/sci/ - Science & Math

There is no scientific discovery that discredits religion, but also nothing that positively proves it.

Conclusion: Agnosticism is the only valid religious position. QED.

if there was a god you would not exist, as god would not want some juvenile faggot defending him on the interwebs.

/thread

>>2751164
It's not a religious position.

This is one of the best arguments against atheism I can think of. If any scientific discovery did actually discredit religion, everyone would be an atheist.

But that has not been the case. Evolution and much else of modern science has not at all stopped people from believing.

>There is no scientific discovery that discredits religion

-Geologic time (i.e. world older than 2000 years)
-Evolution (god may not have created humans, they may simply be a being formed from other life)
-Abiogenesis (a theory which would explain god didn't even create life)

There are multiple discoveries which 'discredit' religion, so many in fact that hardly anyone takes religious texts literally anymore.

Asking someone to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.
You can't simply ask for evidence against something, why don't you point out a scientific discovery which discredits the idea that pink squid float in the mud.

>>2751145
>citations please
Every single scientific discovery ever made. Every one of them. Each one further bolsters the materialistic interpretation of the universe, that there are no miracles. And without miracles, there is no god.

And I know that doesn't disprove non-interfering gods. Fuck off if you bring up that strawman. No one, not religious people nor atheists, really care about deist gods.

>>2751195

Maybe people don't take religious texts literally, but they haven't stopped believing.

>>2751198

Since when does evidence and rational argument absolutely convince everyone?

I was simply giving examples which discredited religion.

>>2751197

>Every single scientific discovery ever made. Every one of them. Each one further bolsters the materialistic interpretation of the universe, that there are no miracles. And without miracles, there is no god.

This argument only works if you assume (as the Greeks did) that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky each day with a chariot. It is completely invalid as far as religion is practiced/believed today.

This is really the problem I have with Atheist. They act like it's a fact, but they're jumping to conclusions and have to admit, that what they believe is just that, a belief.

Assuming a God did exist, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to find hard evidence of that.

>>2751214
>Implies that modern religions don't preach miracles.
WTF Am I reading? You can't be that stupid to think that most religions, and most religious people, think that miracles happen to humans, like, at least once in the last 2000 years, and a majority think that they happen much more frequently.

>>2751215
No, it'd be pretty easy if he actively interfered and granted miracles. Last I checked, nope, no miracles.

The problem here is you've ignored the burden of proof.

You're asking someone to disprove your position. That's poor debate.

Just a friendly reminder

Depends on what you mean by proving there is no god, there is no test on earth that can do that. That is an impossible task, just like trying to prove we are not in the matrix. Yet there are millions of opportunities to prove god, yet it never has happened.

>>2751197
Except for the fact that some people have seen miracles. You discredit those people as witnesses of the divine by claiming that all of them must be crazy or hallucinating but to claim that EVERY SINGLE ONE is wrong is utter horse shit.

You ask for proof then discount the proof. The fact of the matter is you want to exist in a godless universe so you force history to bend to your will.

That would be called 'hubris' and it is the ultimate fallacy of atheists.

>>2751227
Please stop posting that picture. No one uses the terms that way outside of a couple of smart idiots on /sci/ who think that they know something. They don't. Words do not derive their full meaning of etymology. Atheism, agnosticism, and theism, do not mean what your chart says that they do.

>>2751233
I asked for reliable proof, not eye witness testimony. Eye witness testimony is the /worst/ kind of evidence in existence. I'm simply asking for the same standard of evidence that one would require for any other kind of scientific claim. Ex:
1- Yo dude, I totally saw Dark Matter in the LHC experiment today.
2- Cool. Where's your data?
1- I lost it. But it's totally cool!
2- ~frowns~

Also, see:
>Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

It all boils down to faith at the end of the day. For example, many people claim to have seen ghosts or had a near-death experience. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. The evidence is inconclusive.

To give an example, atheists automatically dismiss ghosts and NDEs because they have already accepted on blind faith that those are impossible.

They also believe on blind faith that the Shroud of Turin is fake despite similar inconclusive evidence.

>>2751233

anecdotal evidence is not reliable nor admissible you herp.

>>2751233
>>2751241
Also:
>I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
—Isaac Asimov

You have made extraordinary claims. I see pisspoor evidence at best that much better fits the materialistic worldview through self delusion, hallucination, confusing anecdotal evidence for real evidence, publishing bias, confirmation bias, actual cognitive biases, and a whole slew of other biases. For a good list of the cognitive biases, see

>Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

and other videos by Andy Thomson.

>>2751242

atheism is not based on blind faith for most people. it is based on the complete lack of scientific evidence for a supernatural being and supernatural forces

Oh /sci/. When will you become harder to troll....

>>2751237

Agnosticism has varying meanings. One of them is the philosophical position that the existence of a deity or deities is inherently unknowable. This is also known as "strong agnosticism."

Another is that we currently don't have enough information to know--"weak agnosticism."

Yet another is the concept of agnosticism as a qualifying term, as used in the chart.

So you're both wrong.

Or you're both partially right, if that helps you sleep at night.

>>2751242
First, /x/ is <-- that way.

>It all boils down to faith at the end of the day.
No. It boils down to belief in evidence, and the available evidence.

>For example, many people claim to have seen ghosts or had a near-death experience.
Agreed. Same thing as religious people. Just as believable, just as false based on the evidence.

>Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. The evidence is inconclusive.
The evidence is quite conclusive. It's a mix of the earlier biases and problems I mentioned else-thread.

>To give an example, atheists automatically dismiss ghosts and NDEs because they have already accepted on blind faith that those are impossible.
Accepted on blind faith? No. Due to the complete lack of evidence, and incongruity with the materialistic worldview which is well supported by the evidence? Yes.

>They also believe on blind faith that the Shroud of Turin is fake despite similar inconclusive evidence.
Now you're just strawman-ing.

>>2751224

A big problem with Atheist is they always assume "God" means the Christian God, that is not the case.

Beyond that, there's a lot we don't understand. Like the "connected particles". They shoot two lasers at each other, or some shit, anyway. Two particles become connected when this happens. There are two paths the particles can go down, they both go down the same path, 100% of the time. It would be like having two quarters and no matter where they were at, they would always both land on heads when flipped. There are particles that can exist in two places at the very same time.

There's a lot going on at that level, a lot that appears to be outside our laws or what is possible on our level and we know very, very little about that shit.

Who's to say there couldn't be a God that influences things on the molecular level? That causes things to happen through manipulation of things that we are just beginning to understand?

>>2751257
I never defined agnosticism you asshat so I can't be wrong. Fuck off with your false superiority complex.

>>2751253

That's supposing of course that supernatural entities follow the laws of physics and are testable with science. Suppose they're not.

>>2751265
That's a contradiction in terms.
1- Suppose that gods aren't observable.
2- Ok, but suppose we can observe them.

Can't have it both ways.

Science is the study of all that is /observable/.

>>2751265
>>2751269
To continue, let me post my favorite parody of Arthur's third law:
Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!
-- Girl Genius web comics

>>2751264
"agnosticism... do[es] not mean what your chart says that [it] do[es]."

Calm down. Someone pointed out an error you made on 4chan. It isn't a big deal.

>>2751259

>Due to the complete lack of evidence

Exactly the point. You take it as a matter of faith that there's no evidence.

Which god?

The possibility of any god? None.

The possibility of a religious god? Sure. If you take it in its literal context, any religious text can be disproven in a matter of seconds. Like with the discovery of carbon dating and the estimates we have formed from that.

If we are taking it from a metaphorical context, you can manipulate any passage to fit a scientific discovery, but like to disregard any claims that fit that description.

>>2751233

I should think that if there really was just a material universe, things like ghost sightings and NDEs would simply not happen at all. I also think that if there wasn't a Supreme Being of some kind, religion would never have existed in the first place.

>>2751276
There is no error. I said that agnosticism does not mean what he says it does. You are right there is the common "weak agnosticism aka I don't know" and the common "strong agnosticism aka it is not possible to know". The chart defines agnosticism as neither, which means it's wrong, as are you.

>>2751278

Dear sweet Darwin you're dumb.

One does not believe on faith in a lack of evidence.

If evidence is presented that is not simple anecdotal evidence (established already here as inadmissible, and it certainly IS inadmissible!) to support belief in the paranormal or supernatural or in "gods", then there is evidence. But no such evidence has been presented. This is based on fact, not faith.

>>2751297
You need to learn more human cognition. Again, please see:

>Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

It's only 10 min, and it's really really good.

Also, any video by Andy Thomson, such as:

>Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

We are evolved beings, which means that we are not perfect. We're a collection of adaptions, so it's not surprising at all that our cognition is flawed.

>>2751303

There is, but you dismissed it because you couldn't handle the idea of yourself not being the biggest thing in the universe.

As someone else said here, hubris.

We discover new species everyday really. Species that we really had no evidence for.

