/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

I think eh's a pretty cool guy.

he's like the hitler of religion to me. which is totally badass

he's a douche. he blabs on about religion brainwashing people, when his preaching of atheism is just as bad as any religious fundamentalist shoving their religion down your throat. What a hypocrite.

>>1996174
I actually stand by this statement, as an atheist.

I don't know. I used to like him but I am not so sure now. I know people who are religious and i try not to discuss religion because think of this.
This person has constructed their entire life around their god/gods. it is a foundation of their existence. When you attack their beliefs, you attack everything about them. Make them doubt themselves. lose trust in themselves. this is why america is so butthurt over religion because atheist fags don't realize that their callous jokes push religious people way on the defensive. Better for spirituality to be a personal thing.

>>1996228
also zoologists should stay away from sociology. Society needs some kind of organized belief system to function. not all of us can be scientists

I wish he was my father.

Athiest/scientist is a pretty cool guy, eh studies evolutionary biology and doesn't afraid of anything

To me he's just as bad as a devout Christian, just the other side of the spectrum.

I think Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is a pretty cool guy, eh destroys peoples' religions and doesn't afraid of anything.

>>1996228
I can't believe I found another compassionate, understanding, thinking, and accepting person on 4chan...

And on /sci/ of all places!

>>1996296

>>1996174
>>1996187
you two morons are idiots. hes been using arguments almost everyone used. Many of them are copied wholesale from sagan.

only the dumbest niggers would think charisma should matter in an argument. but plenty of athiests are willing to rail against dawkins when assholes like the discovery institute are legalizing creationism in louisina, the pope is covering up rape and Muslims are protesting in the streets threatening to kill everyone who isn't them. What kind of nigger does it take to call this guy a douche bag for demanding children's first amendment rights be respected?

>>1996244
bullshit

>>1996340
how so?

He's great- it's his fanbase that annoys the hell out of me.

>>1996228
But don't you think it's better not to push these beliefs on the next generation? That's really the staple of Dawkins's arguments. He just thinks that we shouldn't brainwash our children (which is what we, as a culture, do, you cannot deny that) and allow them to come to their own conclusions after an unbiased educations. Now the theoretical and most probable endgame of this is that we would /have/ no theists, which is what alarms people, but the methods are reasonable.

I like him. Lots of people take what he says way over what he actually means. He doesn't say IM HARDCORE ATHEIST EVERYONE ELSE SUCKS.

He himself says that its impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, but its impossible to prove that invisible faries don't live in a well. Essentially, there is no reason to believe in a god, and that if you do, its pretty much a product of being born in a family that is that religion, or something similar.

He's a damn intelligent man, and when you listen to some of the "debates" he has with creationists, its enough to make you want to rip out your hair. He makes damn good points about how many creationists have NO idea wtf science has discovered in the realm of evolution and the development of life.

Dude's a beast.

Seriously though, he's just fed up with the bullshit, and he's got the business card credentials to get out and be vocal about it whether it's a book or lecture series or documentary or whatever.

Plus he seems like a cool guy to go bowling with.

>>1996387
Well Dawkins has openly and quite literally endorsed militant atheism.

used to like him but sometimes he just gets aggressive. You can't force everyone to be enlightened just like that. Most religious people aren't that retarded.

Proving to them (religious people) that they're wrong, is like saying their whole life is wrong. I'd say instead of arguing that religion is flawed etc, promote science instead without bashing other religious beliefs. I still stand to be an atheist, but I don't consider every religious person a faggot/retard, etc. They're human beings just like me entitled to their beliefs.

>>1996382
touche good sir. In this regard i would agree. Theists need to start arguing the philosophical point of view rather than a scientific. it's just embarrassing for them

>>1996387
Creationists know they are full of shit.
They know it, He knows it, the fact is they are playing a political game. they are fundamentalist trying to disguise their attempts at Christianizing america. theres no reason to patronize them or give the impression that they dont understand what they are saying even after repeated attempts for the past half decade to teach them, they are just doing it on purpose.

>>1996395
Yeah, its bullcrap like this that gives some well thought out arguments a bad name.

Unless the suggestion that people should question religion and realize that saying that a discussion point is taboo because its part of someones religion is considered militant atheism, then I must be some sort of atheistic anarchist.

Of course I don't bring up religion with friends but in other contexts, debates become interesting

>>1996398
Of course, I don't consider religion people retards, but I always question if they've ever given serious hard though about their belifes instead of just going about like its afact of life

>>1996413
Dawkins gambit for militant atheism was just a botched attempt at trying to promote an anti religious lobby to counter the (quite worryingly) growing religious lobby. It's not one of his better thought out plans and I've always wanted to meet him to tell him such. It would be much easier to produce an anti lobbying lobby, imagine walking arm and arm with christfags and illegalizing that shit before they realize he just cut out their only shot Christianize the country. instead he was just basicaly trying to ask for money to get involved in a tug a war game. no one was interested.

>>1996427
As a theist, a /legitimate/ theist on sci, this is the very reason I why I hate religion. I'm embarrassed constantly by stereotypes I carry.

>>1996382
ultimately if they want to. those children will stumble upon atheism and be able to decide for themselves. people have no problems with rejecting dogma. as long as the knowledge is available. which it will be. people should have the right to teach their children their own personal belifs no matter how retarded they are.

