/sci/ - Science & Math

Fuckin' retards not understanding time isn't a dimension.

Yes, a god could exist as in someone could engineer a god-like being or people to have god-like powers. No, because what a god is or isn't is not clearly defined and even if we did make a "god" (or "god" comes down to Earth), it wouldn't fit the definitions of god without conflicting with other gods.

Not sure what you would classify me as. I believe that there is a god of some sort or another out there, but it might not be any of the gods we know, yet I still practice Christianity.

No, we can't be sure something doesn't exist in a 4th or further dimension, but it's highly unlikely for the same reasons that make us sure one doesn't exist in THIS dimension.

>>2130202

I'd classify you as retarded.

>>2130215
This exactly.
I have no respect for anyone who is religious.

>>2130215
This. I'm sorry, but it's 2010, not 1310. You have no excuse for the fact that you still believe in magic.

I don't think any scientifically-minded atheist (worth listening to anyway) would claim to be 100% sure that gods don't exist. We/they would only claim to be 100% sure that no empirical, repeatable evidence has ever been presented demonstrating that gods DO exist.

tl;dr the answer is always maybe.

>>2130223
>>2130215
>>2130226
But why? We still have no real clear understanding of the entire workings of the cosmos, there could just as easily be a deity of some sort or another out there, as there could not be.

I would like to further say that judging an individual based on one aspect of their being is incredibly stupid/bigoted/ignorant. Whose to say that any theist out there is not of equal if not higher intelligence than you?

>>2130232

And then even if there was evidence for a god, you'd have to figure out which one it is first.

>>2130185
so then you don't think that a god could have "created" the universe, started the big bang somehow?

>>2130202
I'm pretty much the same as you, except I don't know whether i would be considered practicing. I go to church every sunday, only for my parents though. I was confirmed due to peer pressure. I do observe lent though.

>>2130204
im no physicist, what are those reasons?

>>2130239

Whose to say any flat-earther or astrologist out there is not of equal if not higher intelligence than you?

DERP?

>Is it possible for an infinatley powerful and all knowing being to create himself when there is nothing to exist in and then create something to exist in? That something being the universe.

No. Next question

>>2130243

Even if a god or other intelligent being started the universe, what effect should that have on your life? If such a being exists, why should it care about who you fuck or if you eat meat on fridays.

>>2130242

Right, and I would wager that if any did turn out to exist, none of them would be even remotely like any that humans have ever conceived of, because that is just way too unlikely.

>>2130223
do you respect Newton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

>>2130242
I'm thinking that all religions just have different interpretations of the same god. Like if you look at christianity/islam/judaism they all agree that god/allah/yahweh or whatever are the same god. Jesus is actually seen as a prophet in islam.

>>2130267
Newton was from the 15th-16th century, it's not surprising for someone like him to still have theistic beliefs. If he were to live among us now then no, I would not respect him.

>>2130267
And let's not forget the man that postulated the Big Bang Theory......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

>>2130267
Newton also believed in alchemy and was wrong about gravity. He was not omniscient.

Now GTFO you christian apologist faggot engineer.

>>2130267
>implying Christianity and Islam did not originate from Judaism
>implying Judaism did not originate from previous religions before it, and those religions before them

>>2130267
That is because christianity was written to fulfill jewish prophecies and islam just plagiarized both religious

>>2130257
I was thinking that this god is part of a greater multiverse and he created our universe. Maybe god is just some 2nd grade kid and we are his science project.

>>2130258
good point. this way i see it, god doesn't care if we eat meat on fridays or even if we have sex before marriage or whatever. these "commandments" were just imposed by ruling governments to control their citizens (the whole karl marx saying that religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich). But the reason why it would matter is because of an afterlife. I dont think that afterlife is just eternal hapiness, i think it might be performing some duty in an alternate dimesion to keep the universe running.

>>2130294
Where the fuck did you get that nonsense about an afterlife? Oh that's right, your ass.

>>2130239
>there could just as easily be a deity of some sort or another out there, as there could not be.

>there could just as easily be a Santa Claus, as there could not be.

>>2130243
so then you don't think that Zeus could have "created" lightning somehow?

>>2130267
Except there are some religions that don't believe in gods and others that have many. Those religions are offshoots of one another, and they disagree on just about everything else.
>>2130275
Yeah, and let's not forget that most leading scientists are now atheists/agnostics.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

>>2130310
yeah pretty much, just a guess.

>>2130294
If there is a multiverse, each universe is completely separate from all others. So my answer is still no. More precisely, no, get the fuck out of sci.

faggot

>>2130312
"greater scientists"

Yeah, as if that is not subjective as fuck.

>>2130294

>I'm smart enough to realize most of what religion says is shit, but I'm still scared of dying.

>>2130312
I still wouldn't consider an agnostic scientist a real scientist. In fact, they're probably worse than atheist scientists or religious scientists.

>>2130312
>Santa Claus

Actually he did exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

>Is it plausible that some sort of god could exist?
If the god was leaving us alone for some reason, it's possible. Whether it's plausible is subjective. In either case, it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, so it's not science.

>>2130323
>Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
>we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS
>we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines
retard

>>2130329
I meant Santa Claus as in a magic man at the north pole who flies around at Christmas and shit. You know what I mean, idiot. Should I have used the Tooth Fairy instead?

>>2130334
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

>>2130329

The person that today's omniscient, physics-defying, behavior rewarding fat man was based on really existed, you don't say?

That's like saying Jesus really existed but wasn't the son of god.

>>2130339
Probably would have been better if you did.

>>2130340
How is that relevant?

>>2130341
Atheist here. Actually Jesus was an actual person, far different from the one in the Bible (the real one wasn't an only child and was also a cult leader), but still is who the Biblical Jesus is based on.

>>2130340
I was responding to his appeal to George Lemaitre.

>>2130347
>Yeah, and let's not forget that most leading scientists are now atheists/agnostics.

>>2130312
Hypothetically Santa Claus could exist, but we can test for his existence by setting up a christmas tree on Dec 25, immobolizing parents/guardians and observing that no gifts are found under the tree.

I don't think Zeus created lightning because there is asound scientifical theorythat shows how lightning is formed. The theory creation of humans and the universe is sound, but it does not exclude the possibility that a god triggered the big bang.

Your religions point is true i was wrong in thinking that all religions agree, but that doesnt mean that every religion (even those not yet conceived) are wrong.

and the worlds leading scientists once thought that the earth was flat, heat was a fluid, time was constant, etc.

>>2130351
Oh, okay.

>>2130350

Right, but that doesn't mean any of Christianity's claims are true, which was the point.

