity to adapt to various exigencies of time and place. This is just as true of Christianity and ostensibly legalistic religions like Islam as it is of, say, Buddhism.

>> No.4407015

>>4407001
It's a far stretch to assume that scientific data is condoning murder, whereas the bible is a document of literal commands that commands you to kill people.

We're talking about completely different levels, here.

>> No.4407026

>>4407013
The problem is, if you simply start ignoring parts of the Bible because it contradicts with science, then you're suggesting that the entirety of the bible is incorrect. You can't simply suggest that the bible is the word of the divine god, then say "oh, except he was wrong here, here and here" and maintain any credibility.

>> No.4407032

>>4406936
>not spending the hours of every day scratching the worms on your anus, hunting for food and sleeping on dirt
>no science is the real life m8

...Responses like this just suggest to me that you haven't spent enough time thinking about your own beliefs.

>> No.4407036

the influence of religion is as ambiguous as the influence of scientific and technological progress.

science is not a medicine.
reason is not a medicine.
technology is not a medicine.
religion is not a medicine.
art is not a medicine.
these are simply things that people do.

the way that some people do them is harmful to others. those variants warrant criticism.

but overall, these almost undefinable human endeavors ought to be accepted as simple facts of human existence, sometimes good, sometimes evil.

when the dust settles, when these endeavors fall to the wayside, there is being, and it must be dealt with equally by all. science and religion are means for this task, and they should be respected inasmuch as they contribute and criticized inasmuch as they harm.

>> No.4407039

>>4406992

What are the standards and how universally are they/have they been followed?

>> No.4407049

>>4407010
This isn't an academic paper, but ok.
http://www.charitysa.co.za/diakonia-aids-ministry.html
this is one that I've worked with. I don't really know of any "atheist aids ministry" and I doubt statistical comparisons will be useful anyway.

are you aware that the hospital was invented by Christian monks?

>> No.4407051

>>4407039
http://www.meteo-technology.com/standard.htm

It's not hard to google this sort of thing.

>>4407036
It's important to look at causes.

>> No.4407053

>>4407051
what do you mean (your second comment)

>> No.4407058

>>4407049
Anecdotal evidence? You may want to find a study that actually compares them all, instead of relying on what one person has personally experienced.

>are you aware that the hospital was invented by Christian monks?

Yes, and physics was invented by Christians, algebra by Muslims, etc.

This doesn't mean the religion is intrinsic or important.

Did you know that Charles Darwin was white?

>> No.4407063

>>4407053
Science is the tool that helps us discover how to improve the efficacy of technology, medicine, and such. We have no good evidence that God likes to beam instructions into people's heads on how to do medicine right, we have ample evidence that the scientific method has slowly improved health levels over the years.

>> No.4407072

>>4407063
i think you missed the point of what i said. i was using the word "medicine" figuratively

>> No.4407078

>>4407058
I just told you this isn't an academic paper. You're the one making the claim that churches in Africa are making people die from AIDS, so you're the one who needs more than "this article says some pastors are telling people not to take medicine." Something being anecdotal doesn't make it meaningless when you can't produce anything to counter it.

The hospital was invented by Christian monks as a Christian institution. You implied that Christians prefer faith healing over medical science and this obviously creates a contradiction. I hope you're just trolling and not really this bad at argumentation.

>> No.4407083

>>4407026

But the Word of God (logos) in Christianity is Jesus, not the Bible. I'm not a Christian and I can't say for sure, but I don't think that Biblical literalism or belief that the Divine will is transparently accessible through the Bible have ever been prominent positions in the mainstream of Christian theology.

It seems like you've changed your argument a bit. First you said that religion isn't sufficiently able to adapt to constant restructuring, and now I think you're suggesting that Christian attempts to adapt to that restructuring represent some sort of betrayal of true Christianity...

>> No.4407088

>>4407051

These are standards of measurement, not methodological standards. I'm aware that both exist; that's beside the point.

>> No.4407090

>>4407078
Well, what about the Catholic church trying to prevent contraception methods in Africa?

