/sci/ - Science & Math

They are indoctrinated and afraid.

- and there is no difference between the two.

My hypothesis is that religion is evolutionary in nature (social and biological).

There has been some evidence that part of the brain predisposes people to the belief of religion. Check out the God helmet. Ironically and perhaps telling is the fact that the God helmet didn't work on Richard Dawkins.

Also, if you look at religion vs suicide rate between countries, you'll find that heavily atheistic countries like Japan and Switzerland also have high suicide rates.

Just think about how it helps people get hope.

On the other hand though, I'm a strong supporter of truth no matter how painful. I'm not willing to sacrifice society's well being just so some people can be intoxicated with religious hope. There are much more healthier alternatives to dealing with life problems than relying on a fairy tale.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
- George Bernard Shaw

The only difference is in the way the story is told.
When you're told about fairies and magic, you're told them as stories. Things that aren't true.
When you're told about santa, you're only half-way told that it's true, in that it's easy to find out that it's wrong.
With religion, your parents believe it, your parent's parent's believe it, some of your neighbours believe it, etc. You're taught it as if it were true, and it's a part of your life.

tl:dr, developmental psychology. Children believe what their parents tell them, contrary to popular belief.

>>2739481
Fairytales aren't so bad.

Because Gods are the one thing most religions share and are defined by. The bible clearly references witches that we still hunt today in Africa and at one time said Jesus slew dragons. However we start cherry picking as those thing become less realistic until the creator is the only thing left.

>>2739481
>implying there is a difference

>>2739524
But look at the massive amount of bullshit that's created due to religions. Sure, being religious is okay as long as it helps people getting through their lives, but if you look at how serious people are about their beliefs, even though nobody knows a fucking thing about the (non-)existance of a god, you'll get a whole new idea of the stupidity of human beings.

pic related, mfw I'm being confronted with the nature of my species.

>>2739552
>Jesus slew dragons.
[citation needed]
You have no idea how badly I want this to be true.

>>2739579
Fuck those door to door convertors.

I DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING SHIT AT 8 IN THE FUCKING MORNING.

>>2739588
Bump. I need to know this is true.

>>2739668
I wasn't the one who said that, but google is your friend.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-dragons.html

>>2739517
I think its ignorant to compare a drunk person to an omnipotent man. I'm not religious but I believe in god and I dont deny atrocities. I think many atheists have a stubborn designation for god... a faceless omniscient fairytale figure causing destruction through its devout believers. is it possible that god is the embodiment of all physical laws as well as the connection of all things? have you ever considered that your idea of a god could be an incorrect one? if scientific theory is not applicable does it make the research futile?

its a logical fallacy to jump to the conclusion that suicide rates are affected directly by one's belief/religion.

And religion is faith in an imaginary creator. ( the problem with religion is that it never determines or explains what the meaning of existence is.)

Science is the growth and development of logical understanding of everything. It could be used to strengthen one's belief in religion.

I believe that the SCIENCE vs. RELIGION debacle is exaggerated and in fact unreal. There are facts that cannot be proven right or wrong by beliefs

>>2739690
If god is how you say, then why call it a god? Gods and goddesses, spirits and ancestors all share one thing in common. They are self aware and have willpower.

>>2739517
the religions of the western world have been harmful to humans and human societies. You could argue that religion is bad for free thinking (I do). But, to say that religion is generally harmful for society is premature.

>>2739690

well since that bullshit explanation you just spouted isn't even remotely considered in any religious texts we can safely assume you're just a fucking hippie and move on with our lives.

>>2739517
Religious people kill themselves, all the time. They just blow up a city block along with them.

>>2739481
> In which ways are religions different from fairytales?
Grown men and women actually believe in religions.
That's the difference.

>>2739517
> Also, if you look at religion vs suicide rate between countries, you'll find that heavily atheistic countries like Japan and Switzerland also have high suicide rates.
Intelligent people are more likely to not believe in a religion.
Intelligent people are also less likely to be happy.

>>2740150

Aren't the Japanese mostly Buddhists?

>>2740178
Buddhism is an atheistic religion.
Theism != religion

theism = god belief
religion = lifestyle based on supernatural/paranormal ideas (usually including god(s), but not always)

One can be religious and not be a theist (not theist = atheist)
Also, one can be a theist without being religious.

God is the whole universe. You cannot test or compare something that has no contrast.

You either have faith it is there because you are here, or you believe that everything is nonsense and somehow came together magically.