>>2130347

Not who you are talking with, but:

Argumentum ad populum, or appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy because you are claiming a proposition to be true only because a lot of people think it is, rather then actually dealing with the merit of the argument.

>>2130358
And there isn't a test for an omnipotent god. So you can opine what you want about it, but either way you opine, it isn't science.

>>2130350
There is no historical documentation of Jesus.

>>2130358

Right, but when new evidence arose they came to new conclusions. Religion doesn't do this. Religion starts with a conclusion, and keeps trying to find/make up 'evidence' to support their conclusion.

>>2130369
I agree. I'm not saying that there is 100% a god, I'm saying that it is plausible within what we know. I've noticed that /sci/ does a lot of hating on agnostics, which I would probably self-identify as, and I dont see why.

>>2130374

Jesus cuts my grass faggot, don't tell me that he doesn't exist.

>>2130380

>>2130378
Starting with a conclusion isn't always a bad thing. I'm no expert but I think Einstein based the theory of relativity on the principle that the speed of light is constant.

>>2130380

Because the label 'agnostic' is incorrect. Pic related.

>>2130358
Okay then, make it unicorns instead of Santa Claus, whose apologists could just claim that Santa doesn't always answer prayers for presents.
Yes, and there are scientific theories that show how the big bang was formed. Nothing proves that Zeus didn't have a hand in creating the process of lightning. Lots of things are "possible", there's just no reason to take them seriously, is the point.

>and the worlds leading scientists once thought that the earth was flat, heat was a fluid, time was constant, etc.
Please read this and never make that ignorant comment again:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>>2130358
see
>>2130257
Specifically: Is it possible for an infinatley powerful and all knowing being to create himself when there is nothing to exist in and then create something to exist in? That something being the universe.

The answer is still: no.

>>2130387

But when you never change that conclusion, despite evidence that points to a different conclusion, then it is a bad thing.

>>2130380
>>2130380
Why is it "plausible"? What evidence is there for it?

>>2130374
Nor are there any documentations for virtually anybody living in his time. There's eve numerous civilizations that have gone in the blink of an eye because of this.

>>2130381
U MAD

>>2130403
Bullshit. There were many historians writing at that time and place. Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberias, Flavius Josephus, to name a few.

>>2130380
I would expect agnostics to be underrepresented in these stupid religion vs. science threads, because the people who (wrongly!) believe religion has anything to do with science are typically those who (also wrongly!) believe science and religion are antithetical. Such people are not likely to be agnostics.

>>2130403
Yes, documentation of only a FEW historical figures, and very little (perhaps none) of everyone else.

Plus, lrn2"virtually"

>>2130411
Agnostics are underrepresented because they are wrong and even less intelligent than atheists or scientists.

>>2130410
There's evidence of those people existing, but very little documents as such evidence. And most historical records end up getting lost or destroyed because of wars or collapses.

>>2130426

Lol.

>>2130410
They just have historical documents because they were Jews.

>>2130426
Your argument hinges on stupid people not posting on /sci/, in contradiction to obvious observable fact. In fact, your post provides additional evidence against its thesis.

>>2130403
see
>>2130410
Also, the romans kept meticulous records of nearly everything. If there was a jewish carpenter stirring up shit, they would have made a record of it just like they did of all the other men that were publicly executed by the state.

>>2130447
See >>2130435.

Much of Rome's documents got lost in wars and social collapses. And to say such is basically amounting to
>implying the crusades didn't happen

>>2130391
What's the reason to not take possibilities seriously?
And I'm a science noob, what are the theories that show how the big bang was formed?

as for the link tl;dr, but bookmarked and will read in the morning.

>>2130397
I dont think he is infinitely powerful and all knowing, he can just see things we can't, like Dr. Quantum could in the video. I dont think he created himself either. And he could have created the universe by triggering the big bang.

>>2130410
>>2130447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_Pagan_sources

Atheists are just as bad as extremist religious people. You are all nothing but close minded, 15 year old, pseudo-intellectuals who can barely do Algebra and have no respect for anyone else opinions.

I strongly believe there isn't a god. But I'm not close minded enough to take it as fact when there isn't irrefutable evidence at my doorstep. Hell, modern physicists don't even fully understand simple photons, let alone the complex nature of the the entire universe.

I'm done with /sci/, I'll go back to /b/ which has a higher IQ then this shitty board.

>>2130462
>Atheists are just as bad as extremist religious people.
So? That doesn't mean they're wrong.

>>2130401
its plausible if he were to exist within another dimension. Evidence for it is slim to none, as is evidence against it (as far as I know with my limited science education thus far).

>>2130462

Thanks for the...

Actually I didn't even laugh.

>>2130468

You're a perfect example of the stupidity of /sci/, do you not understand sentences or words? Not shit that doesn't mean they're wrong, but it doesn't mean they're right either. Fuck.

>>2130462
I wish more people were like you

>>2130462

Atheism makes no claims and does not bear the burden of proof. It merely rejects the idea put forth by religion that god(s) exist(s). Atheism is not "there is no god" that is anti-theism.

>>2130461
>There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries: Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus...

>>2130474
You know, you can toss out all this "other dimension" stuff. An omnipotent god could exist if he didn't want us to detect him. You don't need to cite any technical concepts to see this. It's all very old hat.

Sad arguments over whether or not a fictional character exists.

Pause for a moment and consider all of the dead-religions gods. Now imagine trying to argue a case for one. Look down at your feet and realize there are only superficial differences between living and dead religions.

It's a cultural thing; grow up.

>>2130479
>>2130479

>Atheism is not "there is no god" that is anti-theism.

actually, it is. You have confused Agnosticism with Atheism

>>2130474
I can tell you have a hard time grasping what other dimensions are.

>>2130485
I'd be interested to know more, I don't know how a god could go undetected in our three dimensions while obeying the laws of physics and performing godly duties.

>>2130500

There is no such thing as agnosticism.

>>2130504
If a god is omnipotent, he doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, and he doesn't have to carry out godly duties.

>>2130504

>>2130507

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

>>2130499
"superficial differences"? The whole vikings sacrificing the wife of a deceased soldier on a burning boat or whatever vs. not murdering people?

>>2130503
Yeah actually I do, I im 11th grade taking my first physics course ever.

>>2130500
No, that's the right definition. Atheism is where you don't believe in a god or deities, it doesn't you don't think one exists or not, it's just that you don't believe in any either way.

>>2130515
see
>>2130390

>>2130509
I dont think god is omnipotent.

>>2130525
Then you believe in the early-Judaism god.

>>2130518

""superficial differences"? The whole vikings sacrificing the wife of a deceased soldier on a burning boat or whatever vs. not murdering people?"