Lack of evidence does not mean 100% that thing does not exist. It simply means there is no evidence for it. What you choose to believe based on that is up to you.

Why did this thread last longer than one reply? Furthermore, why did this thread survive long enough to see a single reply? Why is this not closed/deleted? Where are the fucking mods?

>Burden of proof is on the one claiming the positive.

THAT should be the first and last reply.

/fuckingthread

>>2751278
No no no. I can prove a negative. I can prove there is no elephant in my car. First, I can calculate the size of the elephant, and demonstrate that there is insufficient room in the car for the elephant. I can then observe my car and not see an elephant. I can then inspect my car with touch and again confirm there is no elephant. I can use infra-red. I can even get heavy equipment to turn my car on its side with the doors open to try to shake out that elephant. I have evidence that there is no elephant in my car.

Similarly, I have evidence that miracles do not exist.

Stop repeating this goddamned NOMA bullshit, that you can't measure god. You can. And the results are in - he doesn't exist.

>>2751167
>>2751164
It's not even a position to begin with.

>>2751319
So, it's hubris to base belief in evidence, but it's not hubris to think that of all of the animals on this planet, god speaks to only humans, and moreover not to all humans, but only a select few, of which you are one. Also using Latin. Remind me who is the arrogant jackass.

>>2751315

Please note that Mr. Tyson is a member of the Committee For Skeptical Enquiry, an organization that has a known bias against /x kind of stuff.

>>2751319

Instead of a personal attack, you should be presenting this proof you have of your extraordinary claim.

As the one making the claim, it is your responsibility within the argument.

>>2751337
With good reason. Biases are not bad. Discrimination is not bad. I discriminate against murders and child molesters. Similarly, I have biases against things which are demonstrably false based on the available evidence.

>attempting to prove a negative
>mfw

>>2751333
Hebrew and Koine Greek, actually, if you're in the "God wrote the Bible" camp.

Not sure how it follows in any case that God doesn't do his own thing with other species, although the nature of non-human communication means there probably aren't going to be a lot of Gideon's Bible for Shrimp lying around.

>>2751333

>but it's not hubris to think that of all of the animals on this planet, god speaks to only humans

Perhaps he does speak to animals. But you can't prove it.

>>2751329

Except "miracles" still happen. Japan getting butt fucked? Would have been a considered a miracle. Yeah we have a better understanding of how the world works, but that doesn't mean something isn't pulling the strings.

Can you disprove that? Nah, can I prove it? Nope. Does that mean God 100% doesn't exist? Not at all.

It just means we have no evidence to support that, but lack of evidence means just what it says it means. We lack the evidence. It doesn't mean anything more or anything less. Lack of evidence has never dis-proven anything.

That fish we thought was extinct that was caught of the coast of Australia? We lacked evidence to suggest it was still around.

tl;dr - hurr no evidence means no real, NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T

>>2751297
>>2751315
Also, start watching more videos on youtube by Dan Dennett. You have a confusion. You mean to ask "If religions are false, what good are religions to man? Aka why do we practice false harmful things?". That is answerable from examining the meme aspect of religions and their evolution.

Here's one:
>Dan Dennett Lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCgUJdsliEM

There might be better. That's what I have offhand.

>>2751369
Given himanity's track record with "proving" God speaks to us, I think we probably ought to leave the other species out of it. As endearing as puppy church is to contemplate.

>>2751354
This, for the love of fuck, why do I see so many retards trying to do this. I came to /sci/ expecting people to have IQs > 100, so far I'm no convinced.

>>2751297

You'd think atheists would be excited at stories of ghosts and whatnot because it means that there's a possibility of life not ending with physical death.

However, I get the impression that they genuinely don't want there to be an afterlife. And for understandable reasons. Would you really want to have to share Heaven with a God and Christians that you hate?

Okay.

I just looked out my window and into the sky, no heaven. I have not once seen your God, nor have I seen him directly intervene in anything in the world. I have only seen religious people claim things that have no sign of God attached to them to be acts of God.

Inversely, point out any scientific discovery that comprehensively credits religion or proves that there is a god.

Why did god create an infinitely big universe if we only live on one planet?

>>2751390
You are being trolled, my friend.

>>2751379
Is there a dragon in your garage? What kind of evidence or proof would you require to determine that there are no dragons in the world? No really. They can cast spells, like Silence and Invisibility. They're really smart so that they can evade detection. If there's ever a problem they just make the humans disappear.

Or how about disease spirits? Why can't disease spirits be responsible for the common cold and other such illnesses? They /could/ work through bacteria. Who's to say that they don't?

You're arguing god of the gaps. This is an ultimately self defeating position. Science will progress, almost certainly further strengthening the materialistic worldview, leaving zero room for god.

>>2751391
>You'd think atheists would be excited at stories of ghosts and whatnot because it means that there's a possibility of life not ending with physical death.
>However, I get the impression that they genuinely don't want there to be an afterlife.

It's amazing how some people simply cannot understand that the desirability of a thing has absolutely nothing to do with whether that thing is true. Would an immortal soul be a nice thing to have? Hell yes. Do I have one? The evidence is pretty clear that I do not.

>>2751396
That's kind of a silly question. It presupposes both that God only would be interested in Earth and that God wouldn't have any interest in us going anywhere.

>>2751390

>James Randi kool-aid drinkers
>IQ above 100

Pick one.

>>2751397
Trolled? No. Absence of evidence, in the presence of an exhaustive inquiry, is evidence of absence. That's how the world works.

>>2751405

Good luck traveling to the galaxies that move away from us at the speed of light.

>>2751408
Are you suggesting James Randi is a cult leader? I just want to clarify - the last I heard of James Randi he's going around debunking all sorts of nonsense, which makes him a great man.

>>2751409
I am saying that a thread on /sci/ asking atheists to prove a negative is very likely a troll, given the empirical impossibility of the request.

>>2751423
You cannot prove a negative under one sense of the term, correct. In that same sense, you cannot prove a positive either.

Thus, I take a much more useful definition of prove which means "demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt", though I'm sure some pedantic asshat will tell me that I shouldn't be using the word "prove", and I'll agree with him.

>>2751416
>spend a lifetime debunking Sylvia Browne
>devours males cocks and tickles their ass crinkle
>great man

i could have done that bro.

>>2751398

>Science will progress, almost certainly further strengthening the materialistic worldview, leaving zero room for god.

Then why does religion continue to be an integral part of civilization?

>>2751436

>spend a lifetime debunking Sylvia Browne

My mother believes in just about every /x thing you can think of and laughs at Randi, but even she thinks Sylvia Browne is full of shit.

>>2751439
What a terrible argument. Racism and sexism are still alive and kicking; religion's existence has nothing to do with either its worth or it's validity.

>>2751439
Have you not seen the video links I've mentioned?

Again, you have a confusion. Your line of thought goes:
- All civilizations (except modern Sweden) have had a religion.
- This must have provided some utility to the people, or it must be divine.

The problem is with that last step. Suppose that I can prove all human civilizations have had fleas. Does that mean fleas are divine, or that fleas have some utility to humans? No. That is your problem. Fleas are a parasite on humans. The utility of a flea is for the flee itself. Religion is the same - it's a virus of the human mind. It exists in the memepool of human thought and language, and its "purpose" is to propogate itself at the expense of its carriers, just like a RNA virus or a flea.

Again, please see

>Dan Dennett Lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCgUJdsliEM

or a variety of other videos on youtube by Dan Dennett.

>>2751215
You don't need belief or faith for Science. It's fact, it's the reality. There's no need to believe in something that's true.

People believe what they want to believe. Nothing is going to change that even if the evidence is right in front of them.

>>2751459
I, like Dawkins, don't have such a dim view of humanity. Most people are reachable. Most people are religious because no one told them that they can do otherwise, and no one actually taught them the evidence. Most people would become atheists if they knew the full evidence, but they don't.

However, some, like the infamous Kurt Wise, are eminently unreachable. However, the hope / belief is that they are the minority of religious people.

any of the conservation laws

>>2751456

>All civilizations (except modern Sweden) have had a religion.

Sweden has a taxpayer-funded church.

But I'll give you that there have been nations with enforced atheism. You wouldn't have wanted to live in them.

>>2751467
>But I'll give you that there have been nations with enforced atheism. You wouldn't have wanted to live in them.
Oh god. Here we go. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, blah blah blah blah blah

>>2751456
Of course, that's absolute nonsense spouted by people who have a much shallower knowledge of history than they would like to admit. Religion has existed both as a corrupt institution interested only in preserving its power structure and as a source of radical societal change and empowerment.

Now I just sit back and wait for the inevitable "Dark Ages" or "Fall of the Roman Empire" argument to be made.

>>2751464

I was raised a Christian like most of us. I early on concluded that the evidence for God was very convincing, and although my religious views are considerably different than they were as a child, I have always been a believer.

One reason why I believe is because I am singularly unimpressed with what I've seen of organized atheism, and it is not something I want to be a part of.