>> No.4407098

>>4407083
I'm not the original debater, sorry.

I just don't think there's compatibility between a belief in God in many of the ways he's presented in the bible and science/rationalism. And I think that the character of God presented in the bible is fundamentally immoral.

I just don't see why a rational person needs faith. Certainly you're not basic enough to think that moral behavior comes from religion, right? Dostoevsky is a good read, but he's not telling you fantastic truths about the world.

>> No.4407106

>>4406873
2deep5me

>> No.4407108

>>4406981
I haven't read Feyerabend so I can't comment on that.

>Are there standards that methods of experimentation/observation must meet in order for their results to have value as scientific knowledge?

Science is a global enterprise, meaning that any theory must be subject to the scrutiny of other scientists. For example, someone can predict with the aid of mathematics (the universal language of science, if you will) the speed at which an object will fall; if this experiment can be replicated by others with the same success, then it's fair to assume that there's truth there, a valid method whereby certain predictions can be made.

>Does our progress toward comfort and explaining/predicting the material universe ever end? IOW, are we moving toward specific goals in either of these realms?

I would imagine if humanity were annihilated then yes, our progress would stop. If you're asking me whether there's some teleological shade to this progress, then I would say no. The goals that are set in science tend to be specific but also transient, in that once they are reached, scientists move on to other goals, armed with even more knowledge.

>Lastly, is our progress in both of these realms more or less linear, or what?

I'd say we're all doomed to linearity. But if you're asking me whether all of science is progress, then no. Very often new data or evidence is unearthed which may simply enrich preceding theories, make them fuller so to speak, or force scientists to go back a few spaces and rethink their thitherto developed theories. I suppose this could actually be considered progress, moving forward, since, with certain assumptions held to be true now revealed to be false, scientists are then wiser.

Hope all this makes sense.

>> No.4407115

>>4407090
Catholics are also the devil, but they at least (theoretically) get people to be abstinent when they tell them not to use condoms. Besides, if you take that into consideration there's also the fact that Catholics donate more time and money than any other faith or lack thereof. Maybe these are just nice people who would be just as giving without the church, but that line of thought doesn't paint atheists in a particularly good light. Philanthropy studies are generally really biased and hard to conduct, unfortunately

>> No.4407117

>>4407115
>they at least (theoretically) get people to be abstinent when they tell them not to use condoms.

Psst. They do nothing of the kind.

>> No.4407126

>>4407106
It's not even deep.

>Religion is important to civilization because it gives the people a moral fiber and certain ideals to live by. Only a religious people can truly appreciate art and science.

First off, there's very little evidence that religion gives people a "moral fiber". In fact, religion overrides people's default moral fiber, often in terrible ways.

You guys really need to stop pretending that Dostoevsky and whatever authors make you think that people can't be moral without a god. It's a ridiculous argument and if you looked at the world fairly you would see it very clearly.

I don't even have to address why "only religious people can appreciate art and science" is utterly ridiculous.

>> No.4407127

>>4406018
For some reason I am filled with an incredible sadness every time I look at this picture.

The photograph captures the moment wherein the unconditional awe and joy the kitten had for its surroundings is lost, destroyed. It's the limit between the exuberance of kittenhood and the quiet cynicism of adult life.

>> No.4407146

>>4407115
This line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous.

Banning extramarital sex is like banning ham; it only works because it prevents health issues in primitive societies.

When we say the bible bans ham so you shouldn't eat ham, you should comply. Otherwise, you have no right to say banning sex is good for our health.

1. You and other Christians eat ham all the time.
2. Science has shown us that it's healthy when you cook it with certain specifications.
3. Science has also given us loads of evidence and methods to prevent pregnancy and disease
4. Sex outside marriage is fucking fine, just like eating ham.

You can't just pick and choose at random. Also, removing contraception simply increases pregnancies, it doesn't increase abstinence (the data that shows religious girls getting pregnant more often would be nice to link here).