Yes. Superficial differences.

>vs. not murdering people

Lol, where have you been?

>>2130462
A­u re­voir Shos­hanna!

>>2130525
thenwhycallhimgod.jpg

>>2130529
Not exclusively though. I'm open to believe in any god that follows the laws of science or whatever they are called. If the ability to be omnipotent can be scientifically proven possible, I will be open to believe in an omnipotent god.

A­u re­voir Sh­oshanna!

>>2130534
when i say god i mean creator of our universe. i dunno, calling him "creator" sounds too preachy imo and god is a term that most people understand

>>2130536

>god that follows the laws of science

wat

>>2130536
Godamnit youre retarted, just get the fuck off /sci/, why are you here?

>>2130543
>implying most people won't understand what you mean when you use "creator"

>>2130536
> I'm open to believe in any god that follows the laws of science or whatever they are called.
Then he wouldn't be a god then.

>>2130543
Then who made god? Cool watchmaker argument bro!

>>2130544
yep. i'm trying to suggest that this might be possible.

>>2130554
use your brain, youre in highschool, you have alot of information you will through in the next 20 years.

if something created the universe it wouldn't be a "god" or "being". if anything i would call the creator of the universe "nature"

>>2130554
You're failing pretty hard at it.

>>2130543
If this god created everything else, wouldn't that mean he decided what the laws of physics are? Doesn't that make him omnipotent?

>>2130552
I think he would be a god just by being in another dimension.
>>2130553
I'm not sure, but if we understood the laws of physics of god's dimension it might make more sense.

ITT: Highschooler attempts physics.
Highschooler makes up theories about other dimensions with absolutely no evidence.
We all argue about god

OP, I'm no theist, but you should watch Privileged Planet. Whether you believe in god or not, it brings up some good points and certainly made me think

>>2130554
Come back to us when you're done playing semantics and have some evidence for an invisible sky man in another dimension that made the universe. Until then, shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of /sci/.

>>2130573
So this god lives in another world (not dimension), and he's basically the creator of the Matrix?

>>2130582
this movie has nothing to do with your dimensions theory though, it's just about
>I'm just curious, atheists of /sci/, are you 100% sure that a god of some sort is completely implausible?

>>2130554
Well you're wrong then.

>>2130585

Ya, pretty much.

>>2130588
yes, next question

answer: we don't no it is not plausable by us, we couldnt even answer it

although i would say a god as we no it is impossible

>>2130350
>Atheist here. Actually Jesus was an actual person, far different from the one in the Bible (the real one wasn't an only child and was also a cult leader), but still is who the Biblical Jesus is based on.
LOL, nearly everything we know about historical Jesus is from the Bible, including the fact that he had brothers and was a cult leader.

Of course it's plausible that some kind of God exists. But like you imply, the question deals with things outside our direct perception. The harder question is whether or not it's plausible that no kind of God exists.

>cntr+f
>search: troll
>no results
stay classy /sci/

>>2130571
You are right, I guess that does make god omnipotent. Sorry for bringing in all of this dimensions crap.

and >>2130582 i will do my best to acquire a copy of Privileged Planet.

I
Anyways tis 1 am here and i have to wake up at 6 so g2gbedtime,and thanks for the interesting argument. I accept defeat, but i still think that their is a chance that somehow a god or something exists. My further arguments would have to do with how humans were able to evolve to adapt to enviromnent and stuff like that (probably wrong). but anyways bye.

>>2130627
read this as almost closing browser and its an interesting point. will think about as i sleep.

>>2130627
BAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

>>2130620
Actually nothing the Bible says Jesus had brothers or sisters or that he was a leader of any cult or even religion (even his own). Those claims come from other sources, mostly pertaining to some 12-year-old in the same town and place who was considered exceptionally intelligent by the community.

>>2130642
Those other sources being...

>>2130426
Seriously? How can you seriously claim agnostics are wrong? Or are you trolling?

>>2130652
They're wrong about everything they say and do, mostly hipster and contrarian shit.

>>2130645
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm
http://www.bandoli.no/nooriginaljesus.htm

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS390US390&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=roman+r
ecords+of+jesus#q=roman+records+of+jesus&hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS390US390&prmd=iv&tbs=
tl:1&tbo=u&ei=k5f0TJbiH5LUtQPl6q2oCw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum
=11&ved=0CGQQ5wIwCg&fp=9b84a0f9b294c817

>>2130652
How can you seriously claim agnostics are right?

>>2130652
There either is or isn't a god, claiming none of the above makes you instantly wrong.

>>2130642
All four Gospels in the Bible portray Jesus as a cult leader with 12 close disciples and many other followers. Many places in the Bible (Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19, John 7:1-5) mention Jesus's brothers. Matthew 13:55 Mentions them by name: "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas". Jesus's brother James was a huge part of Jesus's ministry, and wrote the "epistle of James", which is itself one of the books of the bible. The Bible never mentions any sisters of Jesus, but many people assume that he most likely had sisters as well, and that they just weren't mentioned.

>>2130698
Well how do you know if it's either? That's just wrong to claim such.

>>2130673
I didn't claim they were right; you claimed they were wrong... which is completely retarded.

>>2130698
Maybe you need to look up the word. Agnostics don't claim that there is simultaneously a God and no God. They claim that they don't have enough information to judge whether or not God exists. To claim that they actually do have enough information to judge is silly.

>>2130699
That "cult" was Christianity itself, I doubt the Bible would call it's own religion and cult. And many important shit were exempt from the Bible because they want to portray their messiah in a certain way, in turn doing away with the original person.

>>2130708
> They claim that they don't have enough information to judge whether or not God exists.
But that is claiming that there may or may not be a god. Which is still wrong.

>>2130668
Have you read any of your souces? All the detailed information about Jesus's family and ministry come from the bible.

>>2130717
>But that is claiming that there may or may not be a god. Which is still wrong.
Are you insane? The claim that there may or may not be a God is logically provably true. Agnostics are the only ones who are provably correct.

P or ~P = true

>>2130155

Humans are retarded. They are over what may or may not exist. Yet when you ask them what it means for something to exist they just drool and herp and derp a lot.

What is existence? What does it mean to exist? Are there different modes? What does it take for you to know an object exists?

Stop talking about God, you dont even know what exist means.

>>2130720
Yes, they also cite sources from other religions, beliefs, and possible origins behind the figure.

>mfw you didn't notice "The Hercules Argument"

>>2130722
But it's wrong then because it doesn't have any logical conclusion or standing. It's like saying "colors may or may not exist because of the colorblind."