>>2740222
> God is the whole universe.
That's a silly definition.

>>2740222

Then you're a pantheist.

>>2740231
No it isn't. What is your dream universe made up of when you sleep?

Your body/Atoms/Energy or all three? How do you prove 'yourself' inside of your dream when you ARE the dream? There is no contrast.

See the similarity?

>>2740243
What does any of that have to do with the definition of 'god'?

>>2740243

I am not a dream. I dream. I'm already outside of it.

>>2740254

It doesn't hes just a fucking cunt.

>>2740254
The point is that you cannot define god as that implies boundaries. My example illustrates the similarities inbetween a natural phenomenon (dreaming), a logical construct that resembles why you cannot detect God (the material nature of your dream and how it rests in your mind), how objects without contrast can exist, and the logical impossibilities of determining properties of objects with no contrast.

Therefore, in the same way you are your dreams and where they reside, the universe is God and where he resides.

The fact is that all things have origin because of time and space and that you, are infact, alive and here. Beyond space and time it is not logical to have starting/ending point and existence is the only option otherwise you would not be here.

>>2740277
While you are dreaming you are both 'inside' and 'outside' of a dream at the same time. God is the same way for the universe.

Do you think characters in your dreams can prove that you are inside and outside of the dream? Or can only you know that?

Common this isn't hard people.

>>2740300
> The point is that you cannot define god as that implies boundaries.
Actually that depends on your definition (you can define something as being without boundaries).
But doing so creates contradictions.
Which is probably the real reason theists don't like to define god.

>>2740300

>>2740315
> While you are dreaming you are both 'inside' and 'outside' of a dream at the same time.
I stand halfway through a doorway. I'm inside and outside the house.
Not that that really means anything.

>>2740315

I am not inside of the dream. I am outside of the dream. I watch the dream.

>Isn't believing in a god
Stopped reading there.
Religions =/= Believing in a god

God dammit.

>>I want to cling to my patently absurd fairytales, but my god can't be detected and doesn't do anything

>>wait a minute! I'll redefine the term to include 'the universe', which clearly exists, but I'll call it 'god' to convey the image that the universe is self aware and magical

>>this will confuse my opponents into raging and I will win.

Protip: once you redefine 'god' to mean 'the universe', it's not a god anymore, it's the frickin universe.

>>2740315
> god is inside and outside the universe
> implying there is such thing as "outside" the universe
> implying you could know anything about whatever is outside the universe even assuming there is an outside the universe
> contradicts previous definition stating that god is the universe

>>2740325
Someone has a hard time understanding. Do they shuttle you to class on a short bus or do you still have functioning legs?

You can't prove things which have no contrast. If God is the universe itself, then the only analogy is the personal experience of you being your dreams.

>>2740355

Religion is believing in a set of dogma thought to be divined by some supernatural entity or another. Religion is worse than god because it almost always attempts to say something moral.

>>2740356
>>2740359
Which is why constructs are actually immaterial. If we are 'inside' the universe, there must be an 'outside' to contrast it to. Otherwise we are 'nowhere' and its meaning is ambiguous and fits my definition anyways.

>>2740356
This.

I think Einstein did the same thing (defining the universe as 'god') - It's a silly definition, and has resulted in a bunch of quotes being hijacked and taken out of context by theists.

>>2740356
They are synonymous. Are you your dreams? Does that make you a dream or a person?

You seem to be confused.

>>2740377
> If we are 'inside' the universe, there must be an 'outside' to contrast it to.
Why must there be? How do you apparently know this?

>>2740376
>Religion is believing in a set of dogma thought to be divined by some supernatural entity or another
Guys, just because you have read about a couple of big books about religions doens't mean you know what religion is.

I'll spoil something for you. /sci/ sucks, and I will never be back, because I found an intereting thread the other day, but it seems it was a diamond dozen

>>2740377

>>2740377

The Chinese could have a concept of inside that does not imply an outside. Your thought is too limited by our language as it stands today.

>>2740397

>but it seems it was a diamond dozen
>diamond dozen

Confirmed retard

>>2740376
see >>2740201

>>2740382
Your "body" is where you dream rests. If you were to observe your reality inside your dreams, you would say "I am this dream world".

In the same way, "God" is this universe. Whether it is bounded or unbounded does not matter.

>>2740397

Oh look it's a religious person who can't face a simple fact.

