/sci/ - Science & Math

"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
>Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
- St. Augustine

The above quotation is correct, the only way to believe in some things is to have faith that they exist. In this Government controlled matrix-like reality we live in, there are three main ladders or pyramids that we are forced into:

1. Knowledge. (Smart/Dumb)
2. Status. (Famous/Unknown)
3. Money. (Rich/Poor)

Most of us spend our lives trying to appear as if we're better then everyone else in each of the areas, if someone says something that makes them seem more intelligent, it's generally in our minds to shine brighter, for the self-fulfilment (same goes for money and status). With 'faith' or 'imagination' however, it's possible to feel as if you're superman, the most intelligent (intelligent already without knowledge), the richest (rich already without money) and the most famous (without the need for social acquaintances) -- and this all revolves around putting faith into those things that you do not see!

Reality is subjective -- this system we live amongst has been built, by man, the most important thing anyone must do is distinguish between those of which are concepts, generated by our own human nature and those of which are completely natural; as in the source that brought us to the stage where we could design our own concepts.

"Verum et factum convertuntur"
The true and the made are interchangeable.
>One can know with certainty only what he have created himself

cont.


As for God, the holy trinity, it is through Mental observance -- we never understood the Physical realm before the Egyptians, we were all God, in mind. Animals are God, in mind, they're stuck in the mental realm. We, however, have been able to understand and discover information about the Physicality of the Universe, which makes us 'Above God' in some respects -- we were God, and now we're creating God, or learning about God, in our own Godly way. The mental realm still exists though, I know what I was made for and the gifts I was given (I'm born knowing all, loving all). I don't know really, I don't

MATH AND SCIENCE

we need a philosophy board... sci almost has more of this pseudoscience bullshit than actual science

I don't understand the problem with Atheists, they're pathetic and weird creatures.

>>2353950
Holy fuck, /sci/ would be a boring board if people actually adhered to these rules.

>>2353950
I'm sure you're the type of person to deny God outside of /sci/, on other boards and off the internet entirely. The only way to prevent your drivel from poisoning the minds of others is to attack your homeland, directly at the source of all anti-Godism.

AETHER?

AETHER IS THAT YOU OLD FRIEND?

>>2353967
I'm Anonymous under a temporary trip.

they see me trollin, they reportin'

I didn't expect cooperation, I am fully aware that you will avoid this subject at all costs. Why would you want to agree with someone you don't want to believe in? Prosperity? No, you prefer extinction.

>>2353965
Dear Temporary.
I'm not sure I understand your point... Are you saying we should believe in God, because not believing in God means we MUST recognize politicians and mundane authorities as the highest authorities in existence ?

How do you get from "I don't believe in God" to " I fukken love the European Union / NATO / Ho Chi Min " ? I don't follow the logic.

And also.
What is so terrible about recognizing some human authorities as the superior authority in your world ? Why is that so bad ?

>>2353938
hey the OSI model!
Please Do Not Throw Sausage Pizza Away!

please do not throw sausage pizza away

>>2353990
It's not so bad, as long as their ideologies match that of those under their command. It's also nice to think that you're aren't so weak and powerless compared to higher corporations such as the Government. With God you know where you're heading, you know what you have to do. With the Government, you're told what you have to do -- I'm sure if you use your mind you can understand what was said, the benefits of being able to think you're not so weak compared to them, etc.

>>2353999
I'm sure we can organize a way around throwing the sausage pizza away.

>>2353938
Where do you live, please ? I want to do something even your god if he existed would have loved.

>>2354012
I'm sure you already know the answer to that question. The literal answer to your question is "I don't live anywhere, I just live, that is all."

>>2354003
Well, it does suck to have to suck up and constantly cater to my boss and everyone else who has a clamp on me.
ALright, let's say - hypothetically I am considering finally getting that baptism that my atheist parents never got me...
I don't quite see how accepting God is going to weaken the REAL grasp of the powerful on my everyday existence.

>>2354040
That's the difference between Physicality and Mentality, it's not really, in the matrix-real sense, going to make you more powerful. The only thing it will do, is release the restraint on your mind. Your boss is in exactly the same position as you, human-wise, actuality-wise -- the only difference is, he's/she's in a different point in the matrix. Just treat the matrix, as the matrix, and that's it!

There are higher levels of --this actuality--, I, for one, live a very dream like existence; but still focused none the less.

=] What's the problem? Annoyed because the real world sees you as stupid and alien?

bump

I, Wizard, do Gods work

>>2353994
>>2353999

People!
Don't!
Need!
To!
Study!
Physics!
Anyway!