>>2130713
The Bible portrays it as a cult, with disciples and persecution and a cult leader. The word "religion" or "cult" isn't used, but it is exactly what it was. Part of why the biblical texts pass textural scrutiny is precisely because they contain so much embarrassing information both about Jesus and his followers, which something that was "whitewashed" wouldn't contain. Such as when Jesus told his followers they must eat his body and drink his blood, which made most of them stop following him, and when Judas betrayed Jesus, and John denied him when he was being tried.

>>2130731
No, it's RIGHT because it doesn't have a conclusion. P or ~P is true. P is either true or false. ~P is either true or false. Acknowledging ignorance is the beginning of any knowledge.

>>2130722
Actually, when the presenting evidence is "may or may not exist," nothing can be proven, therefore there's no logic or subject present. Virtually, the question or notion doesn't even exist.

>>2130739
>No, it's RIGHT because it doesn't have a conclusion.
It doesn't have a conclusion, it cannot be either, it cannot even exist to begin with. Hence why agnosticism would be wrong. Jeez, even basic science can disprove agnosticism with the logic you're presenting.

>>2130726
You can not similarities in themes between the bible and other scriptures until the cows come home. That doesn't change the fact that nearly everything we know about Jesus, including who his four brothers were, comes entirely from books that were included in the New Testament.

>>2130742
>confirmed for troll

>>2130748
But it still proves that the Bible is wrong and the original "Jesus" existed from somewhere else.

>>2130755
>confirmed for inability to counter-argue

>>2130708
I never suggested that agnostics believe in Schrödinger's god. Since you have a hard time with this subject, let's move on to Russel's teapot. Are you saying that you honestly don't know if there is a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars? And that you're not even going to make a rational decision as to whether it is even plausible that a teapot somehow managed to escape the earth's gravity? You call yourself a teapot agnostic? I call you a spineless moron.

and a faggot

If someone asks you: Do you believe in God?
You cannot say, "Oh, I'm agnostic."
Theists & atheists alike are agnostics with respect to God, but they choose 1 option.
An agnostic theist believes in God.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in one.

If you're asked about God & you say, "I don't know."
That means you have doubt, if you're not a theist, you're an atheist, but a weak one.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? I ask this question to "agnostics" because you guys honestly seem a retarded bunch. You're either closet Christfags or downright stupid to recognize this.

"Agnostic" is not a position, IS NOT A POSITION.
Idiots.

Agnostic means "not knowing."
Nobody knows whether God exists or not, and nobody asks you: "Do you know if God is real or not?"
Everyone is agnostic, and there are only 2 options.
You either believe in God, or you don't - it's self evident that you're agnostic, it's pointless to claim so.

If you're an intellectual, it's easy to form an opinion whether the Abrahamic God exists or not, because he's described in a lot of scriptures.

If you believe in a purely personal God, then your hypothesis might be unfalsifiable, in which case it does not belong in /sci/

>>2130155
It's not implausible to postulate the existence of a god, just believing in one.

>>2130848
Agnosticism is not "I don't know", it's "I believe it's impossible for anyone to know", which is a valid position. Atheist means "I believe there is no god" and Theist is "I believe there is a god". It is plain impossible to be both atheist/theist and agnostic at the same time. Thus, agnosticism is a position on its own.

You sir, are and idiot.

>>2130907
Actually "I believe it's impossible for anyone to know" is a "I don't know" position. However the position that "no one can know" is a very false and disprovable position.

>>2130907
Which is still not believing in a god, ergo agnosticism is just mere atheism.

>>2130907
>Thus, agnosticism is a position on its own.

"Agnostics" can't be this stupid, can they?
Fools like you make Christfags look like the new wave of enlightenment.

Show me what atheist or theist claims the objective possibility of knowing whether God exists or not, when God (Abrahamic one), by his very definition, doesn't exist in our senses, please explain this, you utter moron.

>>2130932
"There is no god(I know there is no god)" is completely incompatible with "I can't know whether there is a god or not". You can't just say I can't know A, but I know A.
>>2130923
Whether or not anyone can know anything about gods existence is a certain property god has, so it can't be empirically proven/disproven, so any proof has to follow directly from the definition of god. Well, go ahead.

God is immaterial, timeless, & in another dimension.
What atheist claims the possibility of knowing whether he exists or not - the definition of God doesn't allow it.
Are you that fucking stupid?

>>2130907

Knowing and Believing are two different things.

gnostic/agnostic pertains to spiritual knowledge
theist/atheist pertains to spiritual belief

some agnostics try to take it a step further and say not only is the spiritual unknown, but also unknowable, but this occurs due to a lot of false assumptions and tends to just be another way people try to push their beliefs on others which is what causes a lot of the trouble and animosity concerning spiritual beliefs anyway.

Picture related

>>2130957

This is like saying I don't know the answers to my physics problem, because I don't know the questions. I mean, I MIGHT know them, but hey, I don't know.

Basically what I'm saying is you sound like a moron for saying I don't. So look around, align yourself with your inner chakra and come out with an answer, whatever the fuck it may be.

>>2130907
>Agnosticism is not "I don't know", it's "I believe it's impossible for anyone to know"
No. Those are both correct definitions of the word agnosticism. The ORIGINAL definition was "I don't know enough to judge." It evolved to mean also the proposition that ultimate knowledge was impossible.

>Thus, agnosticism is a position on its own.
It is either of two propositions, one of which is personal, the other of which is universal.

>You sir, are and idiot.
glass houses etc.

>>2130969
That picture is so wrong I threw up a little.

athe·ist
noun \ā-thē-ist\ : one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-näs-tik, əg-\ : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

gnos·tic
noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tik\ : an adherent of gnosticism

gnos·ti·cism
noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ : the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.

(source: Merriam-Webster)

>>2130957
>so any proof has to follow directly from the definition of god
Congratulations, you just disproved agnosticism by yourself.

>>2130774
Huh? The "original Jesus" is the one from the Bible. Don't be a retard. Are you a zeitgeist-tard or something?

>>2130981
>>2130981
Wow, Merriam-Webster is really wrong about word definitions these days.

>athe·ist noun \ā-thē-ist\ : one who believes that there is no deity
Incorrect, is where you just don't believe in any god or deity. It has nothing to do with whether or not they exist, just the lack of belief in any either way.

>gnos·ti·cism noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ : the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.
Incorrect. Gnosticism is the certainty that a god exists or doesn't exist, or any belief pertaining to such.

>>2130791
Are you really this stupid? I am not agnostic on the subject of Russel's teapot. I don't claim not to have enough information to judge whether or not there is such a teapot there. I judge there isn't one there.