>>1996427
I consider most religious people retards and immoral if they are of Abrahamic religion. It is completely seperate from the issue of god existing. anyone who tells me god is going to burn me in hell for being an athiest or telling a lie, or not going to church every sunday, for all eternity no less, is indefensibly immoral, for the plain fact that no one would put up with this shit if I got a military force and started forcing people to do that. Ad hitlerum is a dangerous line to cross, but i don't think its unfair when gods punishment is the worst oven in the entire universe. The problem with it is. once you emasculate Christianity entirely from this bullshit, as many have tried to do on a personal level. you find yourself without a religion, to embrace morality and science you end up a deist.

>>1996442
>>I don't understand how teaching children works.
So i should be able to teach children all about my religion where children exist to give sexual pleasure to me right? I mean why not? if what you say is true they should be able to decide for themselves if they want to believe that crock of shit or the more reasonable idea that I'm lying?

Selfish Gene was pretty good. I read most of The God Delusion and agreed with it but it's the same shit you'd read in 4chan religion threads so I don't see the point. And he's a pretty polite guy unlike some of his fans.

>>1996429
Cultural evolution will handle that. Given the increasing advancement of technology in the past few years, the number of atheists are growing. It just means that religion isn't needed anymore to explain things.

Also, do keep in mind that humanity's great minds were once raised in a religious environment, but still they manage to emerge and contribute to society. Which we should all do the same. Promote science not anti-religion!

>>1996472
Whats interesting is how he can stay polite even when listening to the biggest BS you have ever heard. I was about to snap a book in half when I was listening to that woman give her arguments as to how creationsim was scientifically viable. You could feel murder welling up in Dawkings but he kept his cool

>>1996442
See, I don't think so. Parents start indoctrinating their kids the moment they can understand what they're telling them. Of course kids will stumble on atheism, but most will scoff at it.

>>1996476
True on that scientist point, but many of them still had the problem of being told their research was against the church so many times were dissuaded from continuing their work, or something like that. We still see shit like that happening today. If only religion would stay out of math and science we might leave them alone, but as long as it entrenches upon secular subjects, I still think people should take a stand

>>1996480
>>1996470
what im saying that people are reasonable. From personal experience I was pretty religious but intro to philosophy and biology/physics/chemistry managed to open my mind to other possibilities. as one poster noted, the world is changing. more and more people are becoming educated and have access to greater amounts of information. Even if creationism is successful it will never achieve its goal

>>1996487
>being told their research was against the church so many times
Then it means that they aren't truly enlightened yet. which is fine. Take the big bang theory for example. It was theorized by Georges Lemaître, which was a Roman Catholic priest.

A person of faith, yet able to contribute something to scientific advancement. Don't get me wrong though, I still believe that we are all just by products of a supernova billions of years ago, but you will have to deal with the people you're living with. It's the only way to progress in life without trying to disprove something out of their beliefs.

>>1996272
Eh well he may be just as stubborn and aggressive. But at the same time he is willing to admit "I don't know" when it comes to complex questions that science has yet to provide an established answer to.

He's not perfect, but as a scientist and philosopher he has a moderate level of respect from me.

That argument in OP's quote sounds pretty flawed to me. Essentially implying that just because there are various religions in the world, one should automatically assume there's no such thing as God because they can't all be right. And using parents/families as strawmen for the argument makes him sound like a hypocrite as I'm sure his kids must be atheists if he has any. Final sum up that the concept of God is only kept alive by the result of childhood indoctrination is just ridiculous. Hope this was just taken out of context and that he's not really as stupid as this is portraying him.

Reminds me of the Epicurus contradiction that I'm sure he's probably fond of.

bump

>>1996111
Atheist here - both in the sense I don't believe in gods but also in the point I believe gods don't exist.

IMO, Dawkins says the right things at wrong ways.

Example: at your pic... the whole lot of sarcasm was unnecessary, we should instead said the same thing in a way clearer and succinct.

I don't have a problem with religion as long as it stays out of science and government. The problem is that is doesn't.

He always sounds like a dick.

I don't like him

Dawkins is better than Hitchens but still beneath Harris and Sagan

>>1996584
His quotation doesn't work as a proof gods don't exist - you're right about this.
However, it works against the "faith argument" - that if something is believed, it would be right.

So, it's not an "attack", but a "defense", got it?

>>1996111

As a very religious Jew (Chabad) I don't have a strong opinion on Richard Dawkins. But I feel insulted when people call me "ignorant" for believing in G-d. In Judaism you are "challenged" to ask why it says this in the Torah, or why G-d did this.

For example I was at my shul a week or so ago and the whole shul was bouncing off the walls because we kept arguing over why G-d stopped Avraham from killing Isaac. Some said that G-d would never imagine Avraham actually going through with it. Some threw out that the test wasn't for Avraham, but for Isaac. Etcetera, etcetera.

That's the only thing that bugs me with SOME atheists is that they assume we just read the Torah with such a literal and broad view. If anything we encourage discussion and "arguing". You know the saying "Two Jews, Three Opinions".

>>1996600
> I don't have a problem with religion as long as it stays out of science and government. The problem is that is doesn't.
Me too, I would only add: "as long people don't wake me up at Sunday to talk about it".

>>1996634
sorry i cant hear you over your gods bullshit about killing heretics.