'faith is to believe what you do not see, the reward is seeing what you believe'
so making up something is a reward in itself?

For some reason you keep defending this god and yet you consider Zeus and Athena to be myths, even though they are equally probable. That is 'not at all'. Religion is not science, religion is assuming and making explanations for everything to fit a given assumption.

Tl;dr op is a faggot

>>2354003
god too (if not more) orders its follower around. 'worship me or burn for eternity!'
you sir are either a troll or a person who doesn't even understand their religion or just made up another branch of christianity.

>>2354736
>Ignorant and deluded Atheist

>>2354719
No, that's not anything close to what religion is. You are describing dogma, something that all people have been vulnerable too, including scientists.

Also, the words "Zeus" and "Athena" refer both to mythic characters and to real "beings". You really need to get over this dichotomy you're enmeshed in.

Yes. It's like how THOR refers to energy, but is represented through fiction, it's mental realm spirit. We don't know what programmed energy in the first place, we can trace the programming, but we will never understand the "Why?".

You've proven catholics cant do math.

We are arcane mathematicians. You add numbers together (concepts), we add actual beings together (reals). You jealous? Inferior matrix fag

>>2354787

It even means that Catholic fucktards can't even grasp the basic concept behind the OSI layers (that picture in the OP's pic).

All those "higher" layers are just abstractions of the previous layer, i.e. shortcuts we use when describing what happens on larger scales. Lets us skip all those boring (actually more like difficult) details and shit.

Of course, somewhere along the line, we can and do make mistakes. And thanks to taking these shortcuts - the abstractions - we can't even tell what went wrong without knowing the details, i.e. what happened on the "lower", more basic, LESS ABSTRACT levels of understanding.

Now then, Catholic dumbshits, and other Platonist dumbshits, will see abstract (less detailed, more flawed shortcuts!) shit and say "higher level! wowie zowie lol" and fap over them. Some will pretend that the "higher" crap is separate from the more basic stuff, while others will act like the more abstract crap is more accurate. It's hard to tell which of these fucktards are, well, MORE fucktarded.

And then these dumbshits have the gall to claim they understand things like "love, charity, joy, honesty, infatuation!" when all they have are craptastic shortcuts that lead the gullible to the wrong places. "u need physical und mental observance lol" and "P + M lol" - these dumbshits don't even bother understanding basic physical concepts, and so the "mental" concepts they sell aren't even shortcuts - they're completely made up.

"boo hoo too long din't read" M doesn't even stand for "mental" - it stands for made up.

>>2355017
Gonna have to stop you there bro.

1. Heart
2. Brain
3. Spirit
(the fuck is the transport layer)
5. Soul
6. Mind
7. Body

1. Heart ( Courage )
2. Spirit
3. Brain ( Wisdom )

OP is butthurt about atheists winning all the arguments. Decides to call them government pawns.

Cool ad-hom, bro. When you can show me a predictive model of supernatural bullshit I'll entrust my safety to god. Until then I'll stick with a parachute when I jump from a plane, or a life jacket when going on a boat.

See, I've tried prayer many times. And the one thing I've noticed about it is that IT NEVER WORKS.

>>2355086
Try reading OPs posts next time you retard. Us Christians can do science too, and we do it the cool way. Also, where did you point out any of OPs mistakes? I don't see you contesting any points! You're just a faggot, who wants to be a faggot without any hassle -- in short, a cock sucker.

God isn't fictional, it's in the mind!

>>2355113

I'd like to see some evidence of this "mental realm or 'Heaven'"

His entire argument is constructed around premises he pulled out of his ass. This shit isn't even in his holy book, so it's asspull by even theist standards.

>>2355131
You can't see what you imagine.

>>2355142

I fucking wish I could make things appear by imagining them. I tried it as a 2 year old a few times.

Unfortunately, fiction is distinct from reality, something theists apparently need to learn.

OP you should read some Nietzsche and then maybe some Derrida

>>2355047

The transport layer is the one that makes sure your porn torrents are separate from your instant messages and 4chan browsing and shit.

...

Can't help with why the fuck separate organs and other shit are the OSI layers, mind you.

>>2355165
Well that's just your restricted imagination, and I wouldn't expect you to make them 'appear' anyhow, remember, they're non-physical, meaning that you cannot see them, you can only imagine them mentally.

OP, what the HELL are you talking about? Mental realm, physical properties, etc.? UMADBRO?!?!

Face it, there is no evidence supporting a God. There is copious amounts of evidence opposing the idea of a deity. When you come to us with true, quantitative data, come back to me.