>>2740415
You still have yet to answer the question of what dreams have to do with the definition of 'god'

>>2740405
Unfortunately you cannot create a definition without contrast or it is meaningless.

Religions are only different from fairy tales in that a fairy tale is told with its fictional nature in mind. A religion is told with the intent to make you believe it.

It could be asked, more to the effect of the OP post. "How is religion different from mythology?"

>>2740413

I like how I define religion exactly as the other anon does and yet you refer me to his post as though it would show me wrong.

>>2740424
> Unfortunately you cannot create a definition without contrast
Yes you can.
1+1=2

>>2740393
You cannot be inside something which has no outside. Think of a circle or any other geometry with a boundary. The boundary itself creates contrast. Without the boundary, there is no shape, and there is no inside or outside.

So, if the universe has no outside, there is no inside because there is no boundary. Therefore you are nowhere.

>>2740434
Actually I wasn't saying you were wrong.

>>2740426

The problem with defining religion as fairy tales or mythology is that no one except atheists believes that.

>>2740436
The equals sign is contrast.

>>2740439
> You cannot be inside something which has no outside.
Yes you can. You can be inside the universe.

>>2740445
no, the equals sign means there is no contrast.

>>2740445
>>2740451
in which case, you could simply have used the example of the equals sign by itself.

>>2740424

A word has meaning in its contrast to all other words, not just the words similar to it.

A shirt is obviously not a pair of pants (they are both clothes), but it is also not a pool or the set of all spacial coordinates.

Outside is to inside as shirt is to what?

>>2740441
religious people have no problem calling other religions mythology and fairytales

= means no contrast
≠ means there is contrast

>>2740464
> A word has meaning in its contrast to all other words
Actually, words are defined by association with known concepts/words. That does not necessarily mean contrast.

>>2740464
Shirt is a description of an object, not a logical operation.
They aren't similar or comparable.

>>2740474

Would you like if I called atheism a mythology and "The God Delusion" a fairy tale?

>>2740464
>>2740478
In any case, a language is simply a system of description.

The universe exists, and there are laws.
Claiming that the universe is based on definitions is doing things backwards.

>>2740478

definition =/= meaning

Language was born when we realized that things are not all the same, and then the world had meaning.

>>2740489

omfg.... PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO THIS IDIOT.

>>2740489
I wouldn't care. It would only show that you're a moron who possibly does not comprehend that the difference between absence of belief in X, and belief that X is false.

>>2740484

Outside isn't the negation of inside.

Not inside the negation of inside. A point on the boundary of a circle is not inside the circle nor is it outside.

>>2740505
> definition =/= meaning
A definition describes a meaning (meaning is a prerequisite to having a definition). The meaning is independent of the definition.

>>2740523
> Outside isn't the negation of inside.
In reality, it's possible for there to be no such thing as a negative of something.

Here is a person.
Here is negative one person.

Notice how the second statement doesn't make sense?

>>2740523
Not inside is where?

>>2740527
The definition is the meaning.

>>2740544
No, the definition describes the meaning. The definition is not itself the meaning.

>>2740552
What is the definition of meaning then?

>(unless you're living in iceland or sumthing)
The same old shit posted over and over again on this board. You are not a scientist because you are an Atheists - your a petulant teenager. Fairytales are known to everyone as not real - why because the people who said them meant for these stories to have morals behind them - religion is far more complex and mysterious. OP please take the God Delusion and beat yourself to death with it.

>>2740560
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Ameaning

the meaning of meaning is independent of the definition of the word 'meaning'

>>2740527

'Not inside' is more than a 'there'. It's everything that is not inside.

Below
Above
Car
Shirt
On

In logic a negation only has meaning with respect to the negated. 'The cat is not on the mat.' says nothing about where the cat might actually be. It's not very explanatory.


>>2740536

The negation is not a negative sign.

>>2740566
>religion is far more complex and mysterious
2/10
almost raged, but lol'd instead

>>2740570
If it is independent, then what does it belong to?
>>2740572
those are 'outside'

>>2740572
> 'Not inside' is more than a 'there'. It's everything that is not inside.
It is a definition.
Reality is independent of definitions, and not all definitions apply to reality.

>>2740585
> If it is independent, then what does it belong to?
It doesn't 'belong' to anything. Hence being independent.

>>2740593
Then there is no meaning and only definition.

>>2740587
If reality is independent of definitions then how could you refer to it as a word and understand what it refers to?