>>1996634
>That's the only thing that bugs me with SOME atheists is that they assume we just read the Torah with such a literal and broad view. If anything we encourage discussion and "arguing". You know the saying "Two Jews, Three Opinions".
You Jews, maybe not, dunno.
But Christians... they loooooooove literal readings and "you have to believe in meeee or you're going to hell!" shit.

>>1996634
>Jews on 4chan
Since when?
>Trolls on 4chan
It all comes together

>>1996649
growing up in a muslim household, im aware of this shit. I think it's worse for islam.

He promotes logical thought and reasoning.

Those who "sitting on the fence faggots" are just faggots who are afraid of being wrong.

PROTIP: Atheists don't say they are %100 all knowing, and that god is impossible.

>>1996659
So, using your logic, you're Jew, right? If you said Jews = trolls...

>>1996636
>>1996600
Aren't "god given rights" a fundamental principle in US government?

>>1996649
There are four different levels of interpretations for the Torah. Simple, hinted, inquire/seek, and mystery.

When you're average adult Orthodox Jew reads something from the Torah, there is no "one view". They analyze it, take it piece by piece, reason to why this happened and what was the reasoning behind this. They ask themselves if there is more behind it than the story.

For example the story about the plagues on Egypt, you know it right? You think "Why couldn't G-d just transport them out of Egypt?" Some Jews theorize that the plagues weren't to get the Jews out of Egypt, but rather to convince the Egyptians that their idols are to not be worshiped.

Egyptians even told the pharaoh after the 9th plague to let them go. And on the 10th plague, the Pharaoh learns that G-d is real and this was his doing.

Of course this is just ONE of the many interpretations of the 10 plagues on Egypt.

>>1996678
No. I meant that no religious person that takes their faith seriously would be on 4chan. Trolls pretending to be religious, however...

>>1996683
no, in the unadjusted deceleration they are nature given, as opposed to a king.

I love him because he pisses churchies off.

>>1996664
Muslims do as Christians.
This is not something new for me... and I think I have an explanation for this - retarded proselytism == religions that think everyone should be "in rite way ov me".

>>1996683
Legally doesn't mean literal God. Means that these rights aren't inscribed in some "Human Rights" catalog, but they are intrinsic to the survival of humans as a species and culture.

Like in EULA, you see the term 'act of god"

>>1996634
i wish church had been like this, i might have stayed.

dawkins is a douche. except in cases where religion affects political policy, why would you care what someone else chooses to do in their own time?

tl;dr let everyone do whatever the fuck they want long as no one gets hurt

>>1996698
are you making shit up?

>>1996688
>>worshiping false idols? DIE!
sorry, I'm missing the part where this doesn't portray god as on par with Hitler and Stalin.

>>1996694
>No. I meant that no religious person that takes their faith seriously would be on 4chan. Trolls pretending to be religious, however...
At NSFW boards, you're right.
However, remember we're at /sci/ and not /b/. I think the guy is really a Jew because he wrote "Avraham" with a "v" and not a "b" - this kind of transliteration is only common for people who speak Modern Hebrew.

>>1996711
If you had read his shit, you would realize that most of his advocacy, while it says religion is BS in general, really lies in trying to increase science education in students and others. Because yes, religion in infringing upon education and thus govt policy. Students in Kansas should not be learning that Humans poofed into existance.

>>1996713
Nope.

>>1996704
I'm just saying, most americans believe that their rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that these rights are God given.

If they aren't given by god, then they are merely agreed upon.

>>1996733
Then where did you hear the term unadjusted deceleration?

>>1996713
He's not making shit up. That clause was put in because Kings were ultimately the giver of rights in those days. By giving that duty to "god" no one could infringe upon anothers rights by claiming to be above them.

He makes me feel like I have strayed and have not committed to the cause. I must say 20 Hail Darwins to redeem myself..

>>1996688
>Etcetera, etcetera.

>>1996735
Well yeah. Human rights are in fact technically rules that most of us agree upon so that we aren't douchebags to everyone we disagree with.

>>1996754
I disagree.

>>1996688
Exodus is, most probably, only a myth. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Critical_evaluation
If you're OK with "the important is what the story teaches", no problem.

>>1996754
Really? There isn't anything that says "Here are your human rights" handed down by a higher power somewhere.

They have no literal basis in anything other than a mutual agreement that you shouldn't harm other people.

>>1996733
Hell-OH
where did you hear that term?

>>1996649
It's fear-mongering but with good intention, albeit if it has become deluded to almost a wrath-like love of justice. If it really bothers atheists so much, then they should simply point out that the concept of a hell is used very liberally in the Bible and that they're corrupting its own word by blowing it out of proportion.

>>1996773
You mean
>>1996759?

>>1996778
Yes

>>1996785
yes

>>1996775
Hell is hardly the only infraction, he flooded the whole planet. I have half a mind to prosecute him if hes ever found.

>>1996702
lol

>>1996436

Same here, and I couldn't agree more.

>>1996111
He is not a very smart man.

>>1996775
>It's fear-mongering but with good intention,
Fear-mongering. But is fear a man's good counselor?
And about good intentions... well, Hitler thought he was doing a good thing.

>If it really bothers atheists so much,
The phrase per se doesn't annoys me, but its repetition... lots of people repeat this as Dennis from Fire Emblem:

"This is a message from Lord Jesus: I await you in Dread Hell. This is a message from Lord Jesus: I await you in Dread Hell. This is a message..."