>>2355201
Imagination, how does it work? (Mentally)

Physically, just chemicals.
But what about mentally, from the observers point of view.

>>2355197

Look bro I hate to break it to you, but seeing things in your head is entirely distinct from conjuring them in reality. There's nothing divine about imagination. Its your visual cortex whipping up a simulation so you can visualise something.

You can imagine all the gold bars and sky ships you want, but unless you go out and get them yourself they stay imagined.

Cool solipsism. I didn't know that was christfag doctrine.

SURE IS NON-MATERIALIST NEW AGEY IN HERE

>>/x/ is that way

>>2355220
The point is, you can see things in your head. Furthermore, seeing these things can help in certain situations. Imagine playing pool/snooker, with good imagination you could picture lines coming off of each of the balls, helping you judge where to hit the white ball and at what angle. You could imagine a huge circle that surrounds the planet and everyone in this circle is 'friend'. You could imagine being superman, so when you have no friends like the little ferret nerd you are, you can say "well, fuck your shit I'm superman" -- you could even imagine a giant cube around Earth and every living thing in the Universe. There's so much you can do with faith -- but if you don't want to be completely retarded, you apply faith to rationality, and that's how you get Wisdom, which is awesome. You're a huge faggot end of discussion.

>>2355251

I ain't even mad. Go back to troll school. 1/10.

>>2353941

>"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." - St. Augustine

Believing in what you do not see is dubious at best and requires some test or experiment.

Furthermore, seeing what you believe is also known (at most) as being delusional.

Based on Augustine's quote above, the reward for accepting the unobserved (and the presumably untestable ) is delusion.

Sounds about right.

>>2355261
herp derp atheist suppression

>>2353963

No, it would be a good board and not a shit stain like it is now.

>>2355265
You cannot see Unity,
But you can believe in Unity through faith,

You cannot see Prosperity,
But you can believe in Prosperity through faith,

You cannot see Honour,
But you can believe in Honour through faith,

You cannot see Morality,
But you can believe in Morality through faith,

You cannot see Hope,
But you can believe in Hope through faith,

Faith is FTW.
Rational Faith is the best possible mindset. Anyone who says different is Evil and inferior, defenders of the economy, gold-fucking rodents. End of discussion. I need to sleep now, arguing with aliens gets boring after a while.

>>2355287

says the timecube guy. Get the fuck off my /sci/

take your philosophy shit to /b/ or /new/ or /x/

bump

>>2357199
You are everything wrong with this board.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEHEHEHHEHEHEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555<3<3<3<3<35<35<355555<3

OP, if you're a christian, then you must know that the Bible says the earth was born 6000 years ago. If you really believe it, then I bet you don't adhere to any radiometric dating methods? Examples: Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, Carbon-14, Chlorine-36, etc. You must also be against natural selection too? Why would your god be the right god and not the other gods from other religions? You have to listen to Richard Dawkins' arguments bro.

Depends what a year is classed as in those times. I'm sure they didn't know that the sun revolved around the Earth in exactly 365 days 2000 years (our version of a year) ago. Years could be major time points, or 'mating' points -- It could resemble child birth, for example, hot + cold mate, have children, and this is a year. A year could be classed as "First God made the Heaven and Earth" (year 1), etc etc.

>>2353938
>Atheists are just government pawns who don't understand what God is. They say "we don't believe in God," but they completely support the Government Capitalists that control them, as Gods in their lives, they just don't refer to them as God to make it seem 'normal' and 'real'. With no God, you'll never worship something that has more power than the Government. You have imagination for a reason, it's just as credible as knowledge -- in fact, God prefers imagination.
Atheists don't worship the government or capitalism. Protip: In America at least, the crazy laissez-faire people are the christian republicans.

>There are two realms in existence
Evidence please.

No, the existence of abstract thoughts and ideas doesn't count. That's not evidence that such ideas and thoughts can exist independently of corporeal intelligent minds.

>>2357313
I gave you Empirical Evidence. You're asking for Physical Evidence whilst under the impression that it is superior.

Sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch -- to the observer, the feeling is not physical, its mental. Yet , because you believe physical to have superiority you'll still ask for 'proof', which is impossible, it's a totally different observation technique.

>>2357318
Empirical evidence is physical evidence, by definition.

Fine, give me physical evidence.

>>2357318
Your kind of evidence cannot lead to falsifiable predictions, and thus it's pedantic mental masturbation.

You've done nothing to prove that a god exists. You've just proved that an illusion of sentience exists.