>>2751485
> One reason why I believe is because I am singularly unimpressed with what I've seen of organized atheism, and it is not something I want to be a part of.

>organized atheism

Which organization? <insert herding cats joke>. No really. Just curious what antics you are unimpressed by.

>>2751485
Not liking the people on "the other side" is a pretty terrible reason to hold any belief. People in groups are not very smart. There are plenty of Christian groups that make me cringe.

>>2751145
Reminder to troll fags:

>science
>god

...and n'ere the two shall meet.

There's something called "falsifiability" that's considered key to something being "scientific".

Ergo, you're a fucking idiot and a troll.

>>2751471

>Religion has existed both as a corrupt institution interested only in preserving its power structure

Mostly when religious leaders abandoned their own teachings and became only interested in money and power. There was nothing "holy" about the RCC around the time of the Reformation.

Lemme give you a more recent example. Israel has hundreds of fake holy men who live on the public dole and avoid military service. Of course, it's also the Israeli government's fault for allowing this sort of behavior to go on.

>>2751507
Again, science and god do meet. Non-Overlapping Magisteria, NOMA, is bullshit. Science has demonstrated god is false.

>this thread

I always love seeing them, I always expect to see them.

>>2751510
Yes, this is largely true. I don't know enough about the situation in Israel to comment, other than to say intense religious feelings are potent political fuel.

>>2751485

LOL - wtf are you blabbing about.

>>2751164
>Conclusion: Agnosticism is the only valid religious position.
Wrong, moron. Becuase it's not a 50/50 chance that either is true. The chances are heavily in favor of science due to the overwhelming evidence. Being agnostifag means you are too stupid to evaluate the evidence and decide on what is most likely the truth.

>>2751494

>Just curious what antics you are unimpressed by.

Oh, you know. Rambling nonsense about invisible pink elephants, extreme arrogance, name-calling, bad stereotypes about religious believers, etc. Not to mention refusing to acknowledge the atrocities committed by atheists during the 20th century.

I will acknowledge that the Inquisition and witch burnings were committed in the name of religion (albeit not by very good or smart Christians), but I can't get a single atheist to fess up to what Pol Pot and friends did.

>>2751530
The problem with that is that it assumes the evidence actually has any merit. The actually odds are completely unknown because the truth determines the validity of the evidence, rather than the odds determining what is likely to be true.

However, having said that, it makes much more sense to just deal with what we have. Maybe there's a God, maybe there isn't, but who gives a fuck?

>>2751145
false premise, try again

>>2751537
>Oh, you know. Rambling nonsense about invisible pink elephants,
Entirely topical.

>extreme arrogance,
Meh?

>name-calling,
Double meh?

>bad stereotypes about religious believers, etc.
Triple meh?

>Not to mention refusing to acknowledge the atrocities committed by atheists during the 20th century.
<not this argument ~sigh~>

>I will acknowledge that the Inquisition and witch burnings were committed in the name of religion (albeit not by very good or smart Christians), but I can't get a single atheist to fess up to what Pol Pot and friends did.

Let me ask you this. "Hitler had a mustache. He killed people. Thus having mustaches is dangerous." That is an absurd proposition. Why is that absurd? It's absurd because there is no causal relationship between mustaches and killing people. Why do you think there is a causal relationship between being an atheist and killing people.

tl;dr
Correlation does not prove causation.
Anecdotal evidence (a half dozen atheists) doesn't even show a correlation.

>>2751530
Chances are not 50/50, correct. But for many religious hypotheses, and in particular the one that states there is/aren't supernatural god(s), there is no evidence EITHER way. Supernatural things are, by definition, simply not testable.

>>2751537

>>2751556
>Supernatural things are, by definition, simply not testable.
False. If they interact with the observable world, then they are testable. Please understand this.

While a deist god is unobservable, a theist god, like the jesus god, performs miracles, and thus is eminently testable.

>>2751523

These guys go and put on the yeshiva gear and essentially live a life of state-funded religious study. And as I mentioned, Orthodox Jews are also exempt from military service. There have also been instances of them threatening or assaulting Christians who visit Israel during Christmas and Easter pilgrimages.

It's pretty shameful behavior and totally against what their religion teaches.

>>2751549
Wow. That is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
How have you not been b& yet? You're a tripfag who's OBVIOUSLY underage.

>>2751558
>like the jesus god, performs miracles, and thus is eminently testable.

only if you have a time machine or a hyper-dimensional portal

otherwise, no, never testable.

>>2751564
All I am saying is no amount of evidence can be said to decrease the chances of an omnipotent God existing because it can always be argued that "durr he made it that way"

>>2751537

Seriously dude... That is just a glaring sign that you are the most ignorant fucking moron ever. Atheism isnt a fucking linked group. We dont live by a set of rules. Those people acted out of their own interest, not out of the interest of the people. All it takes is a proper education of people, sounds simple right? proper education... you prove everyday with foolish childish beliefs that you'll go meet your parents and grandparents and great ancestors all the way back to the bacteria's that first split in heaven.... Or that the tale of Noah's Ark actually happened.... Or how about that part where Humans were magically made from dust that the simple and proper education is actually a lot harder than it seems.

>>2751537
>I can't get a single atheist to fess up to what Pol Pot and friends did.

Because Pol Pot didn't do it in the name of atheism, dingbat ;)

>>2751553
We can argue (easily) that Hitler's being-an-atheist gave him a certain moral justification or sense for his actions. If Hitler was a devout Christian, would he have acted identically? Probably not. Atheism enjoys a special stance: because it is the default position, any flaw which could be cured by joining a religion can be said to be "caused by atheism."

Hitler didn't rely on a mustache-having worldview to justify his actions to himself. He relied on having a non-religious (read: a-theistic) worldview to do so.

>>2751145

>>2751570
Testable does not mean repeatable, nor in a lab. That would make cosmology untestable, and geology untestable. That's not how science works. Science works by making models and abstractions which give falsifiable predictions, thus it's entirely possible to test something which we cannot create in a lab.

>>2751572
Exactly. He could have made it that way. Isn't that proof enoguh that He exists???

>>2751576
In the future, at least replace "Hitler" with "Stalin" please, as Hitler was likely a theist, and Stalin was likely an atheist, to at least get your example correct.

Second, just to be clear, we have been talking about why that one dude doesn't like atheism, but this in no way should be taken as an argument for or against the truth of atheism. Even if atheism makes you less moral (which I strongly disagree with), that doesn't change the fact whether it's true or false.

>>2751553

>Why is that absurd? It's absurd because there is no causal relationship between mustaches and killing people

I dunno; Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all had mustaches.

>Why do you think there is a causal relationship between being an atheist and killing people.

Did I say there was? Of course not, but it is a fact that Marxism is an anti-religious ideology, and all communist countries had state atheism. When religion wasn't actively persecuted, it was put under tight controls and not permitted to openly challenge the authorities.

>>2751553
Then you would agree that the existence of atrocities does not condemn the religions associated with them, given that the vast majority of the time religion is at best a proximate cause to an underlying political situation?

Several of the "New Atheists" enjoy their handwringing about Islam and 9/11, but oddly, they never examine the role of American imperialism in cultivating terrorist sentiment.

>>2751589
>Then you would agree that the existence of atrocities does not condemn the religions associated with them, given that the vast majority of the time religion is at best a proximate cause to an underlying political situation?
No. It is my position that there is a direct thought train from "My god tells me to kill people", to killing people, such as Islamic suicide bombers. There is no such direct thought train from atheism to murder - unless of course you think that people get their morals from having an individual belief in god, which is laughably false.

>>2751572
>All I am saying is no amount of evidence can be said to decrease the chances of an omnipotent God existing because it can always be argued that "durr he made it that way"

Except that "durr he made it that way" is a completely preposterous illogical argument with no merit whatsoever, making your point invalid.

Next.

>>2751583
Troll harder.

>>2751572
>that "durr he made it that way"
And this is why I hate arguing with theists.

>>2751588
What about all the dictators without moustaches? Like... ummm.... well it doesn't matter. It's not really addressing the OP at this stage anymore. Another derailed /sci/ thread. Saged and aborted.

>>2751572
It's called an asspull, aka special pleading. It's a textbook example. This form of specious reasoning is an entirely invalid way to hold an argument, and to determine truth. It is a non-argument.

>>2751600
But why? God is omnipotent could leave misleading evidence.

>>2751606
Why?
>It's called an asspull, aka special pleading. It's a textbook example. This form of specious reasoning is an entirely invalid way to hold an argument, and to determine truth. It is a non-argument

>>2751576
>Hitler didn't rely on a mustache-having worldview to justify his actions to himself. He relied on having a non-religious (read: a-theistic) worldview to do so.

Based on what? What exactly about his atheism made him kill jews?

I'm sorry sir but you seem to not be making much sense.

>>2751585
I don't think you have any convincing evidence to support the supposition that Hitler was a theist.