This is the fundamental problem with you mouth-breathing pick and choosers: You can't just say "well science has disproved part A of this book so I can choose not to follow it", but then insist that science doesn't go another direction because "the bible forbids it". These ideas are not compatible. They do not work. You can't reconcile them. It's clear that the bible isn't the word of any deity, either, because the knowledge in the bible is clearly structured around first century (or older) knowledge.

You guys amaze me on your ignorance.

>> No.4407149

>>4407127
Yes, losing Santa and losing heaven are sad. But part of being an understanding and mature individual is accepting that life isn't fun or fair.

>> No.4407153

>>4406081
>>anon is the only man enough to do it
>>awkwardly incorrect turn of phrase
>>transparent personal army call

Get out.

>> No.4407160

>>4407149
Speak for yourself. My life is fun and fair.

>> No.4407166

>>4407160
I meant life as a species, not life for the individual.

>> No.4407167

>>4407098
>I just don't think there's compatibility between a belief in God in many of the ways he's presented in the bible and science/rationalism.

I don't get what you mean. Even if we concede that Christianity is irrational, having irrational beliefs obviously doesn't preclude a person's participation in science.

In any case, though, the vulgarized sort of religion practiced by the general body of believers (anthropomorphism, sentimentalism, etc.) can't be conflated with religion itself or held to be the most 'authentic' expression of this or that holy scripture. Of course that sort of belief isn't rational. Of course those people aren't going to make profound intellectual contributions to science, nor would they if they happened to be irreligious.

>> No.4407178

>>4407166
But if every individual embraced God, then it would be so for the species as well.

>> No.4407181

>>4407146
actually I don't eat ham but OK
I think Catholics are hypocritical when they eat ham but I'm not a Catholic so I don't know how they justify it. My faith is based on grace, not works, and it's living, not dead. The founding fathers thought that keeping slavery was the best way to preserve freedom, but that doesn't make freedom (even their freedom) an empty concept.

I also think that Catholics are wrong to promote abstinence, but that doesn't make their work in Africa null and void, nor does it make your complete lack of work there any more honorable.

Also, get out of here with your German "myth is pre-science science" mythologism; I thought we killed all of you with the Nazis

>> No.4407183

>>4407167
>Even if we concede that Christianity is irrational, having irrational beliefs obviously doesn't preclude a person's participation in science.

I can't even express how wrong this idea is.

What would be an "authentic" expression of the holy scripture?

>> No.4407203

>>4407181
>nor does it make your complete lack of work there any more honorable.

Ironically I donate over 10% of my paycheck to help provide clean water and medical care to African children, and I'm not religious in the slightest. So you're completely false.

>> No.4407205

>>4407203
Not actual irony, pardon my poor use of words.

>> No.4407214

>>4406018

I don't get this pic. Is the cat you? Is it someone who isn't an atheist? What does the bowl of water represent?

>> No.4407215

>>4407181
Godwin's law holds true.

>> No.4407218

>>4407214
The bowl is atheism, the water is truth, the cat is religious people.

>> No.4407229

>>4407108
>Science is a global enterprise, meaning that any theory must be subject to the scrutiny of other scientists. For example, someone can predict with the aid of mathematics (the universal language of science, if you will) the speed at which an object will fall; if this experiment can be replicated by others with the same success, then it's fair to assume that there's truth there, a valid method whereby certain predictions can be made.

So an experiment's results have scientific value as long as that experiment can be recreated by others and yield the same results. Did I understand you correctly? Is reproducibility the only criterion?

>If you're asking me whether there's some teleological shade to this progress

Exactly what I was trying to ask.

>then I would say no. The goals that are set in science tend to be specific but also transient, in that once they are reached, scientists move on to other goals, armed with even more knowledge.

So when it comes down to it, science is a Sisyphean enterprise? There's no 'ultimate goal of Science' that we can eventually reach?

In that case--and assuming that religion is an obstruction to science--what is being obstructed? Why is it important that we move toward nothing in particular?

>Hope all this makes sense.