>>2130987
The original JESUS CHRIST is from the Bible, but everything else about is not.

>mfw you Christfags keep denying otherwise

>>2130994
>Wow, Merriam-Webster is really wrong about word definitions these days.
LOL how stupid do you have to be to think that your personal definition of words is right and dictionary definitions are wrong?

>>2130951

L2 Gnosticism
also Kabbalah

>>2130907

So you must be agnostic with respect to Unicorns & Zeus. There is no way of knowing whether they exist or not. You're the idiot for "positioning" yourself as an agnostic towards every imaginary, unfalsifiable entity.
Congrats, agnostics take the cake for logical fail.

I refuse to believe there are "agnostics." - fucking idiots.
Only closet theist-fags & atheists who aren't afraid to voice an opinion.

ITT: people arguing about the definition of words instead of just describing themselves without using those words

>>2131000
Enough to know there are other dictionaries out there that get it right.

>>2130998
wat? The only Jesus we know about is the one described in the Bible (and tangentially mentioned by tacitus etc, and written about by post-biblical christian writers).

>>2131018
Of course, but his origins are from other cultures and religions. Hence the Hercules argument.

>>2131002
Learn that God is immaterial, and therefore unfalsifiable & non-existent before claiming "agnosticism" as a position, dumb fuck.
Agnosticism is self-evident when talking about God.
It's not a belief system, it's merely an observation about the nature of God - one that is agreed upon both atheists & theists. I'm done with degrading myself by explaining logic 101 to "agnostic" fags.

Agnosticism is refuted by Russel's teapot.

If you're agnostic about god, why not the invisible pink unicorn?

Because skepticism is the default position, that's why. You don't kooks the benefit of the doubt when they refuse to show the evidence.

>>2131010
Gnos·ti·cism
   /ˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/
–noun Roman Catholic Church .
a group of ancient heresies, stressing escape from this world through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge.

Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Gnosticism (ˈnɒstɪˌsɪzəm)
— n
a religious movement characterized by a belief in gnosis, through which the spiritual element in man could be released from its bondage in matter: regarded as a heresy by the Christian Church

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition


Since all the published dictionaries are wrong, please tell me where to find one of these secret special right dictionaries.

>>2131038
It doesn't refute anything. There's no reason why someone should be agnostic about Russel's teapot. There are very good reasons to be agnostic about God. That God and Russel's teapot are similar propositions is just one a poor atheist fallacy.

>>2131038
Are you trolling or just being dumb?

>>2131041
>mfw you think "Merriam-Webster" translate to "all dictionaries"
You're both retarded.

>>2131038
They have to be loyal to their "position" with respect to Unicorns - if they fail to do so, they're either hypocritical & contradictory with their method of skepticism, or regard God as "special," in which case they're probably closet theists, or simply fail to grasp a matter of basic definition, which is frankly sad & pathetic.

>>2131029
Unfalsifiable things are non-existent? lol-wat?

>>2130996
Then you're a retard, there is less evidence for a god than there is for an orbiting teapots, yet you take a stance as an agnostic ateapotist but you're not going to take a stance about celestial sky men.

Fuck you you fucking coward.

>>2131048

Please explain why?

>>2131048
>There are very good reasons to be agnostic about God.
Which would take position on the existence of a God.

>>2131056
Why wouldn't they be?

>>2131050
Merriam-Webster, Random House, Collins
That's 3/3. Here's #4

Gnosticism(Gnos·ti·cism)
Pronunciation:/ˈnästəˌsizəm, ˈnɑstəsɪzəm/
noun
a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd -century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

Oxford English dictionary.

>>2131056
>God is immaterial, and therefore unfalsifiable & non-existent.

Read it again.

>>2131000
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Agnosticism&aq=f&a
mp;aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

Sometimes words have multiple definitions

>>2131029
Tell that to people who have convinced themselves that they have successfully completed spells or used divine symbols or ritual to see the future, heal a loved one, bring wealth and prosperity, etc.

They KNOW their god exists and they can not be convinced otherwise.

>>2131072
>he still asserts they're the only dictionaries available

>>2131064
It's the position that it is neither probable nor improbable enough to come to a judgment on its existence. Compare to Russel's Teapot, which IS improbable enough to come to a judgment.

>>2131086
>trollin, trollin, trollin...

>>2131087
Actually to take such a position would take the improbable position and against the existence of a god. Neither is believing in a God or the argument, thus it falls to the improbable and atheist side.

>>2131087

a god is more improbable, since we know that teapots exist, whereas we have no knowledge of gods.

>>2131074
Okay, you're saying that immaterial things are non-existent, implying you're a materialist. It's still bizarre to add unfalsifiable in there, as you effectively falsify it by your doctrine of materialism.

>>2131101

Show us an immaterial thing and we'll stop being materialists.

Learn to science.

>>2131100
L2 Esoteric Knowledge

>>2131100
horrendous logic
>>2131092
That was utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what you're saying.

>>2131087
That's saying nothing.
I don't even know why agnostics participate in these sort of arguments. They offer nothing.
Newsflash - ignorance isn't a virtue, you guys sound like typical creationist fags: "God did it," let's end it there.

If you have no opinion whatsoever, then why brag about it? You offering nothing to the argument by promoting ignorance.
And it's such an idiotic "stance" to be in, given the huge amount of scriptures defining, describing & claiming God's nature - I don't know how you can maintain an ignorant position given the amount of information you have access to.

The logical position is to be an atheist.
The position that believes God's existence is highly improbable. All you have to do is read the Bible & realize that God, Heaven & Hell are just evolutionary by-products of previous, primitive religions.

>>2131116

We know it is possible to PUT a teapot into solar orbit, whereas god as a hypothesis has not and cannot be tested. Russel's teapot has a greater likelihood of being real.

>>2131109
>Learn to scientism.
FTFY

>Show us an immaterial thing
<div class="math">e^{i \phi}=\cos \phi + i\sin \phi</div>

>>2131131

Try again. That formula exists as neurochemicals in your head and mine, and also on 4chan's server memory. That's material.

>>2131129
Agnostics tend to show too much respect towards God.
My belief that they're closet Christfags remains firm.

>>2131110
Lrn2 exoteric knowledge

Also, lrn2 lrn2

1. Anything that interacts with the natural world can be seen by people in the natural world and is part of the natural world.

2. If things cannot be detected by the natural world, they cannot interact with it (from 1).

3. 'immaterial' things are not part of the natural world, therefore they have no effect on it (from 2.)

4. Therefore for all intents and purposes they don't exist

>>2131109
dreams

>>2131142

or pussy athiests.