>>2357334
That's a stupid way to look at things, what you really mean is I've done nothing to provide a suitable prediction method AND THEN you've took that idea, claimed it's superiority because of it's benefits, and spouted that 'this does not prove God exists because it doesn't predict anything' -- it's not a useful observation technique in that sense, but it is an observation technique and it DOES prove God exists. I'd just be quiet if I were you, you're like an irritating fly; just buzzing around gnawing at various threads, dribbling your senseless opinion "naw...w.. God doesn't exist naw. w"

>>2357356
wat.
could you please translate that from crazy to english?

>>2357356
>implying science is a useless observation technique.

If you cannot make falsifiable predictions, then your observation technique is the useless one.

>>2357362
>>2357365
Useless only if the aim is to predict things in the short term. If the use was to prove God exists, it would be useful, as it does. It also predicts things in the long term.

>>2357377
>It also predicts things in the long term.
Such as?

>>2357395
The most obvious example, destroy too much of nature then there will be no nature left. Continue building machines then we'll one day be over-run by machines. Fuel too much hate then we'll have world wars, etc. Use your head, fuck, you people are so stupid.

>>2353938
Wait what? I never worshipped the government. I think it may be useful to achieve certain things in a society, however I tend to say that I don't have a myriad things that I dislike about most current governments is incorrect (I also have plenty of things that I like about it, of course. Actually achieving a workable society is a difficult problem). I don't consider the government as subject to any less physical laws than I am, they're still people like me.

As for the rest of the discussion:
I believe I exist - my mind exists. Through physical observation, I can assume the physical world exists and works though fixed and concrete laws governing matter. Through futher observation, one realizes one's own existence and mind is an emergent property from this physical world. Wether one's consciousness is metaphysical or an illusion is unknown, but it is clear to each person that it exists (internally), and it emerges out of the processing that happens in the brain (it can be altered, understood to some degree).

>>2357411
> continued
Thus you can say for sure that consciousness and the physical world exists. The physical world is fundamental and you came from it, but the nature of qualia still poses a problem (the hard problem of consciousness), so you can only be sure that those 2 things exist (you and the universe). The unique geometry of the universe may make you wonder why "this universe" and "why like this", in which case I tend to use occam's razor and just settle on a concept like the "Ultimate Ensemble" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis ) which states that any non-contradictory mathematical system that can exist exists. So far, no need for any popular definitions of God to explain anything. Popular definitions of God which require contradictory concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience or even worse, omnibenevolence are quite absurd to me. I find that thinking interventionist and human-centric Gods exist is quite arrogant. I assign the probability for existence of an interventionist God (as seen in popular religions) a fairly low number, and just prefer of thinking of the world as "the universe" + "my consciousness, and likely all the others that probably exist" (and to extend on that, I assume there is a high probability that some form of "Ultimate ensemble" is true, but I wouldn't know for sure, since it's unfalsifiable).

Tell me, why do you believe in interventionist gods, even if they are not completly impossible, but just much less likely?

>>2357356
So you claim that God is the set of all consciousness and possibly the set of all possible universes?

In which case, that would be something I can agree with (except for the fact that you can't show the existence of anything but our universe and we can't even know the existence of any consciousness besides our own, even though the chances are that both exist) and it would be mean that each of us are a part of "God".

However, that doesn't mean anything really. This God is not interventionist, it's just "you" and "me". It doesn't have any power beyond ourselves. I don't think you can call existence God, since popular beliefs in God (see Christianity, Islam, etc) are completly different beasts which have no evidence going for them, and a lot of logical fallacies in their books. They are most likely inventions of man.

>>2357413
Put it this way, you don't really know anything about the universe, you're just tracing back it's programming and using words as the trial to find your way back to the start. You don't know how it was programmed or why things were things were programmed in that way, you just know how to decipher the programmed object. For example, an apple, you know it's made of chemicals, but you don't know exactly what programmed 'chemicals', you can only trace the 'chemicals', and base your assumptions on 'chemicals'. Gods, through this Empirical Observation, include things such as 'truth', 'equity'; these are Mental Standpoints, Mental factors of existence that cannot be proved physically, but can be put into effect and utilized. I don't believe in Sky Wizards, I believe in Mental Factors that cannot be proven Physically, because through Empirical Observation, neither Mental nor Physical hold superiority.