Good point faggot, but that wasn't what I was saying. I was only telling you that there is a more substantial link between atheism and immorality and mustaches and immorality. Your argument was incorrect. If you wanted to announce the irrelevance of the immorality-causing-features of atheism, perhaps next time you should do that before tossing out a half-baked accusation of bad logic.

>>2751589

>Then you would agree that the existence of atrocities does not condemn the religions associated with them

In the case of Christianity, I'd say no because such behavior would go straight against Jesus's teachings. As for Islam, it's a bit different.

And then you have religions like Buddhism that never killed anyone or committed any cruelties.

>given that the vast majority of the time religion is at best a proximate cause to an underlying political situation?

Stuff like the Inquisition was very much political, keeping in mind that separation of church and state didn't exist them.

>Several of the "New Atheists" enjoy their handwringing about Islam and 9/11, but oddly, they never examine the role of American imperialism in cultivating terrorist sentiment.

I think liberal social policies have more to do with Islamofascism than our FP.

>>2751616
Having a religious worldview (we will say Hitler had no access to a religious worldview which could promote the slaughter of Jews) is incompatible with killing Jews. Therefore, if one kills Jews, it must be the case that one is not religious. Atheism opens the door, so to speak, for killing Jews.

>>2751617
>I don't think you have any convincing evidence to support the supposition that Hitler was a theist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

Yes, there is a wiki page for that.

>Good point faggot, but that wasn't what I was saying. I was only telling you that there is a more substantial link between atheism and immorality and mustaches and immorality.
Ok. I think that such a link demonstrably does not exist based on the evidence.

>Your argument was incorrect. If you wanted to announce the irrelevance of the immorality-causing-features of atheism, perhaps next time you should do that before tossing out a half-baked accusation of bad logic.
Not following.

>>2751589
Nobody ever started a war in the name of atheism.
Plenty have started wars in the name of religion.

Get it?

>>2751616

Hitler wasn't an atheist. He was a pagan and the Nazis were good friends with the ragheads.

>>2751618
>In the case of Christianity, I'd say no because such behavior would go straight against Jesus's teachings. As for Islam, it's a bit different.

No true Scottsman fallacy. Look at the crusades, various christian wars of christians on christians, the inquisition, abortion clinic bombers, etc., who were all driven to kill because of their jesus convictions.

>Stuff like the Inquisition was very much political, keeping in mind that separation of church and state didn't exist them.
It always is, but religion is a highly convenient scapegoat, or gatherer of people, a banner under which to do it. If it wasn't for the religion to group the people together and provide a false moral authority, it would not have happened.

>>2751579

you can't test Jesus has a relationship with God because God is by definition beyond time and space

even if Jesus flew around like superman and farted rainbows it wouldn't matter

you can't test for Divinity.

>>2751621
>Having a religious worldview (we will say Hitler had no access to a religious worldview which could promote the slaughter of Jews) is incompatible with killing Jews. Therefore, if one kills Jews, it must be the case that one is not religious. Atheism opens the door, so to speak, for killing Jews.
No True Scotsman fallacy. That's not how religion and faith are defined. I can easily find numerous people who think that their god does indeed tell them to kill jews. I would find it very hard to find anyone who thinks that it's ok to kill jews but not other people without a religious basis.

>>2751634

yep, the idea of an infinite god being contained in a finite body is already a contradiction that doesn't need "testing" it needs to be thrown out on simple logical grounds

>>2751606
>But why?

Because it's fucking absurd, that's why. It goes against all reasonable logic - that which has gotten us to where we are today as a species. To entertain such absurd ideas is no different than entertaining the existence of unicorns. If you think it's any different, please explain how.

>>2751634
Doesn't matter if I can't test for divinity. I can test for the miracles. As a matter of fact, he did not fly, he did not rise from the dead, and no other miracles happened either, which means that he, as an interfering god or whatever, does not exist. Divinity is irrelevant when it doesn't exist.

>>2751629
No True Scotsman is not a fallacy when we're actually talking about adherence to a certain set of rules. If someone has a set of beliefs that leads him to murder children, and calls this set of beliefs "Christianity" (perhaps he even quotes a Bible passage), this does not make him a "Christian" in the normal sense of the world. One can really not be a true Christian.

>>2751621

Hitler essentially tapped into centuries of anti-Semitic feeling in Germany. "Old" anti-Semitism was religiously motivated because of the idea that Jews killed Jesus (never mind the stupidity of holding an entire race responsible for what a handful of people did 2000 years ago).

"New" anti-Semitism emerged out of the scientific racial doctrines of the 19th century. It was also anti-capitalist because Jews were seen as a symbol of wealth and modernity.

>>2751644
It's the No True Scotsman fallacy because you are redefining the term to mean something else. There are plenty of examples in the bible which require you to kill, like to stone to death disobedient children. Thankfully no one actually follows those shitty rules, and as a matter of fact most people, most christians even, do not get their morality from the bible, thank goodness.

>>2751621
>Having a religious worldview (we will say Hitler had no access to a religious worldview which could promote the slaughter of Jews) is incompatible with killing Jews.

No it is not. Explain how being religious wouldn't have allowed Hitler to kill jews.

Either your a troll or just extremely dense. Whatever the case, I will happily continue this argument as it pleases me to educate lesser minds. Or, you can just concede defeat now, in which case I congratulate you on your resignation to a superior intellect.

>>2751629
What utter tripe. All of those events happened because they were politically expedient. If you honestly think the Crusades were formulated on religious principles, you're a fool. They existed to reclaim a wealthy kingdom.

Religion provided a convenient excuse, yes, but the claim that it couldn't have happened without religion is risible. Humans do an excellent job of dividing themselves along sociopolitical lines without the assistance of theology. You'd do well to actually examine the background of events like the Crimean War before deciding "LUL RELIJUN DID IT."

>>2751635
You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means. The No True Scotsman fallacy is assigning an adherence of codes to classification of a group which is in reality independent from those codes. When we are talking exactly about adherence to a set of codes (religion), the fallacy does not come into play.

Arguing that some religions allow for Jew-killing is a nonargument. I can easily amend my argument to conclude that "not believing in a religion which forbids Jew-killing allows one to commit immoral deeds." Then I just (correctly) throw atheism into the class of belief systems which do not forbid Jew-killing. Hitler was a member of a class of belief-systems (or lack-of-belief-systems, if you so prefer) which allowed moral justification of Jew-killing. This class is called atheism.

>>2751665
Politically convenient yes, but you failed to /read/ my argument that christianity was a convenient moral whipping boy. Without the excuse that "god told me to do it", no one would have put up with that needless slaughter of people. It empowered people to do evil in god's name.

>>2751654
The Levitican laws are expressly overturned multiple times in the New Testament. They have never been considered part of Christianity by any major denomination.

And no, before you try, the existence of some small Protestant sect does not make what I just said an NTS.

>>2751669
>You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means. The No True Scotsman fallacy is assigning an adherence of codes to classification of a group which is in reality independent from those codes.
yes
>When we are talking exactly about adherence to a set of codes (religion), the fallacy does not come into play.
What? You are attempting to redefine the set of codes to suit your argument apart from how the world commonly interprets those sets of codes. That is why you are falling prey to the fallacy. The word religion does not mean "ought not kill jews". It means "has a positive belief system where there is a god, you should praise him, and frequently a bunch of other random shit too, which can include commandments to kill people".

>>2751672
>The Levitican laws are expressly overturned multiple times in the New Testament. They have never been considered part of Christianity by any major denomination.

That's like.. your interpretation dude. Lots of christians disagree.

yay godwins law

>>2751654
When we say "true Christian," we are referring to a set of (perhaps fabricated!!!) rules which we associate with Christianity. I could enumerate them for you if I was so inclined. When we say someone is "no true Christian" we are saying they do not follow these rules. No fallacy present.

Perhaps you want to define true Christian as "one who literally accepts each word in the Bible," but then you're putting forth a heretofore unsupported definition and setting yourself up to actually make the fallacy you keep wrongly accusing others of making.

>>2751629

>No true Scottsman fallacy.

I never said the guys responsible for the Inquisition weren't Christians. They were not very bright Christians, but Christians nonetheless.

>If it wasn't for the religion to group the people together and provide a false moral authority, it would not have happened.

People will use whatever excuse they can to kill and beat each other up. The fact that Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists didn't stop them from killing millions. If anything, they should have been nicer, better people due to not being religious.

>>2751670

I think he means to say regardless of religion, they would have went to war out of another cause that divided them. And I agree he makes a valid point, The monarchy would have gone to war regardless of christianity and just would have done it based on color or smell, or any other instance you can provide.

>>2751679
Do you not even hear what you're saying? So, your christianity is the "one true christianity"? No respected person who understands biblical history and scholarship would make such an outrageous claim. Lols.