>>2740572
> In logic a negation only has meaning with respect to the negated.
The concept of negation itself has a meaning. Which can often be used to infer other meanings.
But still, meanings are independent of definitions.

>>2740602
The universe does not require us to know or understand it in order to exist.

Also, definitions require meaning. Meanings do not require definition.

>>2740566
Religions origins were very strange to be honest, The first evidence we have is of a some sort of idea of a spirit among early humans - this manifested itself through burials. Sooner or later, people began to personify nature and the forces of life. These are only theories we have., the truth is that to call religion delusion is silly. Religion and spirituality is almost a natural emotion or feeling among people. It can manifest itself through other means as well. In this thread most people are religious.
"We can't we are Atheists" your saying
No, but you are very religious with your non belief. You probably have quotes, images, multimedia books. Many atheists have periodicals and newsletters, groups and social clubs as well weekly or monthly meetings or outings. Religion for you is not believing in a God.

>>2740602
> If A requires B then why does B not require A?

>>2740585

Those are outside only if we take 'outside' to mean 'not inside'. And that could mean anything, except inside.

>>2740587

Language necessarily applies to reality. The trouble comes about when we try to stretch our current language too far.

>>2740606
The definition of logic is it's meaning then.
It doesn't have to, but its not really a definition if it doesn't describe its meaning? This would work differently from the definition of objects, right?

>>2740614
The Universe? So it is a he? Or a she? This entity has sentience and can discern meaning and lack of. Sound like something that begins with a "G"

>>2740622
Well, if you perform a check of what is 'not inside', they all fit 'outside'.

Therefore inside = not inside
All things not inside = not inside
Outside = not inside
Outside = all things not inside

Unless... you find an exception?

>>2740627
> The Universe? So it is a he? Or a she? This entity has sentience and can discern meaning and lack of.
Neither gender nor sentience was implied.

However, we exist and we are part of the universe.
We are a means by which the universe can know itself.

>>2740633
Sorry, I meant not equal. :p

>>2740625
> It doesn't have to, but its not really a definition if it doesn't describe its meaning?
Meaning is prerequisite to having a definition.
Definition is not prerequisite to having a meaning (although a system of description utilizing definitions does make it easier to understand them.)

>>2740637
>nor sentience was implied.
>... universe can know itself.

Uh-huh.

A lot of people are asking nonsensical questions and going around in circles here.

>>2740639
Fuck.

1 = Sum of Every possibility

Inside + Outside = 1
Outside = 1 - Inside

Outside = Not inside

>>2740649
I didn't mention sentience, until you brought it up.

And even then, it wasn't describing the universe itself as being sentient. But rather, that sentience exists within the universe.

>>2740653
Therefore the negation of inside is not equal to outside.

>>2739517
>Also, if you look at religion vs suicide rate between countries, you'll find that heavily atheistic countries like Japan and Switzerland also have high suicide rates.

You try calculating triple integrals everyday.

>>2740622
> Language necessarily applies to reality.
Language is a system of description.
It is possible to describe something that is not part of reality, and in fact, impossible.

>>2740584

Exactly. It looks simplistic to atheists who don't understand it.

>>2740695
0/10

>>2740584
It is. You see most members of Academia don't accept Chris Htichens and Richard Dawkins as key scholars of anthropology and psychology. In terms of history they fail like shit. I'm an Atheist (yes a heretic will you burn me at the stake) but i would be a fool to let my pettiness get in the way of my objective duties. Go to any respectable professor of History, or the above mentioned schools of the humanities and you'd be surprised how bizarre and unknown the mechanism of religion is.

tl.;dr You can't come up with a dogma within five minutes and expect people to die for it.

>>2740698

Atheists live in a bizarre cartoon world with cartoon gods and cartoon believers that has no correspondence with what people actually believe in.

>>2740708
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.
Anthropology and psychology are irrelevant to the question of the existence of god(s)

Then again, so is evolution. But it does punch major holes in the "arguments" people have tried to make in favor of creationism.

>>2740698
>>2740584
Samefag

>>2740708

The early religions and cults in ancient times were pretty simplistic and cartoon-like (the Mesopotamians believed that man was created to serve the gods because they were too lazy to feed themselves), but by the time Christianity came along, things had really changed a lot.

>>2740729
Actually no. Not that it matters.
You were called out on your troll.