>>2357430
While it's true that we don't yet have a Theory Of Everything that would be undoubtably correct (although we're getting closer to getting something which will likely be isomorphic to whatever the mathematical structure of our universe is), I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume such a structure exists and it's what gives the world its structure. We're also fairly large macro-structures, and to us, the smallest implementation details are not necessarily needed to be able to do fairly interesting things or comprehend how most small to macro-scale things work. Since we are part of this universe, we can only find out about it through interaction, we can't just peek at the underlying maths that shape the universe. I really doubt that such a structure doesn't exist, as if it was something inconsistent, we wouldn't be able to get this consistent macro world and most physics experiments wouldn't be reproductible, possible the complexity and irregularity wouldn't have even led to life evolving, thus I held the belief that the actual ``programming'' of the world is fixed and exists (I also hold some beliefs about its possible form as I think certain types of systems would not be able to exist due to inconsistencies in them. I think my most controversial belief is that I think the system must be discrete/computable, which means no "real" numbers with infinitesimals exist at the lowest level).

> I believe in Mental Factors that cannot be proven Physically
What are they? I tend to believe in qualia (something like Chalmer's version), even though I do admit that there is a chance I'm wrong (and Dennett is right). However even if qualia is non-physical, I'm absolutely certain that each qualia has a neural correlate, even if our experience of it will be just something distinctly unique.

I don't see how someone jumps from existence of the universe and existence of qualia/self/consciousness to existence of interventionist gods.

Fact:
We can't fully pinpoint what causes visions, dreams, conciosness.


Atheists/Agnostics w/e reason based system:
>We don't know what happens inside the brain, maybe if we keep researching we will.

Theists:
>God did it. Case closed, nothing learned.

Go back to your mudhuts if you love god so much.

>>2357468
I believe in imagination, there are a lot of things you can do with imagination. Think of it like this, you can't see Unity, Love, Beauty, Etc. You can only 'think' they exist, and if you think they exist, you feel their presence.

I cannot see the God of truth, the God of equity, the God of morality BUT I can learn from these Gods, and through them I pick up their traits. I'm now fully aware that Morality, Equity, Truth exists all because I believe that there is a higher conciousness that is home to a finite multitude of possible Gods (even the God of infinity). I can't explain it better than this at the moment, but as always, give me time and I'm sure soon enough I'll be able to voice it in a way that's understandable. It's a bit like genetic traits.

>>2357474
Ah, of course, everyone believes in concepts. It's how we work and how we model our internal world and how we make decisions.

I think most of the confusion here is that people are using different definitions for the world "God". When you hear a Christian using the word God, we'll probably have different concepts about it than him (unless we think of the concept represented by the God he believes in).

>>2357469
There's still a huge lot of research to be done on the brain, however there are actually plenty of workable hypotheses and in some cases theories about internal workings of the brain. Starting from models of the physics and chemistry of the neuron to high-level concepts regarding what happens in large-scale biological neural networks. It's truly an amazing thing to look at and study.

>>2357407
>The most obvious example, destroy too much of nature then there will be no nature left. Continue building machines then we'll one day be over-run by machines. Fuel too much hate then we'll have world wars, etc. Use your head, fuck, you people are so stupid.
I'm pretty sure we make those predictions using empirical evidence aka natural evidence. I see no need of your bullshit to conclude those simple things. Science suffices.

>>2357474
>I cannot see the God of truth, the God of equity, the God of morality BUT I can learn from these Gods, and through them I pick up their traits. I'm now fully aware that Morality, Equity, Truth exists all because I believe that there is a higher conciousness that is home to a finite multitude of possible Gods (even the God of infinity).
So you have 2 knives, they look exactly alike.
But other knife cuts bread better than the other.

Guess what, its not the "God of knives" manifesting his divine existance through the more noble and higher of the two knives.
The other knife is just fucking sharper.

Keep asking "Why" all the time. And when you finally don't know have the courage to say "I don't know." Then think, experiment and find out the answer. Don't say "Oh, well, it must be the Gods then who did this."

Religion of any kind, any explanation through God, is killing science because its a final answer that doesn't need justification.

>>2353938
Wow. Someone is clearly out of their minds.

There is one thing though, which I didn't mention. I'm not just thinking Empirically, I am an Empirical being.

4chan is probably the only place where this extreme esoteric discussion can take place, as to others it's so different that it seems crazy! If you tried voicing this on a moderated forum you'd probably get banned -- because it's so less-generic, it doesn't obey the social or current scientific laws, it abolishes them.

With that known, that this is the only possible place for it's legit discussion and 'proving', I can also see that there would be people here trying to suppress it, because there must be others out there who are so 'crazy' that they also understand the relevance of this particular place on the internet.

There are people here suppressing this form of observance right now, and the ordinary people who are unaware, who are sane, are generally supportive of the people who suppress.