>>2751674
Yes, there are other religions. I am specifically and deliberately preventing myself from committing a fallacy when I a) rule out the possibility of Hitler adhering to a Jew-killing religion, or alternatively, when I b) reform the statement "atheism allows immoral behavior" to "not believing in a religion which prohibits immoral behavior is the only way one can justify immoral behavior. atheism is one example of this class of belief-systems."

>>2751681
And I disagree with that fundamental point. I think that without Islam, the twin towers would still be standing. I think that without Islam and Jeudaism, there wouldn't be this shitstorm conflict over some shitty desert land - Israel. I think plenty of little girls could keep their clits and have pleasurable sex in their lives if not for religion. Polio might be fully wiped out in the world today if not for religion.

Religions do /cause/ human suffering, insofaras people do horrible things because they think god(s) want them to, or because it's a convenient excuse to sell to the people.

If there is no God, then what is reality?

Everything that is not God.

I didn't even need math.

>>2751679

And supposedly you christfags say Atheists are arrogant... get a load of this "True Christian".

>>2751693
And you still think morality is wholey learned, and there you are still wrong. We do not get our morality from atheism, from religion, or anything else. It's largely innate. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection for that.

>>2751665

>If you honestly think the Crusades were formulated on religious principles, you're a fool. They existed to reclaim a wealthy kingdom.

The early Crusades were very much about religion, because the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt (fanatical Shiite Muslims) ruled the Holy Land and barred Christians from it.

Eventually as the Church started getting more corrupt and less religious, they began summoning crusades for trivial reasons. People started to lose interest by that point.

>>2751694

No one is refuting that point dude. We all agree that religions are bane's to society. The larger scheme which was provided was the monarchies at that time would have gone to war regardless of faith/religion because human beings always seem to find something to divide themselves under.

>>2751670
>It empowered people to do evil in god's name.

Except god created evil too because he is responsible for creating everything lol. Admit it christ fags, god is actually the source of evil, making him inherently evil. Enjoy worshipping an evil god!

>Religion provided a convenient excuse, yes, but the claim that it couldn't have happened without religion is risible.

Um, no atheist is claiming it couldn't have happened without religion. Where did you get that from? Your ass I presume, just like your other ideas about the wizard in the sky.

Here I'll say it again in case you missed it:

Nobody has started a war in the name of atheism.
Plenty have started wars in the name of religion.

So there you go, not only is religion bad for society but it's fucking illogical dimwitted and laughably preposterous. Enjoy being the laughing stock of all sane rational minds. Enjoy being looked back on as "those prehistoric thinkers from the 21st century who were so stupid they just assumed a god is controlling everything".

You are a laughing stock. Your views are laughable.

That said you are entitled to believe whatever you like as long as you don't impose your ridiculous views on others.

>>2751686
That's an exciting point, but a shitty one. It's trivial to expand "true Christian" to whatever criteria we wish. If historians and masturbators and university professors each want to provide a class of people who are true Christians, then we can rightly apply those classifications and properly say that some people are not true Christians.

If we insist on keeping our own (perhaps silly) definition of a true Christian, we merely have to acknowledge that our criteria might be arbitrary. We can still say that someone is not a true Christian if they don't adhere to our (arbitrary) criteria. The only error comes in when we try to hold two separate sets of criteria for true Christianity. Do you understand? The fallacy literally cannot happen as long as we set out a definition and ask whether it is being adhered to. Arguments about the legitimacy of our definition will have to be of an entirely different nature.

>>2751709
>No one is refuting that point dude.
People are, or some people think that some people are. It was claimed that Deacon said that they would have found another reason to crusades if not for religion. I'm calling bullshit on that idea in no uncertain terms right here and now.

>>2751675
No. They don't. It so happens that not one of the major denominations of Christianity--Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or Protestant--hold that the Levitican laws were not significantly amended. Most anti-gay theologians rely on a (grossly misinterpreted) passage of Paul to justify their discrimination.

But if you really want to do an exegetical/theological throwdown, I'm game.

>>2751711
Originally it was claimed that christians could not kill jews, because that would make them unchristian. That assertion is the use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

>>2751710

Ummm hes an Atheist brosef... Chillax.

>>2751713
All right. Explain why the desire for conquest and the legitimacy gained by possession of Jerusalem had to be satisfied by religion. Then explain why previous wars of conquest did not have to be satisfied by religion.

You may as well start by telling me what you think the causes of the Crusades were.

>>2751716
It needs to be shown that the arguer holds a definition of Christianity which is independent from its Jew-killing status. Someone can properly hold a criteria for Christianity which rule out Jew-killing. You need to show that either a) they simultaneous definition of Christianity which allows it or b) their definition is incorrect. Do you understand? Simply do a or b and you can perfectly well show illegitimacy in their statement.

>>2751714
As Dan Dennett said, it would be amazing if we saw how christianity and other religions changed over time, from what they were, to what they are now. They would burn you at the stake for publicly denying the divinity of christ, back when they had power. Look at all of the social ills which they failed to fix when they had power. As a matter of fact, most religions are evil. They are evil precisely because their beliefs, being entirely arbitrary, often fail to coincide with reality, thus causing this tension which causes good men to do evil.

Those rules, /or at least rules like them/, are out only because the church has lost power since its heyday, and science has come along and kicked its ass.

Note again that this is an entirely separate argument as to whether there is an interfering god. Again, there isn't, because the available evidence clearly demonstrates that there is not.

>>2751724
>All right. Explain why the desire for conquest and the legitimacy gained by possession of Jerusalem had to be satisfied by religion. Then explain why previous wars of conquest did not have to be satisfied by religion.

First, a fallacy whose name I forget. It's a fallacy that states a single effect may only have one cause. Your questions / dares imply that there is only one cause to war. That is silly. There can be multiple independent causes to war. Religion is one of them. Removing that cause would not stop all war, but it would cause less war.

>>2751722
the second quote was from a different poster, but somehow the link to it was lost. Wasnt arguing with scientist.

>>2751728
Whatever. Not important.

>>2751733
You need to show that religion was the only thing legitimificating those wars in order to conclude that the removal of religion would cause less wars. As long as it is the case that religion is merely icing on the top of the war-declaration cake, one cannot say removing it lessens wars.

You are misinterpreting him (likely because you are fucking stupid) when you think he is saying that religion could be the only cause. He is saying that you need to show that religion was the cause which broke the camel's back, so to speak.

>>2751724

The Abbasid Caliphate controlled the Holy Land in the 9th-10th centuries. They were tolerant guys who allowed Christians to visit Jerusalem for pilgrimages. But then the AC broke up in the 11th century and the Fatimid Caliphate rose to power and denied them this privilege, thus provoking the First Crusade.

>>2751742

>legitimificating

The moral of this kids is to stay in school! Legitimizing is the word you want.

>>2751742
No, I'm purposing conflating them, because making a distinction is asinine.

Are you suggesting that there would be equally compelling reasons to cut off girls' clits without religion? Well, using the evidence today that's an obviously false assertion.

Are you trying to argue that this is different than the causes of war? I argue "not really". I see no reason to think that the motivations of humans are sufficiently different in these cases. Religion clearly is the only relevant motivating factor for genital mutilation, and thus it's quite plausible to say that it could be the primary motivating factor for wars. Can I prove it for any particular war? Not really, and especially not me - I'm not in possession of enough facts. I don't even need to claim wars per se. I already have more than enough evil material to go from.

>>2751729
Dan Dennett is wrong. I'm sorry. I can provide, well... a lot of sources. Having a degree in classics means I'm probably the best equipped to answer the question of what they were like then vs what they were like now. And what is incredibly exasperating about the arguments Dennett spews and you parrot is that the briefest glance at any primary record would instantly tear the theories apart.

For instance. St. Augustine said that scripture wasn't literally true. Origen was a universalist. Medieval Spain had thriving Jewish and Muslim communities, who were largely free to worship as they wished (they were taxed for their religion. Not burned at the stake).

Yes. Occasionally there were atrocities. Converts were relaxed to the secular arm. But this was not the norm. Dannett espouses an archaic and ahistorical view of region--one that is enticing to atheist apologists, but utterly lacking in proof.

I am on my phone, so I'm not going to supply the citations unless you ask for them.

>>2751729

This post just sounds like ramblings snipped from an atheist website.

"Social ills" is especially a silly point because the idea of a middle class didn't exist in medieval times. This concept didn't appear until about the 19th century.

>>2751747
I'm sorry, but for all intensive purposes my word works fine.
>>2751750
All you needed to do was admit you had no evidence to support the assertion that religion is the sufficient cause for at least one war. Good work. Perhaps an appeal to other immoral actions could work, but if we want to generalize we also need to consider any moral benefits of religiosity. It's not quite as easy as you would like to deny something's moral worth without much investigation into the topic.

>Implying burden of proof is on atheists

>>2751750

>Are you suggesting that there would be equally compelling reasons to cut off girls' clits without religion?

Actually yes, since clitorectomies are mainly performed to discourage women from cheating on their husband.