>>2131152

Dreams are images created by a material brain, percieved by said material brain and done so using material chemicals.

Man, this is pathetic. You people are dualists in this day and age?

>>2131153
I respect Christfags much more than these pussies.
They're straight up cowards, I'm not even kidding.
They think remaining ignorant is virtuous, fucking pathetic.

>If you have no opinion whatsoever, then why brag about it?
They're maintaining the tradition of Socrates and Confucius of pointing out that "real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." And that "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."

>The logical position is to be an atheist.
Of the 3 positions, I find that to be the least logical.

>The position that believes God's existence is highly improbable. All you have to do is read the Bible & realize that God, Heaven & Hell are just evolutionary by-products of previous, primitive religions.

That the Bible provides the most accurate account of God is a different proposition than the proposition that God exists. For example, the conception of God derived by the Greek philosophers, was not based on tradition at all, but on logic and reason. All the different scriptures and philosophical treatments of God come at the subject from different angles. Expand your horizons if you're only familiar with the Biblical angle.

>>2131155
>You people are dualists in this day and age?

They have to be. If they accept the obvious truth that the brain is physical, then the concept of an afterlife no longer makes sense.

>>2131155
People still think immateriality is real, that's beyond pathetic.

>>2131157
It's not that ignorance is virtuous. It's that acknowledging your ignorance is virtuous.

>>2131133
The symbols represent a relationship that is mathematically true -- completely independent from chemicals and bits in a computer.

>>2131155

How do you know dreams themselves don't cause the brain activity instead of the other way around much as thoughts create actions.

>>2131163
>People still think immateriality is real, that's beyond pathetic.

You've got it backwards. Religion REQUIRES immateriality, and then goes even further.

Religion is more absurd than immateriality. So to be consistent you have to say that religion is beyond "beyond pathetic". Which you probably wouldn't hesitate to do. :-p

>>2131129
There has been about 5 spacecraft ever built by mankind capable of reaching such an orbit. Every gram of weight on those spacecraft is zero. The probability of anyone including something as useless as a teacup on one of those spacecraft is near zero. The fact that those spacecraft were well-documented and included no teacups make it even closer to zero.

The likelihood of the existence a creator of the universe or a transcendent infinite mind is much harder to approximate, unless you have experienced such a thing directly, but by most people's approximations, it is nowhere near zero.

>>2131163
Your dogma is showing.

>Is it plausible that some sort of god could exist?
Q: WHAT IS DENSER THAN QUARK MATTER?
A: RELIGIONISTS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGHT CANNOT PENETRATE THEM.

>>2131161
>They're maintaining the tradition of Socrates and Confucius of pointing out that "real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." And that "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."

I'm maintaining the position of Einstein & Hawking, problem?

>Of the 3 positions, I find that to be the least logical.

There are only 2 positions. What's yours?
And why do you think theism is more logical than atheism.

>That the Bible provides the most accurate account of God is a different proposition than the proposition that God exists. For example, the conception of God derived by the Greek philosophers, was not based on tradition at all, but on logic and reason. All the different scriptures and philosophical treatments of God come at the subject from different angles. Expand your horizons if you're only familiar with the Biblical angle.

You're implying that there's an accurate account God.
God can be anything you want him to be, he's problematic in this sense because his nature is mostly imaginary & easily corrupted. I'm picking the Biblical one because he happens to be one of the most popular.

I'm aware of other Gods like Zeus who struck lightning, but we proved him wrong with science.
We have a perfect understanding of lightning now.
What God/s are you referring to?

What is with this Teenage Atheism fad going around? are you kids really that stupid? i doubt it i think you're all just dick riding.
in order to prove there is no god you would have to be omniscient knowing everything there was to know throughout out all of reality. and we don't know that and science can't give us that. also you would have to be omnipotent and omnipresent. you would have to be able to travel throughout the universe in a flash to check if a "god" isn't hiding in a galaxy somewhere. So the only way to prove there is no gods is if you had the attributes of a god but if you had the attributes of god you would qualify as god and therefore god would exist, it would be you. therefore god is at least a possibility.

If you're not Agnostic Atheist you're fucking retarded.

>>2131189

no dumbass random space junk self assembled into the form of a teacup when China blew up their satellite, which is why we call it a China teacup

>>2131193
Good!
I want to be as clear as possible.
Immateriality defines nothing, and is non-existent.
Everything boils down to material, whether you like it or not.

Immaterial-ism is a pathetic excuse for Christian theology & metaphysical bullshit that does nothing but hinder science. It serves no purpose.

Sure

There would be no possible way of being sure or any reason to believe in said god or gods, but go right ahead and believe all you want

>>2131224
Materialism is a socially induced religious dogma with no logical foundation. Your zealousness for it undermines any logical arguments you may make.

>>2131109
A person's will and spirit
ie the push that makes some people strive to complete a goal no matter how impossible it seems and also the ability to keep a positive attitude in the face of pure negativity

>219 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to contribute to the shittying of /sci/.

>>2131238
>Materialism is a socially induced religious dogma with no logical foundation.

Um, LOGIC is a socially induced religious dogma.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

You use logic because you know it gets results. I use materialism because I know it gets results.

>>2131251
Based on hormones and survival instincts. Fuck off.

>>2131207
What you mad about?
Can you point at anybody claiming to be a gnostic atheist in this thread?
You don't need omnipotence to realize how improbable the Biblical God is, just read the Bible.
It's mainly primitive Middle Eastern philosophy with heavy influence from other Eastern religions that was fed to the illiterate Middle Eastern deserts & promoted with violence & genocide, and constantly changed throughout time to fit an evolutionary morality.

Islam had 1 book only, hence they have some of the worst human rights in those parts of the globe.

To "stand" as an agnostic is to remain ignorant of facts, and to deny the fact that God is pointless & unnecessary in science, or in everyday life - unless you're a weak minded typical religious fag of some sort.

>>2131251
Go to school and get an education.
Dumb fuck.

Oh and while you're at it, GTFO /sci/

>>2131262
>instincts
also immaterial

>>2131273
>implying I don't have a PHD and you are the one who fears new concepts and quickly resorts to ad hominem and foul language because he can not properly for a rebuttal

>mfw this thread....again

>I'm maintaining the position of Einstein & Hawking, problem?
Not at all. You're the one with a problem with agnostics. But Einstein was not a materialist, as he was a Spinozan. (I don't know or particularly care what Hawking is) So if you are the one religiously advocating materialism, you are not maintaining his position, which was a much more logical one.