>>2357541
>Suppress
You use that word, but you don't know what it means. Banning you would be suppressing you. Threatening violence would be suppressing you. All we're doing is ridiculing your ridiculous idea. That's not suppression. That's the free flow of ideas from freedom of speech. This is how it works - you get to say inane shit, and we make fun of you for it.

>>2357543
But some of you are voicing your opinion on these 'stupid ideas' with complete understanding of the concept and the truth behind it. Obviously you wont agree with this.

>>2357555
Yes, and calling you stupid isn't suppression. Grow up asswipe.

>>2357543
And at the end of the day, you can walk away without dire consequences. It doesn't matter what dumb shit you say, the "stupid!" -stamp doesn't follow you around.

When you come around again with better, more constructed arguments people can't look at your posting history and say: "Just look at what the idiot said eleven years ago!" They have to judge your arguments, not you.

This way, you can actually change your opinion if needed. The ego factor is gone.

>>2357567
Got a point?

>>2357559
Actually it is if your mens rea is completely aware of the truth behind it. It's like knowing that a certain horse will win a race, and someone comes up to you saying that their going to bet on that particular horse, but you don't want them to, so you shout to the person, and the people around the person who are also unaware, that betting on this horse is stupid and insane, even though you know yourself that it's going to win.

>>2357571
No, it's like the horse is going to LOOSE because it's almost old enough to retire and the jockey is overweight.

>>2357571
No, I just think that you aka the OP is wrong, stupid, deluded, and maybe insane. There is no worth to your ideas except to learn by ridiculing them. By being better able to dissect stupid ideas, one does learn something about truth.

What is your argument again? The existence of abstract ideas and abstract thought proves the existence of god? Or are you redefining god to all intelligent consciousness - in which case you're being an asshat too because that's not how the word god is defined.

>>2357577
>going to loose

>>2357569
Just rambling. But what I said is true right?

>>2357583
Yes. In this kind of forum, we're both welcome to change our minds without fear of reprisal. We're also both able to troll without fear of reprisal.

Explain to me briefly what problems you will have if people start believing that things can be seen as Gods in the mental realm. Such as: fire, water, earth, wind, morality, magnetism. If you can give me good reason that isn't based around your own Atheist suppression and opinion then I'll stop, I've always said I would stop posting this when your mens rea was explained. I don't understand why you want to suppress it, why you want it not to be true and why you are hellbent on stopping anyone who teaches it. Don't come at me with the "It's stupid," and don't come at me with "Because it's crazy," cause even though you won't admit it, we both know the truth behind it. This ends here if you give me credible and reasonable excuses, I never post again, I may even support you if the reason is worthy. Things which aren't reasons:

Overpopulation
Delusion
Stupidity
Perceptual Motion

Proceed.

>>2357755
>Explain to me briefly what problems you will have if people start believing that things can be seen as Gods in the mental realm. Such as: fire, water, earth, wind, morality, magnetism.

Because the first 4 aren't the 4 elements that make up the universe. That was proposed by Aristotle over 2000 years ago, and has been proven wrong since. Fire is just a chemical reaction, water is just a chemical (albeit one with strange properties that make it necessary for life), air is just a term for the mixture of gaseous elements in our atmosphere and earth is just a blanket term for the mixture of the solid elements that compose our planet. Morality is subjective, and is whatever a particular human decides it to be. Electromagnetism, while indeed a powerful force, simply has no reason to be thought of as a god. In fact, none of these things have a reason to be thought of as gods.

Get the fuck off the internet.

>>2357755
>Explain to me briefly what problems you will have if people start believing that things can be seen as Gods in the mental realm. Such as: fire, water, earth, wind, morality, magnetism.
Well, that's not the definition of god. You're redefining it. I'm not sure why you're redefining it. That's my biggest problem at the moment.

A god is a powerful personal being who generally interferes in the affairs of humans. A theist god does interfere. A deist god does not interfere.

>>2357768
That didn't explain your mens rea, that was applying physical evidence, yet again, to empirical. I did not claim any of the things you said, I just said "What's the problem with people interpreting things like [etc] as Gods? And what is your mens rea for suppression?"

You failed at making me leave, but you still have the chance, here's the deal -- when you put your machine induced boner away and tell me your mens rea, why you don't want this perception of existence in other peoples eyes, I will leave. I will know when you're lying, I will know when you're dodging the point. You want me gone, answer the question that you know I'm implying, demon.

>>2357774
A God is different to THE God.

Gods, exist.
A God doesn't.