>>2751752
>For instance. St. Augustine said that scripture wasn't literally true. Origen was a universalist. Medieval Spain had thriving Jewish and Muslim communities, who were largely free to worship as they wished (they were taxed for their religion. Not burned at the stake).

Unfortunately Dan Dennett is right.

'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

There's a marked difference between the theology of the time, and the popular understanding of the time. Go ahead and parade out all the theologians you want. That's almost certainly not what the common worshiper understands. It wasn't back then, just like it isn't today. Theology is, and likely has simply been, a way to educate priests and such in the ways of artfully spinning the truth.

>>2751758

>Confirmed theist troll

>>2751761
And yet the large majority of which are done because of religion, and (almost) none are done apart from religion. Interesting....

Again, another perfect textbook case of people wanting to do something, but using religion as a perfect shield for their evil activities.

>>2751757
>implying social ills refers to only middle class

Also, all of this right now is entirely written on the spot. No copying for me, unless otherwise noted.

Point out any scientific discovery that comprehensively discredits superpowers or proves that there's no aquaman

>>2751773
Every single experiment where we never found superpowers, despite exhaustive searches.

Inb4 PEAR or whatever bullshit.

>>2751758
>All you needed to do was admit you had no evidence to support the assertion that religion is the sufficient cause for at least one war.

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

>>2751729

>Look at all of the social ills which they failed to fix when they had power.

I could also point out that most of the social reforms of the 19th-early 20th centuries were the work of various liberal Christian groups.

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

>>2751776
Yes. Christian groups do sometimes do good. I'm not going to refute that. It's just my halfassed guestimation that the harm done by religions and faith easily outweighs the benefits that they provide, which is why I am a "militant atheist" and an anti-theist.

>>2751762
So while I have documented proof about the origins of Christian thinking, we're going to ignore that and make up whatever we like? Even though there are works penned by "the common people" whose beliefs you and Mr. Dennett have decided to invent?

That sounds reasonable. When you're willing to approach the discipline of history with the level of analysis you demand of science, maybe we can have a rational discussion. Until then, have fun operating off of hunches, I guess.

>>2751779
>So while I have documented proof about the origins of Christian thinking,
No. You have documented theology. That is not documentation of what the people actually thought. Did you miss that part? Just like the theology of today is demonstrably not what the masses actually think. It's there for truth spinning.

>>2751766

I think adultery is pretty much of a universal social taboo and not owned by any one religion.

>>2751750
>Religion clearly is the only relevant motivating factor for genital mutilation
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision"- American Academy of Pediatrics

>>2751774

[citation needed]
counterexample:
Stan Lee's Superhumans

if a man exists that can withstand 10+ amps of electricity, then aquaman must be roaming the oceans with all his fishy friends... we just haven't found him because the ocean is a big place

>>2751781
>I think adultery is pretty much of a universal social taboo and not owned by any one religion.

k?

We were talking about cutting off little girls clits.

WORKING LINKS TO CP!!! 11-17 YRS OLD GIRLS AND BOYS!! PTHC!!! jailbait!!!!! VIDEOS ONLY!

http://www.ino.me/67b427
http://www.ino.me/4151bc
http://www.ino.me/10e
http://www.ino.me/738d6
http://www.ino.me/4b9c7e
http://www.ino.me/f62564
http://www.ino.me/1be357
http://www.ino.me/f8031b
http://www.ino.me/28e371
http://www.ino.me/3fa585
http://www.ino.me/e3c79f
http://www.ino.me/b5c73b
http://www.ino.me/d674e7
http://www.ino.me/07b30f
http://www.ino.me/89e54f
http://www.ino.me/ae3395
http://www.ino.me/c5f885
http://www.ino.me/bc537
http://www.ino.me/b03792
http://www.ino.me/4cf905
http://www.ino.me/8e7bc2
http://www.ino.me/650928
http://www.ino.me/9b1c24
http://www.ino.me/db7463
http://www.ino.me/d1446c
http://www.ino.me/d9207d
http://www.ino.me/eccbc6
http://www.ino.me/a56de7
http://www.ino.me/0f23b9
http://www.ino.me/051107
http://www.ino.me/731566
http://www.ino.me/b1a0be
http://www.ino.me/07b64f
http://www.ino.me/00e2d8
http://www.ino.me/f8f7bb
http://www.ino.me/5e496c
http://www.ino.me/371208
http://www.ino.me/4ccdb1
http://www.ino.me/d3ceb9
http://www.ino.me/af3af8
http://www.ino.me/e96bd0
http://www.ino.me/6f4121

SAVE ALL LINK'S to new doc.txt before 404's AND DOWNLOAD AFTER TIME.................!asmdpmo

>>2751778
Halfassed guestimations are a funny grounds for rejecting halfassed guestimations.

>>2751783
...
Stan Lee? You're quoting a comic book artist? WTF am I reading?

>if a man exists that can withstand 10+ amps of electricity, then aquaman must be roaming the oceans with all his fishy friends... we just haven't found him because the ocean is a big place
lolwut

>>2751788
No, halfassed guestimations based on evidence are infinitely better than falsehoods based on .. well, no evidence, and actually very often in spite of large amounts of evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNxss3IQluQ

Well, this has honestly been an interesting thread, but I am tired as fuck of typing on my phone keyboard. I hope the various interchanges I've been in have been of value to someone, somewhere. As much as I'd enjoy continuing in the thread, I do have work tomorrow.

Still one of the most thoughtful religious discussions I've seen on 4chan. There is hope for the future.

>>2751791
You do not have sufficient evidence to make a claim that religion has overall had an immoral impact on the world.

>>2751797
Well, if I don't, no one does. I'd rather take inaction than be frozen in analysis paralysis.

In short, it appears to be that way, and I also happen to think that the truth has a certain value unto its own.

>>2751778

And atheism has produced nothing but a mountain of skulls in Cambodia.

Why weren't atheists helping to reform social conditions during the robber baron era? Oh, that's right, they were too busy believing in a fantasy about abolishing capitalism and religion. Only too bad that they tried to put their fantasy into practice.

Trust me, if you asked atheists what their ideal form of society would be, you'd get an answer virtually indistinguishable from Marxism-Leninism.

>>2751797
Well, if I don't, no one does. I'd rather take /action/ than be frozen in analysis paralysis.

In short, it appears to be that way, and I also happen to think that the truth has a certain value unto its own.

>>2751801
Oh look, this argument again. Haven't we already dispatched with it? Where's your evidence of causation? Any evidence of all? Hell, you haven't even provided evidence of correlation, just thrown around anecdotes where the leader or controlling party was atheist. That makes just as much sense as saying they all had mustaches.

>>2751780
I'm a glutton for punishment. Monastics wrote their own accounts. They are worth reading, as they're less cerebral and more in line with the common people than the philosophers.

That said, I think it's ridiculous to discount the theology of people like Augustine and Aquinas, because that is the basis of what the church taught. Origen was always on the fringe, ao I understand your criticisms being leveled at him.

>>2751796
>Still one of the most thoughtful religious discussions I've seen on 4chan.

lol what do you care about "thoughtful". you believe crazy magical shit without any logical reason whatsoever. you are a completely illogical being so why do you bother trying to have logical arguments? is it your way of testing yourself to see if you are capable of being atheist?

>>2751789

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Lee%27s_Superhumans

>>2751801
>Trust me, if you asked atheists what their ideal form of society would be, you'd get an answer virtually indistinguishable from Marxism-Leninism.

Wow, this is some old school trolling right here.

>>2751807
>That said, I think it's ridiculous to discount the theology of people like Augustine and Aquinas, because that is the basis of what the church taught.
No it's not. It's only the "basis" insofaras it's used to deflect intelligent questions, but they kept teaching the same old shite. They never taught that god exists based on some teleological argument. They taught god exists because that's what THE HOLY BIBLE says. Theology is and has been the art of truth spinning.

>>2751808
Perhaps he means civil and .. relatively troll free. It's pretty high up in those metrics I think.

>>2751801

>Implying people were massacred in the name of Atheism

>>2751809
Ok... that still in no way proves aquaman, or telepathics.

>>2751802
An absolutely horrid conclusion. The line could be transplanted directly into support for believing in God.

You really cannot be intellectually honest if you think that eliminating religion today would cause an increase in overall morality without investigating the matter at all. Remember, religion's past deeds can only indirectly support a need to eliminate it (since the only deeds you eliminate are those that would have happened in the future). You probably have a very, very low amount of evidence to conclude that religion's influence in the FUTURE will end up being an immoral one. Such a low amount that acting upon the conviction is obviously reminiscent of a religion inclination.

>>2751784

>We were talking about cutting off little girls clits

The idea being that they won't commit adultery when they eventually get married.

>>2751821
>The line could be transplanted directly into support for believing in God.
Except that god does not exist, and I said that I think truth has its own value, so no.