Thanks. I hope my questions don't come across as antagonistic, because this is really something that I'm trying to understand.

>> No.4407242

>>4407203
10% is what you're (supposed to) tithe as a Christian, so the point is really moot. It's a little dangerous to go into charity anyway (not ignoring that I brought it up in the first place), since there's also studies that show that Korean churches donate way more than predominantly Hispanic ones and what should we conclude from that?

>> No.4407271

>>4407183
>I can't even express how wrong this idea is.

I think we must be having trouble understanding each other.

You recognize, presumably, that there have been believing Christians who have contributed to science. You say that Christian beliefs are irrational beliefs. It follows that irrational beliefs don't preclude participation in science.

>What would be an "authentic" expression of the holy scripture?

My point was that a religion cannot be reduced to the anthropomorphism and sentimentalism that are most likely to be invoked as evidence of its irrationality, incompatibility with 'science', lack of sophistication, etc.

>> No.4407275

>>4406981
>What do you think of Feyerabend's 'epistemological anarchism' and other positions which deny the existence or utility of a single scientific method used by everyone?

I don't think it denies the possibility of the existence of a single scientific method used by everyone. It takes a moral stance on it. It seems to hinge on the libertarian free will of individuals, and on that issue it's essentialist and humanist.

With better models of human cognition, and biases that can emerge, we'll be able to criticize problems with methods without having to make arguments steeped in doctrinal political ideology.

>> No.4407289
File: 236 KB, 1024x768, homo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4407289

>> No.4407292

>>4407271
>You say that Christian beliefs are irrational beliefs. It follows that irrational beliefs don't preclude participation in science.

Well yeah, in the 17th century maybe.

>> No.4407301

>>4406775

Calling bullshit on this entire post.

>> No.4407305

>>4407275
>With better models of human cognition

Is it possible to understand or model human cognition objectively when this understanding will inevitably be reached through (and presumably colored by) the same processes of cognition that we're attempting to examine?

Sorry if that question is obnoxious.

>> No.4407309

>>4407292

Surely it hasn't become impossible over the past few hundred years...

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

>> No.4407328

>>4407289
>Every religion has a different explanation for when and where our species, H. sapiens, originated.
this is only true in the western world, not every religion even has a creation myth
at least Christianity only denies the truth of other religions, this simply ignores them outright

>> No.4407337

I think that as we adopt a more scientific/rational mindset, religion is simply going to become more metaphysical and less fighting meaningless conflicts and imposing their versions of science.

Christianity is on a good way, because it doesn't deny common sense theories that almost everyone accepts. It's about adopting a philosophy of life and participating in rituals that provide cultural union and inner peace.

Most Islaws and Jews are fucking degenerates that want state laws to obey their outdated and shitty morality. This is why I can't accept "lel all religions are the same" even though I'm not Christian.

>> No.4407343

>>4407337
>Islaws
Muslims, what was I thinking.

>> No.4407344

>>4407309
In either case, what is your point? Are you implying that cognitive dissonance is impossible?

>> No.4407355

>>4407049
>I don't really know of any "atheist aids ministry"

That's because atheism isn't a religion and thus approaching it that way would be absurd. What of all the atheists who participate in organizations that combat AIDS who aren't religious whatsoever? Furthermore, what of atheists who participate in community service through religious organizations, like I did?

>there are also churches who do more good than most atheists ever will

This is a hilariously nebulous and unsupportable notion.

>> No.4407358

>>4407337
>Most Islaws and Jews are fucking degenerates that want state laws to obey their outdated and shitty morality.

Why is common law/civil law inherently superior to a legal system based on Shari'ah or Halacha?

>> No.4407368

>>4407355
>atheism isn't a religion
A decade or so ago it wasn't; now it undoubtedly is.