>>2740695
It's much more difficult to understand the world when you're Atheist, and I enjoy it. Microbiology and physics is much more difficult than saying 'god did it!'. Things Atheists don't understand, like how the universe began become examined until understood, rather than accepting the boring because-god-said-so.

Science is about about questions that may never be answered; religion is about answers that may never be questioned.

>>2740728
And of course, he does what he feels is correct in the matters that relate to Biology and Hitchens does a good job blowing Orwell and Rushdie. In terms of the existence of God, then you are correct, however in terms of the origin and reason of man for religious fervor then those two fields become quite relevant.

>>2740742

Atheism teaches us to be satisfied with not knowing the answers. "Eh, life has no meaning and we're all just molecules without a soul, so lets party and have sex with everything that moves."

>Science is about about questions that may never be answered; religion is about answers that may never be questioned.

Nonsense. If people didn't question anything about religion, there wouldn't be scores of religious beliefs in the world. From the dawn of time, man has wondered how he got here, where he's going, and what his purpose in life is.

>>2740691

I meant language as the harbinger of meaning. It is the means through which stuff becomes reality.It applies to reality necessarily because without it there is only meaningless stuff. (And stuff far too precise a word to actually mean what I mean to say.)

Facts are understood as facts. Fictions can be understood as fictions. They just typically forgo the qualifier that states it.

>Atheism teaches

You don't believe in God.

>>2740731
That's the thing though "cartoon like" and simpilistic. Of course to a big bad Atheist paladin like you such things are of the nature by which you so bluntly phrased however one must employ a more open mind towards the meaning of these religions. Why did people go from naturalism, and primitive pantheism to serving Gods and God Kings. It's macabre to think about it, how people believed that life was an endless struggle to serve cruel Gods. In fact when you get down to it, no Mesopotamian hero is really a hero or a good guy in the slightest sense. Simplistic though is a subjective term.

>>2740842

Antisemite detected.

>>2740791
> I meant language as the harbinger of meaning. It is the means through which stuff becomes reality.It applies to reality necessarily because without it there is only meaningless stuff.
You can have meaning without language. It's just much easier to understand something using a system of description.

>>2740763
> Atheism teaches us to be satisfied with not knowing the answers.
Actually, atheism is just "not theism" - it doesn't teach anything.
Though it would be accurate to say that most atheists won't simply jump to an easy conclusion just because they want an answer right now.
Most of the time, atheists will try to look at the actual evidence first.

> Nonsense. If people didn't question anything about religion, there wouldn't be scores of religious beliefs in the world.
Religions are divergent in explanations. Over time, the number of answers per given question increases.

Whereas scientific theories are convergent. As scientific understanding improves and evidence base increases, the number of explanations per given question reduces.

>>2740791

Here's a little story to elucidate my points about language and meaning. The world started with the Logos...

>In the beginning Man created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of Man was hovering over the waters.

>And Man said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Man saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. Man called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Blasphemy is fun.

>>2740842

Yeah, the Babylonian and Assyrian cults weren't particularly uplifting. You're here to feed and clothe the gods and that's it. No love or salvation from them or any promise of an afterlife.

>>2740862

No.

>>2740617
I agree a true atheist is one who just not give a fuck. I for example never will go to an atheist meeting I mean the point of not believing is not going to the fucking meetings and shit. But I belive most atheist really dont give a fuck about this shit.

>>2740879
No what?

>>2740868

By the Hellenistic era, the Mesopotamian gods were basically dead and nobody worshiped them anymore.

>>2740893
>You can have meaning without language. It's just much easier to understand something using a system of description.

I don't mean it as a system of description:

Language was born when we realized that things are not all the same, and then the world had meaning.

The Burden of Proof. Confounding theists since its inception.

Almost every appeal by a theist in this thread is simply due to them ignoring it. I do not need to go around making a name for myself because I don't believe in Leprechauns, fairies, Zeus, Mithra, or Frosty the Snow Man. No matter what the entity is, if you posit that it may exist, it then relies upon you to provide proof as to why.

>>2740939
> I don't mean it as a system of description
But that's exactly what language is.

Can you trolls just cut with the malarkey and provide some LOGICAL evidence for the EXISTENCE of a god(s) already. I don't want eternal damnation bros... at the same time; however, I can't get pass this whole LOGIC thing...WHY'D he/she/it/them make me like this...only wanting to believe in things supported by reasoned logic; but wasn't I made in his/her/their image? So then why does he/she/it/them want me to believe on faith...HAELP!!