As Dan Dennett himself has professed, he took as a very legitimate concern that this might cause harm to the human world. He did give careful consideration to whether humans need their religion for a good life. He, and I, have concluded that you do not, that by Breaking The Spell we would likely be doing good in the world.

>>2751822

We should preemptively cut off everyone's hands so they dont commit robbery.... That makes a lot of sense right :)

>>2751808
You're cute. Your trolling would work better if your grammar and spelling were at least on par with mine, though.

I assure you, my religious views are quite different than what you think they are. They've been tempered by a long period of atheism, and they're quite heterodox. But I won't get in the way of your irrational dislike; strawmen burn very nicely.

>>2751822
Again:
>And yet the large majority of which are done because of religion, and (almost) none are done apart from religion. Interesting....
>Again, another perfect textbook case of people wanting to do something, but using religion as a perfect shield for their evil activities.

>>2751825
"Religion is necessary to live a good life" and "Ending religion will increase the morality of the world" are not the same statement. We can have moral atheists, but it might be the case that most religious people, if they became atheists, would suddenly become immoral.

>>2751837
>"Religion is necessary to live a good life" and "Ending religion will increase the morality of the world" are not the same statement.
Sorry, I didn't mean to conflate those two. Obviously they are different. I was being rather imprecise, but apparently clear enough, that you apparently caught my drift.

>We can have moral atheists, but it might be the case that most religious people, if they became atheists, would suddenly become immoral.
Yep. We think that that is not reality.

>>2751811

What is there to disagree with? Marxism states that religion is outdated, unscientific superstition that is used by capitalists as an instrument of control over the masses. How is that incompatible with anything most atheists believe?

>>2751840
Yes, and I am telling you that the amount of evidence you have to support such a statement lies below the amount of evidence that you (and Daniel Dennett) typically consider necessary to confirm a statement.

>>2751841

>implying Atheists support Despotism

>>2751821
>eliminating religion today

Atheists don't want to eliminate religion! We just think it's a laughable concept and should NOT be a controlling aspect of society, because it is based on illogical shit.

Society = logical and rational orderly construct
Religion = irrational garbage

The two are not compatible with each other. Religion should have no part in controlling aspects of society. It is a corrupt and irrational methodology that deserves no merit in the minds of sane people.

Be Theist all you want, just don't force it on anyone. That's all any decent atheist could ever ask for.

>>2751841
Because there's a hell of a lot more baggage to Marxism-Leninism besides "religion evil". We can agree with Marx on that minor point and still largely disagree with a Marxist economy.

This is a rather common problem with the religious mind, this "all or nothing" attitude. It's just like the creationists when they think that by disproving evolution, they've somehow proved creation. It's a false dichotomy. This kind of reasoning I think stems from how they think that their religion is inalterably true, and they project this onto atheists and assume that they have some dogma like themselves. Protip: We atheists are much more open to admitting when we're wrong, and we lack a coherent dogma like you.

>>2751826

It is silly. Of course, Muslims cut off people's hands for stealing, but at least they wait until the guy has actually done it.

Of course, if you're a Christian, clitorectomies would go against a number of Biblical passages about not mutilating oneself and that "your body is a temple; don't degrade it."

>>2751841
Because I don't sign on to economic ideologies for their positions on theism. Among other things.

>>2751845
Sure. I admit it's less than certain, less than the usual standards of scientific certainty. It's still enough to act on, as this is very important shit, and failure to act can lead to more harm. It's the best we can do.

>>2751829
>ad hominem

>>2751850
This isn't a religious mind, this is a McCarthy mind.

Listen people, there is no objective way to prove or disprove God's existence.

It is from a PERSONAL seeking of God that you find Him.

There ARE people who have genuinely never had any sort of religious experience, and view Christianity, and any religion, as foolishness.

And yes, there are those calling themselves Christians who, either willfully or unintentionally, misinterpret or confuse the scriptures. These are the people on the sidewalks screaming at people that they will burn in Hell. Those morons are what everyone sees, and thinks, "Whoa, THAT'S what a Christian is? There's no WAY I want to be like that guy."

Being a Christian simply means this: Christ-like. Being like Christ. Christ didn't rant and rave and yell at people, he healed them and ministered to them.

Try not to pay much attention to those false, so-called Christians who injure the name of Christ with their hateful actions. The Bible says to not associate with them or even eat with them.

>>2751848
This guy has said that he does want to eliminate religion.

Saying science should rule over religion is an unfounded value judgment. Being rational and reasonable might not really be desirable, so there's not really much of a way to argue that science is a better source of authoritative policies unless we already agree on what we want out of authority.

>>2751857
Meh. I find it indicative of the average religious mind.

>>2751819

Ok... you in no way have any credibility since you already denied the claim of superpowers without taking 5 seconds to do a wiki search when the search terms were provided verbatim.

Face it faggot, science can't disprove aquaman.

>>2751853
Absolutely disgusting. Considering the possible moral consequences more important than the search for the truth of the matter is exactly the thing you're trying to do away with.

>>2751861
>This guy has said that he does want to eliminate religion.
Yes I have.

>Saying science should rule over religion is an unfounded value judgment.
Well, at least you're right it's a value judgment. Also, I don't think "rule over" so much as "the complete elimination".

>Being rational and reasonable might not really be desirable,
Possible, though my conclusions say that being rational and reasonable are desirable.

>so there's not really much of a way to argue that science is a better source of authoritative policies unless we already agree on what we want out of authority.
Well, again, I think we want policies that reflect the real world, so religion is right out, and science is in.

>>2751847

Well, you can have a democratic society with atheism, but that doesn't work very well either. What happens there is that people end up becoming nihilists who turn to drugs and sex in the absence of any moral code. And then that society will gradually develop into a socialistic nanny state regardless.

>>2751868
>Absolutely disgusting. Considering the possible moral consequences more important than the search for the truth of the matter is exactly the thing you're trying to do away with.
Meh? The search for truth is over. There is no god. The evidence is in. You're welcome to keep searching, I suppose, but in the meantime we're going to get our society back, reclaim our schools, and start teaching that the jesus freaks are about as sane as the homeopathy freaks.

>>2751871
Sweden would like a word with you.

Also, you really think that, and I find that sad and depressing. You are wrong.

>>2751848
Pat Robertson has Operation Blessing.

Look it up on Wikipedia

>>2751871
Well, after two years, I got bored and went back to learning math. Honestly, hedonism is over rated.

>>2751863
>Face it faggot, science can't disprove aquaman.
Gotta be trolling.

>>2751863

Damn dude you are trying real hard tonight.

>>2751848
>Be Theist all you want, just don't force it on anyone. That's all any decent atheist could ever ask for.
See, that's the problem I have with my own side sometimes. They are still caught in this trap to respect sacred ideas as holy, or sacred, or something. It's a trap. There is no reason to do it. Call it bullshit like homeopathy or any other bullshit idea.

Also, the idea that someone thinks that they know the way to salvation, but they're going to keep it to themselves, is preposterous. There doesn't exist such a person, or he's incredibly rare. It's very human nature to share such salvation (if it is perceived that no harm comes to the sharer), so of course they're going to "share".

>>2751873
You keep pretending that "atheism is right" is the same thing as "atheism should be promoted." This relies on a value-judgment, namely "Truth should be spread to the masses," a judgment that cannot be supported with any logical framework; that is to say, that cannot cohere with any definition of truth. All other appeals to support the spreading of atheism (say, that atheism is more moral, that atheists are more attractive, etc) are unfounded.

>>2751762

>There's a marked difference between the theology of the time, and the popular understanding of the time. Go ahead and parade out all the theologians you want. That's almost certainly not what the common worshiper understands. It wasn't back then, just like it isn't today

Same thing with atheism. They tell you that if there were no religion, everyone would achieve some form of scientific enlightenment.

Well maybe a few do, but the average person who rejects religion isn't going to achieve any kind of "enlightenment". They're just going to turn to bad behavior.

>>2751888
Yep. I explicitly called this out several times. I believe that eradicating religions with extreme prejudice will greatly diminish human suffering, /and/ I think the truth has some value unto its own.

Sure, the idea that we ought to lower human suffering is undefendable, as is the idea that spreading truth has some inherent value over allowing people to persist in ignorance.

Got a point?

>>2751891
Stupid people do stupid shit anyways. Their beliefs are inconsequential.

>>2751871

>implying showing children the real consequences of extended drug use would be less effective than pretending drugs don't exist and relying on fairy tales over reality

Also there are far more ultraconservative religious types embroiled in secret gay sex and drug scandals than liberal politicians

>>2751891
>Same thing with atheism. They tell you that if there were no religion, everyone would achieve some form of scientific enlightenment.
What? No they don't. Strawman.

>Well maybe a few do,
Ok, you admit the strawman.