>> No.4407377

>>4407013

That's because many modern religions approach morality from a perspective of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance. The little nuggets of wisdom you hear during church sermons are cherry picked. If people continued to believe the laws written of in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were legitimate, then essentially everyone in America would be going straight to Hell, including so many supposedly devout Christians. And if Deuteronomy and Leviticus aren't considered legitimate, why should the rest of the Bible? Sure, there are other aspects that appeal to our modern sensibilities, but why should that legitimize those aspects of the religion when they're directly associated with other beliefs that most would consider flagrantly insane in the modern world?

>> No.4407382

>>4407344
>what is your point?

Everyone has irrational beliefs and they don't preclude participation in science. Even if religion is irrational, I don't think that this can necessarily be cited as evidence of its incompatibility with science.

>> No.4407387

>>4407368
What?

>>4407382
Science has alot more divisive things to say about religion that you're cognizant of.

>> No.4407388

Why do oh-so-rational atheists support love? It's an inherently irrational thing that has no basis in science. We are simply meant to reproduce.

Why do they think every person has a right to live? After all, we're simply animals. What makes us more worthy of living than them?

>> No.4407391

>>4407387
>that
than

>> No.4407393

>>4407229
>So an experiment's results have scientific value as long as that experiment can be recreated by others and yield the same results. Did I understand you correctly? Is reproducibility the only criterion?

I would say the testability of a scientific theory is the first step. The second is its predictive power, which can be ascertained by being reproduced and reviewed by others. Can the theory accurately predict what it aims to predict?

>So when it comes down to it, science is a Sisyphean enterprise? There's no 'ultimate goal of Science' that we can eventually reach? In that case--and assuming that religion is an obstruction to science--what is being obstructed? Why is it important that we move toward nothing in particular?

Well, I have no inclination to believe in any kind of God. I don't believe there's any divine geometry to life, so to speak. From this viewpoint everything is Sisyphean. But I see no reason why we shouldn't strive for a better, less brutal life, which advancements in science (better medicine and so on) help create.

The may be no ultimate goal in science, but there are goals (let's find the cure for cancer, AIDS, or the more out-there let's found a colony on the moon). Religion isn't as obstructive in the West as it is, say, in the Middle-East, because a lot of it has been neutered. No religion has the power anymore, in the West, to strike down a scientific theory because it contradicts its dogma, for example. Stem-cell research progresses slowly due to the opposition from religious groups, that's one example.

I think religion and superstition obstruct science because they promote a mindset of incuriosity. That's not to say that religious people can't be intelligent or great scientists. I'm reminded of the story about a group of Africans who refused to stop drinking from a dirty lake that was giving them tapeworms and refused to have it cleansed because they thought it was holy, thereby getting infected over and over. This kind of complete confidence in supernatural explanations not only impedes scientific progress (why try to find out the origin of the universe if we know God created it?), but can actually be destructive.

>I hope my questions don't come across as antagonistic, because this is really something that I'm trying to understand.

Not at all, I've been enjoying this.

>> No.4407395
File: 14 KB, 500x434, egg-on-face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4407395

>>4407388
>Why do oh-so-rational atheists support love? It's an inherently irrational thing that has no basis in science. We are simply meant to reproduce.

>> No.4407402

>>4407368
>>A decade or so ago it wasn't; now it undoubtedly is.

Any atheist who holds that atheism is a religion is not an atheist at all. Any non-atheist who considers atheism to be a religion has no idea what they're talking about.

>> No.4407413

>>4407388

>Why do oh-so-rational atheists support love? It's an inherently irrational thing that has no basis in science. We are simply meant to reproduce.

'Love' is just an expression. A shorthand for 'I wanna fuck this broad for the rest of my life.'

>What makes us more worthy of living than them?

Self-preservation.

>> No.4407417

>>4406200

doubles tell no lie

if you're still contributing to this thread, you're only doing so on the basis of pride and/or sheer stupidity

>> No.4407418
File: 34 KB, 300x478, Madonna-of-the-Rocks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4407418

>Not being Roman Catholic

>> No.4407423

>>4406737

>not understanding that the transcendental and mathematical are one and the same

you have some meditative equations to solve

>> No.4407432

>>4407418
I don't like boy ass.