He looks generally worried that people will find out heaven is an imagination encircled world.

>>1996820
>He is not a very smart man.
He is. However, smartness isn't enough, you need to know how to talk with people.

>>1996796
But that's just cherry-picking on your part now for excuses to be against God. Especially considering it claims the world was only wiped clean because man had become so corrupt. Not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the earliest known copies of the Bible talk about reincarnation. So in this context death would be but a set-back for victims of God.

It may be a blessing in disguise that the early Christian church banned those ideas from the Bible, as it would mean the world might have a more liberal view on human life. Of course the alternative being the fear-mongering you get from Christians believing you only have one life to convert.

I tripfag and avatarfag because I loooove to suck a good cock.

>>1996845
Well, hes amazing at talking with people, which is the reason why I think people get riled up about him.

He presents his argument in a clear logical way without resorting to insults about the persons intelligence. Most of his arguments can't really be answered by religion based answers which angers some people and annoys others

>>1996852

>>1996857
His arguments are illogical.

>>1996867
Give examples.

>>1996877
He doesn't know what God is.

>>1996884
Which one

>>1996888
Neither do you.

>>1996893
My brain is full of fuck and will be until some arguments are presented

>>1996864

I'm a massive faggot. Imagination is shit and worthless, live life like me, bored and faggot-like. I do work, yehhhhh I do work -- I write shit on paper, yeaahhh, I do that shit. Sometimes I buy cool clothes, and spend money on shit, Yea i'm cool, Fuck you and your childish imagination, be a faggot or we'll pull out science and call you batshit insane.

Eheheheheehehehehehhe

>>1996867
>>1996877
>>1996884
>>1996888
>>1996893
Guys, just agree with a "god" definition.
Dawkins says "what is a god?" only as a point to show that - no - a "god" concept is not impressed in all mankind.

He's very charming and causes a lot of butthurt. My kinda guy.

Look! There are cocks there. A lot!
I'm going to suck all of them!
I cannot let any of them cum before I arrive, so I must run.
Bye!

Niggertis, you forgot to tripfag in this post: >>1996926

>>1996916
The definition of a god is : something that we can't disprove, but that you have to be
quite retarded to believe in.

>>1996954
So, centaurs, gnomes, Tooth Fairy and a teapot orbiting Pluto are gods too. Mmmmmmmm.

I R SMARTER THAN U CUZ I USE THE BEST MIND SIDE

MFW I didn't had a cock in my ass for more than 2 hours.

>>1996963
Indeed, they are.

>>1996970

YOU ARE AN FAGGOT

>>1996382

You can't raise a child without indoctrinating them in one way or another. If you push any sort of morals or sense of right and wrong on them your indoctrinating them, pushing your beliefes on them.

>>1996977

You are me. You are a faggot. So, I am a faggot.

Active dudes willing to cum in a passive trap/bitch, add me: angel.noctis@hotmail.com

>>1996977
no I am an faggot
just did xtc with my best friend and he let me touch his cock
I always knew he was bi like me
he even looks like johnny depp
fuck I'm so hiiiiigh

either way, noctis, you are the best

Nigtis, you forgot to tripfag again at >>1997047
Try not forget, right? Trips are important - they're how we recognize thrash whoring for attention.

BTW... I'm giving you attention, you should be happy!

>>1997067
figured you'd say I was him, but I worship noctis and I just wanted to let him know I'm gay for him

>>1997086
>figured you'd say I was him, but I worship noctis and I just wanted to let him know I'm gay for him
You're gay for yourself? This is the homossexuality's apex, since "homo" in this case means "same".

Congrats, Nigtis - you proved to everyone you're a fag, both passive and active.

>>1997094
lol u mature eh?

>>1997018
"Child, you must not kill, that's bad."
"Why?"
1"Because else you will end up in hell."
2"Because x, y and z. Yes Mohamed ? You don't get y ? Then, y because ..."
I prefer the brainwashing of children by atheists.

>>1996910
holy shit, where did you get that? I think I had that guy for a teacher in junior high.

>>1997018
Sure you can
Teach them completely objectively. Give them nothing but empirical evidence. Don't tell them what to believe, leave that open for them to decide.

>>1997098
>lol u mature eh?
>Implying that tripfagging and avatarfagging just to be an attention-whore is a mature thing to do.

>>1997179
>implying mature people can't have fun but do nerdrage over people having fun

>>1997191
>Implying mature people have fun by attention whoring

Problem is, there is no empirical evidence for "I shouldn't screw other people over to help myself" or "I shouldn't do things that would harm society and me if everyone did it" or just plain "I shouldn't be a dick."

So I would propose some minimal indoctrination to establish a basic regard for other people. Gods or absence of gods need not be a part of it.

>>1997195
you're just an introverted fag who can't stand anyone else in the spotlight for more than 3 seconds

>>1997202
>you're just an introverted fag who can't stand anyone else in the spotlight for more than 3 seconds
>you're just an introverted fag
>you're fag
No, sir. I'm not Noctis.

>>1997209
why are you so obsessed by him? he's just testing our minds and you go all defensive
and then you imply you're not a faggot

don't know much about him but that quote in ops post was dead on

>>1997201

>> no empirical evidence for not being a dick

>> has no friends and is on 4chan.