>>2357768
"element" does not always mean what it means in chemistry. The four element system is different then the periodic table elements. FFS, stop braggin your ignorance.

>>2357791
That's nice. Your use of the term is still not the correct definition. Zeus and Apollo are (non-existent) gods. Figments of our imagination are not gods.

where does Nihilism fit it this idea that man need a leader other than himself?

>>2357755
See:
>>2357512

Science is needed to improve our standards of living. Religion discourages science.

>>2357800
incorrect on both counts

I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than those who do. When they understand why they dismiss all the other possible gods, they will understand why I dismiss theirs.

>>2357768
I think he just equates the definition of concepts with the definition of God (which is a somewhat illdefined term). I used to consider myself agnostic, but didn't say I was atheist as I was defining God in my own way (a mostly pantheistic definition involving the universe and my conscious as well as if /other universes/ and /other people's consciousnes/ exists those would be included too), however after reading Dawkins I realized that the majority of population tends to use more traditionalist definitions for the word God which differed much from mine, so calling myself an agnostic atheist (atheist in the sense that I think the probability for an interventionist God with certain illogical/unlikely properties is so low that I don't even consider it for our world) would be more accurate (even if I do have some other beliefs outside of that, such as an agnostic believer in qualia and an agnostic believer in the likelyhood of other consistent physical systems possibly existing independent of our universe).

>>2357802
Why?
(Ha!)

>>2357782
>mens rea
>Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime.

Tell me, what crime did I commit that I need to be guilty of? Not believing in your invisible sky wizard?

PAH!

Religion as we know it today is nothing but mind-rot. It only exists to stupefy the masses so that they are more easily controlled. Humanity cannot truly be free until it removes the shackles of religion from itself.

Furthermore, religion inhibits the teaching of scientific knowledge and the drive for scientific research. After all, why study the world and how it works when you just go "HERP DERP GOD DID IT"? However, scientific knowledge is what makes humanity great. I will not stand for some ignorant old fools denying my species the chance to become greater than anything they ever could've imagined.

Get off the internet.

>>2357810
>Religion as we know it today is nothing but mind-rot.

That's a matter of what you know, not what religion is. And frankly, what you "know" ain't very impressive.

>>2357818
Incoming atheist copypasta

I am an atheist.

First, why should we care? Why talk about it?
1- People tend to be moral, or at least moral enough for society to function, without delusions. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection.
2- Delusional people tend to make false less moral decisions which affect the public because they base their decisions on falsehoods.
3- People who hold delusions, and even pride themselves on having faith, lack critical reasoning. This makes them easy to mislead and dangerous
4- While not all delusional people are incredibly dangerous, when the delusion is shared, they tend to prop up the real crazies by supporting their "faith" instead of calling shenanigans on it.
5- The harm caused by these delusions tends to outweigh the benefits.

Also, why are they delusions? Why are they wrong? Pick any popular theist religion. It contains equal parts truth, falsehood, and pizza. Let's take Christianity. Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false. The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.

That leaves the unknown and unworshiped theist gods, and the deist gods. At best, we have no positive evidence for their existence, so positive belief in any particular one, is also delusion. The key part is that while a god may exist, it is a delusion to think that you know their mind, their intent. That leaves the inconsequential gods, like deist gods. That kind of god hypothesis is unnecessary at best.

>>2357818

>>2357809
Science has improved some living standards while others have worsened. Life expectancy is up, but so are cancer, heart disease, etc. Access to information is better, but ability to understand is worse. And so on.

And religion does not inherently discouraging to science. I am very religious. I also respect and enjoy science.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.

OP has clearly forgotten that religion was and still is the government in many of countries of the world.

>>2357831
I'm not mad, I'm correcting you. Why the fuck would I be mad about you being wrong? Are you really that stupid?

>>2357832
Then you lead two lives. You have positive belief in the absence of evidence, and likely positive belief contrary to known evidence, while at the same time you search for truth based on evidence.

I'm not sure how such people function. I assume that most just ignore the issue and pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

>>2357837
The problem only exists for people who are dogmatic in either area. I am dogmatic in neither area, I'm fine.

>>2357810
I can see where your coming from here, okay, what about this:

Instead of Religious Groups, we have Imagination Groups that base their theories, assumptions and beliefs on Empirical observation that doesn't take into account the superiority of Physicality OR the number 1; and instead of "God did it," we'll have "These Gods did it."

What are the problem with this, answer quite clearly and directly, the quicker this is resolved the quicker I join your team and 'do science'.