>There are only 2 positions. What's yours? And why do you think theism is more logical than atheism.
I'm not here to advocate my personal position. The position that one can't judge whether God exists or not has obvious logical appeal, because it is obviously a hard subject to collect objective evidence on, the available evidence generally being of a subjective or intuitive nature. So reserving judgment on such things is by default the most reasonable position. However, it's possible that some people may have personal experiences which may remove the doubt for them in favor of theism. (Carl Jung for example) Not everyone can share the benefit of such experiences, but in their cases theism becomes the logical conclusion. In contrast, there is no possible experience that can make atheism a logical conclusion.

>I'm aware of other Gods like Zeus who struck lightning, but we proved him wrong with science. We have a perfect understanding of lightning now. What God/s are you referring to?
The God of the Greek philosophers is not Zeus, but the omnipotent transcendent, infinite source of finite reality and the source of virtue. This is the same general concept referred to as God by Jews, Christians, Muslims, monotheistic Hindus, various other religions, as well as most Deists. If you remove the virtue part you get the rest of the Deists and something not far from the Spinozan God of Einstein and Sagan. This is the general concept implied by the word God.

>>2131275

Ability to survive is all encoded in your brain, which is material.
Try again.

>>2131280
>prove immaterial things exist by citing a concept
>have PHD and brag about it on 4chan

>>2131260
Methodological materialism of science gets practical results in the material world. There are no results of ontological materialism.

ITT: proof that all of /sci/ is a closet philosopher

I'd say well done OP, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel with cannon.

>>2131286

>loosely connect any immaterial concept to chemicals in the brain that science can neither fully describe nor explain
Atheist Success

>>2131170

real within the human made construct of mathematics, you mean. That exists in human minds as neurochemicals etc etc.

>>2131324

Actually, we are learning more and more about those chemicals by the day. We know which ones cause certain emotions, for instance

>>2131296

>implying there is an immaterial world

>>2131340
[citation needed]

>>2131284
Einstein was an atheist, let's get that straight.
I'm not advocating materialism - I'm merely pointing to the fact that everything is made out of material, including our thoughts.

Now regarding the position with respect to God.
The position that one can't judge whether a Unicorn exists or not has obvious logical appeal, because it is obviously a hard subject to collect objective evidence on, the available evidence generally being of a subjective or intuitive nature, correct? Given your approach, I think it's safe to assume that your "stance" with respect to Unicorns is agnostic.

Personal revelation is hallucination, since "religious" experience always boils down to something unfalsifiable & non-materialistic, the sort you seem to show unwarranted respect & credibility.
Your stance on theism proves how little regard you have for empirical evidence or basic evidence in general.

And the God of Einstein was the "God of the gaps" which are constantly being filled by science.
Again, Einstein's God was a metaphor for ignorance, so I guess you might view his atheistic stance as illogical.

>>2131251

Cerebral Cortex and Thalamus.

>>2131324
>loosely connect any immaterial concept to chemicals in the brain that science can neither fully describe nor explain

Hahaha I always laugh when I hear things like this. It's exactly the same mentality that goes "but there aren't enough transitional fossils, so we were created by magic!".

The physical brain is obviously the seat of our emotions. Just because we don't fully understand how it works yet, doesn't mean you should just assume it works by magic.

>>2131350

From Wikipedia

Dopamine is commonly associated with the reward system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities. Dopamine is released (particularly in areas such as the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex) by rewarding experiences such as food, sex, drugs, and neutral stimuli that become associated with them. Recent studies indicate that aggression may also stimulate the release of dopamine in this way.[19]

This theory is often discussed in terms of drugs such as cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines, which directly or indirectly lead to an increase of dopamine in the mesolimbic reward pathway of the brain, and in relation to neurobiological theories of chemical addiction (not to be confused with psychological dependence), arguing that this dopamine pathway is pathologically altered in addicted persons.[

anything we can imagine could exists.
Another thing is, do they exist.

Closes thing to god what in real life could exist is some alien race(we haven't met any but there is proffe that inteligent life can exist,we are alive). they flew here in their spaceship(posible again we have ships to) and had some fun with genetic engeneering and so humans were born. This race was set up as gods by human intripations. solves all the polimorphism religion things. monotholic god certainly didnt exist

>>2131361
There's the same reason for the mentality, too - preserving religious dogma even when it has become absurd in the light of new evidence.

Think about what a religifag is admitting if they admit that the brain is just a physical control centre.

The concept of an afterlife doesn't make sense.
Free will doesn't make sense.
Souls don't make sense.

Religifags have to cling to dualism, or else they can no longer be religifags.

Hey! Unicorn dude! Just quit it with your childish nonsense!

>>2131378

Except they wouldn't be gods. Not creator gods or omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings.

They're the closest we'll get though.

Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from god. And that is why even if theists had evidence, I'd bank on it being a troll.

>>2131379

I'm so sick of the free will bullshit - it somehow implies that the only way we are in control of our lives is that our brains are rolling dice.

Basically, 'free will' in philosophical terms is not desirable.

>>2131389
>I'm so sick of the free will bullshit

Me too. But you know why people believe in it? It goes like this:

"But if I stop believing in free will, then everything is pointless! Nothing I do is important, it was just going to happen anyway! I might as well just kill myself!"

Remind you of anything? See:

"But if I stop believing in God, then everything is pointless! Morality doesn't exist and there's no point to life! I might as well just rape people!"

That's how they stick around - through fear. You and I know that these doomsday scenarios don't actually happen, but religifags are terrified of them.

>>2131361
anything ill understood is tantamount to magic until the point it can be fully explained, but all I am getting at is that maybe the mind is not the closed system you assume it to be and consciousnesses may intermingle and their may be an ultimate consciousness where all consciousnesses that have ever been and will ever be coalesce and this is what primitive man commonly mistakes for god

>>2131378
I imagine nothing exists

>>2131397

The important thing is that people need to feel in control - but you can't decide what your will and intentions are going to be - only act on them. And in your mind it is YOU who makes that decision, determinism notwithstanding.

And, as soon as someone tries to predict your exact future, and shows you, they will have altered it, giving you a reason to avoid carrying it out. Then they will have to calculate again ad infinitum.

TRUE free will - being in control of your destiny - is simply a product of the uncertainty principle. You cannot measure something without changing it. If someone tries to make a prophecy based on determinism, they change the equation.

>>2131400
>anything ill understood is tantamount to magic until the point it can be fully explained

REALLY? Do you ACTUALLY think this?

Lots and lots of stuff in science isn't fully explained. Even some basic cell biology is not fully explained. Do you think that all of it is magic?

>>2131407

maybe fully isn't the correct word, but properly.
For instance magnetism = magic to cavemen and juggalos.