>> No.4407431

>>4406873

religion and moral foundations are not dependent on one another. moral indoctrination can exist without the (often) falsely labeled spiritual

>> No.4407440

>>4407305
I think this could break down into three possible issues:

Validity of self reference. It won't be one person studying their own head, same way shrinks wouldn't diagnose themselves.

An entire model of a brain could be "objective" in that assuming a model is true, it is reproducible.

But that doesn't mean scientific models are objective. Through repeated criticism they should become less subjective. Until you get to a question that can't be answered. Then you can either give up or try to come up with a better experiment. And laugh in everyone's face if you do while you mount the scientific 'establishment' and ride it like an angry horse and your horse's piss rains over everyone while they're crying and it makes you laugh harder those stupid idiots.

>> No.4407457
File: 15 KB, 640x960, tipsfedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4407457

>>4406018

>> No.4407460

>>4407377
>That's because many modern religions approach morality from a perspective of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance. The little nuggets of wisdom you hear during church sermons are cherry picked.

I'm not really talking about modern religions and I don't attend any sort of Christian church service, so nothing like that is informing my arguments here.

>If people continued to believe the laws written of in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were legitimate, then essentially everyone in America would be going straight to Hell, including so many supposedly devout Christians. And if Deuteronomy and Leviticus aren't considered legitimate, why should the rest of the Bible?

Christianity has never required its adherents to abide by Mosaic law (at least not in its totality.) Catholic canon law drew from plenty of secular, especially Roman, precedents almost from the outset. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

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

>> No.4407469

>>4407387

I wasn't aware that science was in the business of 'saying' things, so I guess you're right...

>> No.4407476

>>4407413
>'Love' is just an expression. A shorthand for 'I wanna fuck this broad for the rest of my life.'

Your parents might be distressed to hear that you feel that way about them...

>> No.4407484

>>4407413
What is the rational reason for fucking only one woman for your entire life? If you are so much about the self-preservation of the species, you should have sex with as many women as possible in hopes of getting them all pregnant and passing on your genetic material.

>> No.4407493

>>4407476
Hey?

JACKOFF FACE

See? I got you back.

>> No.4407501

>>4406757
not that anon, but our universe is nothing more than colliding particles which act in ways which can be very precisely approximated by the language games known as mathematics

the materialist position is a very strong one, and they who wish to challenge it bear the burden of proof, you can't just call people mindless for that

>> No.4407509

>>4407423
>implying equations aren't just language games
stop glorifying math
people like you are the reason i'm a math major with nothing but english majors for friends

>> No.4407527

>there are people right now on /lit/ that aren't racist

>> No.4407538

>>4407509
sounds like you're a stupid and your math major friends are 2smart4u so you stick with stupid lit kiddies

>> No.4407541

>>4406018
>there are people on /lit/ that have replied to this thread

>> No.4407545

>>4407527
>there are people right now on /lit/ from /pol/ and won't ever leave

>> No.4407553

>>4407538
sounds like you're stuck with plato tier conceptions of math while constructionism leaves you in the dust

and i don't have any math major friends
so i don't know how they can be 2smart4me
;_;

>> No.4407576

>>4407484
I don't give a damn about the self-preservation of the species. I give a damn about my own self-preservation. And I do bang as many women as I can, but every now and then you come across an A+ broad who can last you a lifetime, you know?

You sound kind of angry and frustrated. What's wrong?

>> No.4407638
File: 1.90 MB, 312x250, 1387914935001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4407638

>> No.4407644

>>4407541
>Allusion to people that may or may not exist that are supposed agree with you, in contrast with existing people that don't
>Fedora master race

>> No.4407917

>>4407638
>the best argument against atheism

It's like you guys don't even try

>> No.4408196

>that
>as applied to people
Typical atheist grammar.

>> No.4408208

People will bring up science all the time in these atheist debates...but tell me, who set up the rules for physics? Isaac Newton saw that the laws he discovered were laws laid down by God.