Checkmate.

>>1997230
>Implying I'm obsessed by it.
>Implying being cancer is "test minds".
>Implying that I didn't say clearly I'm not a faggot, only... "implied".
You, sir, are an idiot. Try again.

>>1997236
so what's the point he's trying to make, that there are almost none who initiated themselves with a religion?
I know I did, christianity didn't have all the answers

>>1997240
you're implying you're obsessed with him because you link all homosexuals to noctis
and it's just your words he's cancer, what are you trying to prove? nothing?
and yes you are implying you're not a faggot by proposing the notion that all homosex are noctis

so hard to grasp?

I liked the science books. Haven't read The God Delusion; don't really intend to since it won't tell me anything I don't already know.

I like Richard Dawkins as a person but I don't agree with the things he says, I also find that he sensationalizes his writing. He's not tolerant of people with opposing points of view (or maybe it's just his terse English accent that makes me think that).

In my opinion atheists are smarter then religious people, and they seem to know more about religion then theists.

Religious people are just sheep following 2000 year old Middle Eastern Scriptures which originate from the same sand-niggers USA fights today. Ironic isn't it?

>>1997266
>you're implying you're obsessed with him because you link all homosexuals to noctis
The one implying I'm obsessed with it is you, not me.

>and it's just your words he's cancer, what are you trying to prove? nothing?
It is cancer in 4chan because it is an attention whore and disrupts anonymity.

>and yes you are implying you're not a faggot
I'm not IMPLYING. I'm SAYING it clearly.

>by proposing the notion that all homosex are noctis
@ /sci/? Yes, Noctis! You're the only fag here.

>so hard to grasp?
Grasp definition: "To grip—to take hold, particularly with the hand"
So, the one who likes to grasp hard things here is you, not me, attention whore.

>>1997240
ever1 here know noctis is so lulzcow ever1 troll him
so lern2troll faggot

>>1997358
troll detected

>>1997367
So by your definition, a troll is someone who likes to say the true?
You, sir, are almost as idiot as Nigtis.
Could you kill yourself?

>>1997358
nah, I'm the only fag here, and you most likely
and yes, I imply that you imply you're gay for noctis because it upsets you so much when he's getting attention
and how would attention whoring ever disrupt anonymity? is he forcing you to reveal yourself? why, yes, most likely. idiots always feel compelled to react to anything they don't like or don't know much about

>Ctrl-F "meme"
>0 of 0
Goddamnit /sci/, religion is one thing, but the guy has some great ideas about OTHER things, too

>>1997394
>I'm the only fag here
Don't you feel great now, Noctis? You're out of closet!

>you're gay
No sir! I'm straight.

>it upsets you so much when he's getting attention
4chan has cancer. And I AM THE DOCTOR.
house.jpg

>idiots always feel compelled to react to anything they don't like or don't know much about
Implying non-idiot people are passive. Passive = passive homosexual. So, implying or a person in gay or is an idiot.

Noctis is gay, now it is an out-of-closet gay, and since the only thing that thinks Noctis is not an idiot is itself, you proved being Noctis samefagging aaaaallllll along.

>>1997432
So /sci/ has devolved into bashing namefags? Super.

>>1997432
Why would I feel good?

>>1997432
even if noctis likes men, who should give a flying fuck
angry muslims/christians? you? who is in denial about his overly homosex interest in noctis' activities

"So, implying or a person in gay or is an idiot"
yea whatever

>>1997346
So?

>>1997440
>So /sci/ has devolved into bashing namefags? Super.

>>1997478
just saying..
religion hampers science & free thought, therefore it should be removed, and it will be removed in the future, and it will have no place in modern society, i'm sure of it.

>>1997346
yea just like that supposed poll who determines who knows more about religion
with only questions of which religion did this person belong to, what is atheism?
and atheists being presented as agnostics, it's older not so retarded brother

>>1997499
agnostic is only for pussies. man up & make up your mind, you only live once.

>>1997496
Doesn't scientific thinking hamper free thought?

>>1997514
why would anyone create an opinion about something they don't know about, and most of all something big like how action reaction began

>>1997521
no it doesn't. the foundation of science is curiosity & free thought.
science works, it's proven to work.
religion tries to make you think you'll go to hell if you disobey the rules, that makes you think twice about challenging it's position, which hampers free thought.

I admire him as an atheist. Speaks out against dumbasses and doesn't afraid of anything.

I fucking hate him as a biologist. He hasn't done any scientific shit in years. Stop with the books and interviews man.

>>1997532
Its the same with science. If you don't follow the rules then you'll die.

>>1997530
because you're a human being & you have an opinion.
having no stance at all is ignorant & unproductive.
based on what we know about the abrahamic religions & what we know about science, it's pretty easy to form an opinion, unless your God is a personal one, in which case it's all mental & nothing is literal.

>>1996111
ONCE AGAIN /SCI/ ADDS EVIDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT ATHEISM IS JUST THE NEWEST SOCIAL FAD AND IS UNCONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH VALUE OF WHETHER OR NOT A GOD DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST

never change /sci/

lrn2enlightenment

>>1997532
that's the science of religion
the science you're talking about never proved if there might not be a hell
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
lots of wannabe scientists don't want to know anything of this as well

>>1997514
Agnostic: someone that believes that the question "does some kind of god exists?" cannot be approached rationally.