>>2131397
>"But if I stop believing in God, then everything is pointless! Morality doesn't exist and there's no point to life! I might as well just rape people!"

You know what I don't get? How on earth can religious people think this? They have contrary evidence all around them!

They see happy moral atheists who don't rape people around them all the time! Shouldn't that tell them that their nightmare doesn't happen?

Heck, Northern Europe is like 80% atheist. Do religifags imagine it being some sort of mass orgy / suicide place?

I'm going to make up a bunch of random bullshit about stuff science hasn't explained yet.

I can't provide evidence, and I'm logically inconsistent, but the agnostics defend me, because who knows?

>>2131424

Man, I'm a former theist and even people like me have no clue.

I guess the people who realise it end up becoming atheists, leaving the ignorant behind.

>>2131424
They sort of do. Ever seen the "Sweden has the highest suicide rates in the world" claim? Yeah, we really don't.

>>2131434
It's sort of odd actually, I know Sweden isn't even in the top 20, but actually, atheism does correlate with suicide rates. The funny thing is, it also correlates with happiness!

I think the reason is that people who are severely depressed, or old and wanting to die, don't have that religious thing of "but if I kill myself, I'll burn in hell!"

Is that a good thing? I dunno. Most suicides are very shortsighted and done when the person is irrational, I guess the religious deterrent does serve a purpose. But maybe the people that would have killed themselves end up having miserable lives anyway.

>>2131424
>Heck, Northern Europe is like 80% atheist. Do religifags imagine it being some sort of mass orgy / suicide place?

Actually Northern Europe is ~15-25% atheist. Country with highest % of atheism is actually France with 33%. I can confirm it is a place of mass orgy and surrendering.

Picture related.

>>2131445

Napoleon will kick your ass.

Also, it's not called La Resistance for nothing.

>>2131385

Nope, only type 3 civilizations would even start to approach our concept of god & while technologically they would be further from us than we are from ants, biologically they would still be closer to us than the judeo-christian-islamic god that doesn't exist.

>>2131445
>In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God"

cool confusing church membership with religious positions bro

Church membership is a strong part of secular culture in those countries.

>>2131448
Napoleon was one tough Italian.

>>2131450

The type 3 civilization could fake it though.

>>2131445
Okay Mr Picky, pretend I said Sweden instead of Northern Europe.

Sweden is like always in the top three countries in the world for lack of corruption and happiness and standard of living, so it's a good example.

>>2131458

Corsican you mean.

so if god isn't real, why do all the successful happy well connected people (like pro athletes, movie stars, musicians and CEOs) acknowledge his existences and only depressed nerdy eggheads with no friends (like atheists ITT) try to say he doesn't exist?

>>2131460

Fuck you, man. Finland is the best.

Thousands of years from now we have machines capable of simulating an identical universe to this one. So we use this machine to simulate a universe consisting of a God. This God then creates its own universe, more or less identical to our own.

>>2131473
>so if god isn't real, why do all the people who work in fields not requiring high levels of intelligence acknowledge his existence and only people who work in fields requiring high levels of intelligence try to say he doesn't exist?

ftfy

>>2131460
Sweden is 23% atheist according to the eurobarometer picture I posted. Sweden is rich and they lie about being happier than they are although being rich helps with happiness.

Sweden had forced sterilization well into 1970s.

<-- overall

>>2131476

So mankind was the god all along

>>2131485
* forced sterilization of "undesirables"

>>2131485

[citation needed]

>>2131485
>Sweden is 23% atheist according to the eurobarometer picture I posted.

Wait, life forces count as gods now?

23% rationalist maybe.

>>2131485
>23% atheist

As a Swede, I can tell you right now that this is bullshit.

>>2131491
I think you were looking a citation about forced sterilization?

Here you go - I googled it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Sweden

>>2131493
It is bullshit. Only 23% of Swedes believe in a god.

The confusion is because a lot of you believe in a "spirit or life force". Damn hippies.

>>2131492
>>2131493
Yes. Belief in spirit or life force counts as non-atheist. If you notice then this is what has been mostly claimed in the thread for the past hour (including by the poster to whom I originally responded with eurobarometer 2005 study)

>>2131498
>Belief in spirit or life force counts as non-atheist.

I guess you could say that. It's not really important, it's just the definition of a word. The word "atheist" is horribly vague anyway.

I guess the salient point is the lack of ORGANISED religion.

>>2131498
No it doesn't.

>>2131506

Belief in a "spirit or life force"? I can imagine people saying yes to that for all sorts of different reasons, it's hard to know what the stats mean with questions like that.

People who consider themselves "spiritual" might very well say yes to that, but not at all believe in a "being" called a spirit which is personal, has intention, etc.

And it would also suck in the alternative medicine crowd. I don't think you can say they can't be atheist, even if they are very irrational.

>>2131511
Yes it does! You are a stupid doo doo head if you claim otherwise.

You might as well believe in Russel's teapot and existence of teapots has been proven unlike existence of spirits or supernatural forces.

>>2131527
I get your point, and I agree that stuff is just as dumb (if less dangerous).

But you're trying to make "atheism" and "rationalism" synonyms. Whatever a "god" is, it's pretty clear that you could believe in a "life force" without believing in a "god". I think.

These words are all meaningless anyway, so I'm not even sure if what I just said has any content.

>>2130457

The Big Bang Theory isn't just a tv show, you know. The concept of it has probably been around longer than you have been alive.

It's strange that people don't understand how much progress science has actually had. Ordinary people walk around casually talking about things even Einstein didn't know of. The idea of a universe that didn't just include our solar system? Yeah that idea came about in the 20th century.

What has your god done lately?

>>2131534
Well it is just USA and Islam countries, where religion is dangerous. I have bad internet connection right now and don't want to watch video in OP, but am I correct to assume it is not dangerous also?

I don't actually care TOO MUCH about possible existence of free will or not - I know it is better not to think about it too much, but I think this issue is very different when looked by Americans or when looked by Europeans.

In Europe we are not in danger of stupidity in decision making by religion and we just let people be. Maybe if stupidity is main concern then American atheists could be a bit more accepting about people believing in Free Will etc ... Certainly would get faster and better results this way.

>>2131578

I heard he let his clergy get involved in pedophilia again. Does that count?

Just throwing this out there: If you believe in a life force or ghosts, then you're a moran and need to get a brain.

>>2131595

isn't mainstream science even beginning to take a serious look at Chakras and Chi?

>>2131610
>chakra
>chi
>serious science
no.jpeg

>>2131610
Yeah, No.

Also, what are you doing on /sci/? Here for the pictures?