>>2357839
What do you mean only dogmatic? Do you believe that Jesus is a god? What evidence do you have for such claims? Do you believe the bible is an accurate telling of history? How do you explain the flat out contradictions of Genesis, Noah's flood, and the false myth of the story of Jesus's birth and the three wise men?

>>2357836
Nope. I just understand that, since we no longer need religion to explain the world around us and we never needed religion to have morality, the only thing religion is doing for us right now is being used as a tool to control the masses. see
>>2357834

>>2357845
What you understand is propaganda.

>>2357843
>flat out contradictions *with known evidence* of Genesis, Noah's flood, and the false myth of Jesus's birth story?
fixed

>>2357832

i think the rate of cancer increasing (or one reason anyway) is because we live longer.

also i also believe religion is not inherently opposed to science I am not religious at all though

>>2357840
Have you ever heard of Philosophy?

in the end, logic is not as comforting as the imagination.

>>2357852
Religion is inherently opposed to science.

Science is the art and practice of learning about the natural world based on evidence. Religion is the art of knowing the natural world based on dogma and faith. They're in direct contradiction - unless you believe in a religion which has absolutely no miracles, among other requirements.

>Explain to me briefly what problems you will have if people start believing that things can be seen as Gods in the mental realm. Such as: fire, water, earth, wind, morality, magnetism

occams razor

>>2357852
and smoking.

>>2357843
I'm not a christian.

Dogmatic is the quality of believing in some inherent superiority in the mindset one already has. It's much like nationalism, only intellectual. It occurs both in religious people, and in secular people (scientism).

>>2357854
But still, science will still claim that Philosophy isn't a form of science -- when it can be, it just isn't useful in the predicting kind of way. It is good on terms of genetics, as you can gain genetic traits -- by admiring Horus I can see sin and have morality, and this applies to any God or Gods that existed (and you know automatically what I mean by Gods here). Philosophical Science, and then we have a deal.

>>2357865
Ok. What religion do you believe in? I assume that you have no positive evidence for believing in it, and thus it's a delusion. I further assume that there is known evidence which contradicts your religion, and thus it's a delusion, and moreover it's contrary to science.

>>2357865
then you sir are a fag, if you wont even choose the god you choose to believe in, then why should we believe it.

>>2357870
Yes, science is a specific philosophy. Most philosophy is not science.

>i think the rate of cancer increasing (or one reason anyway) is because we live longer.
One additional reason would be the ability, brought to us by medical sciece, to know that people have cancer.

Notice how he is not complainning about the bubonic plague.

faith is the antithesis of reason, as religion is the antithesis of science, they are irreconcilable except through doublethink

>>2357874
Of course you do, you're a scientismist. You're here to argue your own religion against everyone else's.

>>2357878
What about the ol cube thesis.

>>2357880
Well, I am here to argue for my philosophy. That's what most people do. Did you expect differently?

I'm putting myself on the line. Will you do the same? You're the one who said that religion and science can be compatible. You made the assertion. Please back it up.

>>2357865
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I hope you have some?

>>2357840
>Instead of Religious Groups, we have Imagination Groups that base their theories, assumptions and beliefs on Empirical observation that doesn't take into account the superiority of Physicality OR the number 1; and instead of "God did it," we'll have "These Gods did it."
>that doesn't take into account the superiority of Physicality OR the number 1;
>the superiority of Physicality OR the number 1;
What the FUCK are you talking about? Empiricism only exists in the physical realm. If you're going to start talking about things that don't exist in the physical realm, you might as well bend over and let someone using the argument of Russell's Teapot shove his dick up your ass.

Besides, it doesn't even matter if you have 'imagination groups' instead of religious groups. Every time they run into something they can't solve with the available means, they'll still go "HERP DERP, IT MUST BE MAGIC". Scientists, however, will wait patiently for the means to be developed, even going out of their way to develop the means themselves.

We don't want you on our team. You're stupid and batshit insane.

>There are two realms in existence, the mental realm or 'Heaven', the higher conciousness that we all exist within (commonly referred to as, inter alia, 'the outer imagination', 'the imagination field' or 'the force'). We cannot see the mental realm, but it is there, it is composed of the things in life of which we 'cannot see' -- abstract nouns such as love, charity, joy, honesty, infatuation, etc. Whilst the physical realm or 'Earth' is composed of the symmetrical opposites, those things of which we can see, and feel physically (which are the drive or boost to our mental impulses). Think of it like a 7-layer OSI - the 'courage' from the physical realm sends the message to the 'wisdom' of the mental realm

Sounds like new age nonsense