They are divided in 3 kinds:
*Theist agnostic - "I make an exception for god[s] because I believe he/she/they exist[s]."
*Post-modern agnostic - "I don't make an exception for gods - NOTHING IMO can be proved existent or non-existent. Not even Santa Klaus."
*Hypocritical agnostic - "I make an exception for gods but not for Santa because, duuuhhh, dunno!"

>>1997544
scientific thinking comes naturally, you don't even realize it. how will you die if you don't follow science? that seems like a ridiculous statement.

>>1997549
Wikipedia "Carwaka" - atheism is older than dirt.
And, also, lern2troll.

>>1997552
Then I'm agnostic

>>1997555
How could any thinking be unnatural?

>>1997521
Science encourages people to test their theories and then check them with other qualified individuals. I guess that hampers free thought, but most of what gets hampered is total bullshit so I don't give a fuck.

>>1997547
I have little opinions, but I happen to be gifted
I know only facts and stuff I'm not sure of
and what is ignorent about not guessing what the cause of causality is? some people seem to be sure there's no thing as a god particle, but how do they know it? is it some ancient secret?
and why would a personal god be only in your minds but not literal? because you say so?

>>1997572
Farming hampers free growth

>>1997552
exactly..
it's such a retarded stance.
agnostic are probably closet christfags scared to go all the way to the cool dark side, atheism.

Richard is fine and all, but check out my doubles.

>>1997580
>links atheism to cool and edgy, is probably atheist himself, probably doesn't know why, just guessing

>>1997564
Dunno, it's up to you.
People often thinks agnosticism is a 3rd way, nor theism neither atheism, but it's not like that. The question is different, agnosticism isn't opposed to theism or atheism.

>>1997569

the process of thinking cannot be "unnatural"
i didn't mean that literally.
but thinking that telepathically telling Jesus (or w.e God) "i accept you" can somehow send you to heaven is just dealing with a fantasy world, in this case it's not part of nature, it's another fantasy dimension.

>>1997594
what's to stop thinking there might be trancendental wave motions that translate into other dimensions?

>>1997586
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in God because there's no evidence pointing at his existence, I'm not guessing, i've thought about it.

>>1997594
How do you know it isn't natural?

>>1997602
There is no evidence pointing to your existence either.

>>1997604
Yes there is.

>>1997605
No there isn't.

>>1997605
oh yea because you say so
for all I know, you dumb shits might be a big malfunctioning computer

>>1997600
>>1997603
That's just speculation.
what's to stop from thinking unicorns are real?
imagination has no limit, but if you can somehow show evidence to these claims I'll be happy to consider it.

it's unnatural because it's not part of this universe, it's a myth at best because it holds no scientific backing.

>>1997607
>>1997608
That's a possibility. But you can see my posts. You've created similar posts yourselves. They're not proof of my existence, but they're evidence of my existence.

>>1997610
nothing

>>1997608
in that case you belong in a mental hospital.

>>1997614
They are evidence of change.

>>1997616
why?

>>1997615
so what's your point?
i'm sure you'd agree that you can't prove a negative right?

>>1996848
how the hell is it cherry picking, If i do something thats a crime against humanity i dont suddenly redeam myself by writing a book about kittens and i certainly dont recall a passage where god spends a life in the slammer for each person he killed in blind and contemptible reasoning and rage or so much as even resurrects and APOLOGIZES to the people he did wrong to. At least some RAPISTS are capable of that very last bit but god appears to be so high and mighty in his power he can do no wrong.

>>1997626
I don't have a point.

One of my fav speeches by Dawkins
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Fuckin' atheist rally

>>1997610
so everything that still has to be dicovered by science is by default not existant?

>>1997620
And they're evidence that I exist. The simplest possible explanation given the evidence is that I'm writing them.

>>1997627
God is just

>>1997624
because your perception of reality is severely flawed.
i'm not talking about you personally but if someone is that delusional then they're prepared to die, the Muslims that blow themselves up really think they're going to heaven, it's this sort of thinking that leads to lunacy.

>>1997636
They are evidence that maya changes.

>>1997640
How do you know?

>>1997632
It's not nonexistent "by default." It does exist. However, when we hypothesize about something beyond science that we have no evidence for, it's unlikely that we're correct.

>>1997632
yes.

>>1997640
so you're saying lunacy leads to lunacy? so therefore all spiritual minded men might impose a danger to you?

>>1997647
What the fuck is a maya?

>>1997651
why?

>>1997656
this reality

>>1997656
perception

>>1997650
your senses tell you that.
your sight, feeling & general perception of everything around you is based on your senses, if your senses malfunction or your brain thinks you can fly, that's when you're mentally ill.

>>1997657
Because there are so many possibilites that are consistent with the available evidence, if we take a random guess, we're unlikely to be correct.

>>1997638
god is not just, god is a dick, why dont you take your congregation, grab your athiest 12 year old daughter and hurl her into an open volcanic caldera and ask your fellows if you've done good. God does not get a free pass to do this sort of shit just because he created us. thats not a moral and just system and anyone who think it is is a dangerous psychopath that needs to be kept from polite society so they don't kill anyone.

>>1997655
they all have a reason which may seem logical in their head to blow me up, yes. not every spiritual person is evil, but their way of thinking can justify acts of evil in their head if they wanted to.

>>1997671
why?

>>1997665
My brain tells me I can fly.

200+ replies

AthEist confirmed for easiest religion to troll

>>1997668
Hypotheses are not random

>>1997679
do it doesn't you're brain is telling you to lie to someone on 4chan so you can artificially create a counter argument

>>1997671
>links religion as the prime cause of rediculous exagurated actions
what are you trying to prove?

>>1997680

i guess that's your way of coping with superior atheistic mentality.

>>1997675
Is blowing you up wrong?

>>1997683
But we're not talking about hypotheses based on the available evidence, we're talking about a random guess out of the almost unlimited possibilites.

>>1997689
yes, what do you think?

>>1997691
No hypotheses are random

>>1997695
Why?

>>1997697
But we're not talking about hypotheses, so that's irrelevant.

>>1997702
No guesses are random

>>1997697
I hypothesize that all niggers are comprised of 80% chocolate milk

>>1997697
It's not random.

It's a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon

>>1997702

see

>>1997683

>>1997704
Why?

He taught me about Evolution. Seriously, I was never taught about evolution in high school.

>>1997701
because it doesn't benefit you.
anything that harms society is evil, and it's wrong.
therefore it's punishable by law, sociology 101, philosophy 101, get an education, stop asking stupid questions, troll.

>>1997706
>implying proposed explanations can't be just any kind of explanation, hence random

>>1997703
>>1997707
SO WHAT IF IT'S NOT FUCKING RANDOM.
IF YOU JUST CHOOSE SOME POSSIBILITY FOR WHAT THINGS SCIENCE WILL DISCOVER, YOU'RE VERY, VERY, VERY UNLIKELY TO BE RIGHT.

>>1997713
Harming society is not wrong nor evil

>>1997715
what's your observation?

>>1997716
How do you know?

>>1997718
There's no such thing as "evil".

>>1997713
>mwf you get butthurt about someone questioning you and probably think you can't question anything not retold by your parents

>>1997725
Then it is not wrong to kill you.

>>1997718
it's punishable by law, therefore wrong.

>>1997713
Why is it evil?

>>1997718
because everyone's purpose is to think materialistically and never care about the happiness of your relatives for example

>>1997731
What does punishment have to do with the wrongness of something?

>>1997723
Because logic and mathematics, and if you reject those it's impossible to argue with you by definition, since you could simply deny any logical progression.

>>1997726

your questions are not interesting & show a low level of intellect, that was my point.

>>1997735
Explain

>>1997741
I deny randomness

come on guys, why is killing wrong?

>>1997748
What number am I thinking of?

>>1997753
12

>>1997742
and you show a low level intellect by questioning God, while everyone was saying it all along
see, I can play your mindgames along, doesn't fade me

>>1997740
the more something is wrong, the more punishable it is.
this way society is more successful & happy.
do you want to live in a society which can't distinguish right from wrong? objectively it's probably impossible to distinguish right from wrong but realistically it's quite easy. so you're asking primitive philosophical questions that have been answered in 500 B.C

>>1997757
But that's wrong. If there's no randomness, why didn't you know?

>>1997752
because everyone's someones relative, and familiar bonds should be respected

>>1997760

I don't question him, i just point and laugh at those who believe in him. you're the one asking the questions.

>>1997761
So societies know how wrong something is because of what the punishment is?

>>1997763
its not wrong. You asked, I told you.

>>1997765
nah, I was sticking up for someone else, pointing out your retardation
and sure you never questioned your parents, like a good sheep, you just accepted any hearsay as fact

>>1997764
why? Nobody knows?

>>1997768
It is wrong though. I was thinking of the number 77 and you told me I was thinking of 12. They are not the same.

>>1997777
correction. You asked me what number you were thinking of and I told you.

>>1997766
it is reflected on the judicial system, yes.
society knows it because it's passed down.
through evolution our concept of right & wrong has changed, but society shapes right from wrong. it's all got to do with adaptation, read the selfish gene maybe you'll get a better grip of reality.

>>1997772
why would you take anyone's happiness away and think you're not doing something wrong? autistic much?

>>1997780
Why did you intentionally tell me the wrong number?

>>1997782
It isn't wrong.
>>1997781
How do we know that they're right?

>>1997780
correction, 77 is not 12

>>1997784
I didn't

let's see if the trolls can take this bad boy to 300+ posts

>>1997788
I never said it wasn't

>>1997781
What is reality?

>>1997792
you never said anything, you're anonymous
go back to your cave

>>1997789
You told me the wrong number. You didn't intentionally tell me the wrong number. Therefore you didn't know what number I was thinking of. Is my logic correct so far?

>>1997800
Why?

>>1997769
You ask questions that have been answered thousands of years ago, that's retarded. You show mental retardation by asking child-like questions pretending to show some philosophical depth, when in fact you come across as a retard.

>>1997801
No, it is flawed. You asked me what number you were thinking of which means you did not know.

>>1997790
more like a few misguided souls venturing forth in ignorence while people ask them why they think like they do

>>1997805
I did know, because I thought of it. I knew it was 77 before you told me what it was.

>>1997803
what questions do I ask? and why link children questions to philosophy? are you implying children are more philosophic? well, maybe. Can't be sure.
according to my books you can't open up for new theories anymore once you're at least 50.
must be hard growing up with parents that constantly call your questions stupid. I never had that problem.

>>1997826
Some questions are stupid though.

>>1997813
Then it was 77.

>>1997834
You didnt' know it was 77 until I told you.

>>1997829
not really, you can't just prove something will occur again if it has done so before
that's because you can never hold the possible variables in account that makes such an event

>>1997826

What the fuck are you talking about?
You know nothing about my parents, stop assuming shit.
If you took the time to educate yourself, you have the answers to all those questions in ancient scriptures by Socrates, Aristotle etc...
If you still struggle & have to ask about the concept of right from wrong, that just shows you know nothing about sociology. I'm not gonna degrade myself and answer a bunch of un-interesting questions which answers can all be found in Introduction Textbooks.

>>1997856
why are you intentionally confusing me with everyone else?

>>1997864
Intentionally, no.
Unintentionally, possibly.

I've never heard a good argument that claims God exists.

>>1997856
you're life is pretty fucking predictable, 'cause you're on fuckng 4chon

you're reaction against social norms, because you've had a typical white middle class American life,

was going to go on to destroy you but you caught me in a lazy point of the night

>>1997885
>reaction against social norms
>typical white middle class American life
There are millions of people like that, that says very little about someone's beliefs.

>>1997881
just like how you never got a reason why he might not exist?
oh yea, that anything can magically happen due to chance before the big bang, eh?

>>1997894
yeah conforms the transient nature of beliefs, such as Atheism

>>1997911
>before the big bang
DERP
There was no before the big bang. Time didn't exist.

>>1997885

I'm not even American and I know the difference between "you're" and "your."

The fact you have to formulate an opinion about my life shows a sad inferiority complex.

>>1997911

You can't prove a negative.
You don't hear people trying to disprove Unicorns so your argument is weak.

>>1997912
No it doesn't. Lrn2logic.

>>1997920
time as we know it did exist, but nothing was rotating
or do you believe we actually need a clock to have progress?

>>1997923
how so you don't know my life

>>1997928
a force resonating on different dimensions, thus creating them, is more likely than thinking an explosion can suddenly start from nothing

>what do you guys think about Richard Dawkins?

He's a physicist who realized he could make a lot of money writing money about religion.

I'm beginning to wonder if Mr. Dawkins has made MORE money from his little crusade than he has with his actual physics degree.

>>1997933
>time as we know it did exist
No it fucking didn't. Time only exists in this universe.

>>1997942

What observable data do you have that points to a creator?

Quantum mechanics shows that it's possible to get something out of nothing.

there's a reason why God and science don't mix.

>>1997947
well at least he's a hero for people who never think for themselves

>>1997948
why would progress be limited to our universe?
and why would you not be able to track time if there's no matter?
if a tree falls over in a wood with no one there, would it also keep silent?

>>1997947
He's not a physicist.
He's an evolutionary biologist.
And yes he's made a lot of money out of Christfags & their imaginary friends, props to him.

>>1997885

and that's 300...

I'd like to thank all the trolls and the chumps who got trolled by them

never change /sci/

never change

>>1997948

Even if time existed, how does that point to God?
let the Christfag formulate his argument

>>1997957
>why would progress be limited to our universe?
It's not. But it is limited to a universe. If there's no universe there's no time.
>and why would you not be able to track time if there's no matter?
It's not about no matter. It's about no universe.
>if a tree falls over in a wood with no one there, would it also keep silent?
A better analogy would be "Can a tree fall over in a wood if the wood doesn't exist?"

>>1997969
you are apparently confusing all that is with a dimension
there is actually space where there's nothing, why would nothing be limited to a time when there's no rules
anything should be able to happen in this universe as well if your notion is correct, hence the magic reference.

>>1997959
>And yes he's made a lot of money out of Christfags & their imaginary friends

Really? Because I don't see many theists buying his book.

But I suppose you're saying that there are enough betas out there asspained over religion of all things that they would need to buy his books.

>>1997978
Time can't exist without a universe, buddy.

>>1997982
why would nothing dissapear when there is something? isn't infinity proof enough that there is always nothing present at designated areas?
at least you seem to claim there exists an absolute nothing, just because our human concepts of time and measurement are not possible in a dimension where nothing exists

>>1997989
Well you're wrong. It's not about human concepts, it's about reality. The tree can't fall at all where there is no forest.

>>1997998
Indeed, and a big bang can't occur if there's no fuel
doesn't change the fact that I have to explain why magic doesn't exist though

>>1997965
And, exit.

>>1998000
>a big bang can't occur if there's no fuel
Wrong.

>>1998002
just saying it's wrong does not make it wrong, dear retard

>>1998002
>because I know there was no fuel for the explosion

>>1998009
But it is wrong. The big bang didn't require any kind of preexisting fuel.

>>1998020
>>1998009
I don't know. It's impossible to know since it's not part of our universe. It can't be proven or disproven either way.

>>1998021
how is it wrong? how can you prove there wasn't a universe before the big bang?

>>1998045
I can't. Neither of us can prove anything about anything that's not part of our universe.

>>1998050
I think you've just realised the obvious

>>1998054
You were the one who was denying it though. To quote one of your earlier posts, "a big bang can't occur if there's no fuel." We don't know whether a big bang requires fuel or not, and we can't prove it. We do know that particles can appear and disappear, though.

faggots