>but the average person who rejects religion isn't going to achieve any kind of "enlightenment". They're just going to turn to bad behavior.
And that's the difference between you and I. You think that people act morally only because they fear divine retribution. I know that most people act morally because of an innate shared Kantian morality instilled there by Darwinian evolution.

>>2751875

Oh, but I wasn't referring to Sweden.

>>2751898
We've already addressed this argument. It's simply false in the way you intend. Stupid people will remain stupid, but ignorant people will be less ignorant, and thus make better decisions. Without religion, good men will do evil less often.

Also, if you have questions about the Bible or Christianity, then I would recommend this site:

gotquestions.org

>>2751861
>Being rational and reasonable might not really be desirable

Oh my god what. This is what creationists actually believe?

>>2751887
>They are still caught in this trap to respect sacred ideas as holy, or sacred, or something

No! I didn't mean to respect it as sacred , I just mean, you HAVE to let people be free to believe what they want. Otherwise you are an ego maniac who is trying to take away peoples personal freedoms.

>>2751896
You are making a grievous error. It may be the case that atheism is perfectly good and true. Okay. Now you think make an unfounded claim - namely that the spread of atheism will reduce suffering. This is not proven or even supported. In response to that, you pretend that atheism's legitimacy is sufficient to support its spread.

But this is wrong. You simply toss out "spreading truth is good" without any support of that fact. Moreover, you put yourself into a logical bind when you accept both that "reducing suffering is good" and that "spreading truth is good." Because there may be other moral implications of spreading atheism, which may end up making it immoral to spread atheism (I mean that spreading atheism might make suffering increase), you necessitate a search for what will happen when it spreads.

If you hold any moral beliefs other than "spreading truth is good," you must consider whether promoting atheism will end up increasing the total morality of the world. This is something you refuse to do. You merely posit, without sufficient evidence, that spreading atheism will end up being morally good. But you don't know that, and it marks a very dramatic dishonesty in your way of thinking.

>>2751885

simply highlighting the futility of this thread through metaphor and ridicule

>>2751912
You missed the memo on the utilitarian value of free speech. Allow me to give it to you now.

By allowing people to think whatever they want, research whatever they want, and say whatever they want, we get this "marketplace of ideas". When you throw all of those ideas out there, through discussion and debate, the good ideas are more likely to remain, and the bad ideas will be thrown out.

If you treat some ideas as "sacred" or "holy" or "beyond reproach", then you lose all utilitarian benefit of free speech. Please, don't use force to disallow them. Just use ridicule.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;" -- Thomas Jefferson.

>>2751912
>Oh my god what. This is what creationists actually believe?
I'm an atheist. Any kind of honest intellectual endeavor to find the moral value of an action must accept the statement. Imagine a world where it was entirely reasonable to kill everyone. Would it be the case that spreading reason would be moral?

>disprove a hypothesised invisible omnipotent creature from a religion where the point is that you can't prove the existence of said creature (faith)
Yeah sure. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the sceptic.

>>2751915
I've already claimed numerous times that I think that reality is such the world would have less human suffering if everyone suddenly knew that religions were full of shit like me. Want me to defend it? No way in this kind of forum could I provide that kind of evidence. Will you be happy with that answer? Meh.

>>2751926
You couldn't provide the evidence in any medium. You do not have sufficient evidence to make the claim.

>>2751921
>Imagine a world where it was entirely reasonable to kill everyone. Would it be the case that spreading reason would be moral?
Luckily such a world is not reality. Silly hypothetical question is silly. It's like "What if you had to rape your own mother, or kill 1000 people?". I have no need to answer such a question.

>>2751896

>I believe that eradicating religions with extreme prejudice will greatly diminish human suffering

A fantasy. There was a Soviet propagandist who said "Religion is like a nail. The harder you hit it, the deeper you drive it in."

>>2751931
that's-nice.jpg

>>2751934
I'm still going to try. Currently, it looks like religion is at least receding in the US to some degree. Hurray.

>>2751932
It's a proof of concept. We can imagine that it might be the case that spreading reason can be immoral. Therefore, if we are interested in whether spreading reason in our world is immoral, we have an investigation to carry out.

>>2751920
Ok well I'm not disagreeing with any of what you just said there. My only disagreement is with your desire to eliminate religion. I don't personally want to eliminate it because in order to do that I would have to tell people what to think , and that is a bad thing.

>>2751921
Your grammar is confusing and I don't understand your point. I believe that morals are innate and are a product of evolution.

The thing I have tried to explain to atheists repeatedly is that a society without religion cannot and will never be a free one. History has repeatedly proven this, but they continue to live in this fantasy that some kind of scientific utopia would result from a religion-less world.

>>2751926

atheism is the only religion capable of reducing human suffering because it is the only religion willing to severely reduce the number of humans capable of suffering, though a heavy regiment of abortion, eugenics, and scientific accidentallies (see Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, etc, etc, etc)

>>2751944
>I don't personally want to eliminate it because in order to do that I would have to tell people what to think , and that is a bad thing.
I think there are other, moral, ways, like ridicule and firm evangelism of the truth.

>>2751946
Utopia? No. Slightly / significantly better world? Yes. Human vices aren't going anywhere, but at least we might get women emancipation, save girls's clits, and uhh, you know, prevent thermo-nuclear war.

Also, your "examples" from history are anecdotal at best, bullshit at worst. You're also conveniently ignoring Sweden.

Point out any scientific discovery that comprehensively proves that there's no Santa Claus.

>>2751936

I wouldn't say that about the US, but Britain is really dearly paying the price for everyone's having swallowed the Dawkins kool-aid. It's gotten to the point in that country where you can hardly make any public expression of religion anymore (except Islam of course).

>>2751962
What what WHAT?

My brain hurts. I'm so confused.

How the fuck is this related to anything Dawkins says? It sounds more like Britian needs to ditch its government funded faith schools, just like Dawkins has said in his ~40 min long video on the subject on youtube, among other things.

>>2751950
Agreed.

>>2751962
If anything, what I said is true of the US, and likely (??) not Britain due to its growing Islamic population.

In the US, the fastest growing religious segment is "non-religious". Go ahead, google the studies.

>OP challenges board to prove a negative, which cannot be done
>260 posts and 26 image replies omitted

This entire board just needs to be removed from 4chan. There is nothing of value here.

>>2751950

>I think there are other, moral, ways, like ridicule and firm evangelism of the truth.

Well you know, the Soviet Union pretty much ceased outright anti-religious campaigns during the Brezhnev era and instead tried what you mentioned, which was simply promoting atheist propaganda and trying to discredit religion. Didn't work.

Some propagandists complained that churches had free admission while you had to pay to get into the Leningrad Museum of Atheism.

>>2751971
Oh god lol. Fucking saved. Good work sir.

>>2751973
Why can't you prove a negative? Can't I prove that the sky isn't green?

>>2751973
>OP challenges board to prove a negative, which cannot be done
But it can, as we demonstrated with the rhetorical replies of can't disprove Santa or the Easter Bunny.

Please take your non-science elsewhere.

>>2751946
>>2751947
>implying atrocities were done in the name of atheism
>implying freedom is impossible without religion
>implying atheists idealize a "scientific utopia"
>implying atheism is a religion

Come back when you are able to form actual arguments.

Next.

>>2751976
I'm still going to try.

>>2751973
>Prove a negative
>Cannot be done
>mfw I've proven several negatives for research
>mfw all my research must be wrong
>mfw I'll become some homeless guy because of that
>mfw that's a negative thing
>mfw when you can't prove that

>>2751970

Britain does have a very large number of hardcore atheists. Of course, this didn't begin with Dawkins. It was more of an outgrowth of the counterculture movement in the 1960s.

>>2751973

It keeps religious faggots like Scientist who think they are smart, but are wholly incapable of independent thought and investigation isolated to single threads of retarded circle jerks which is pretty valuable to the rest of the threads/boards.

>>2751991
>It keeps religious faggots like Scientist
~implying that I'm religious~
... what? My brain is starting to hurt again.

>who think they are smart,
Yes, and?

>but are wholly incapable of independent thought and investigation isolated to single threads of retarded circle jerks which is pretty valuable to the rest of the threads/boards.
So, let me try to read that. You're feeling threatened because your belief system is so flimsy, so you have to resort to name calling. Right... Or you're a troll.

>>2751972

Religious faith among the native white population in Britain is pretty minimal nowadays, but aside from Muslims, there are plenty of immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and whatnot who are quite strong Christians.

So you never really have an atheist society, rather as one group of people loses their faith, another group gains it.

>>2752003
As I said, I'm still going to try.

>>2751972

>In the US, the fastest growing religious segment is "non-religious"

Depends on how you define non-religious.

Although church attendance in the US is much lower than it once was, studies have shown that Americans aren't really any less religious today. In fact, it's increasingly common for people to believe in a jumble of different religious and supernatural things rather than rigid adherence to a particular faith.

>>2752015
Stop dispelling my hope!

J/K

>>2751902

>I know that most people act morally because of an innate shared Kantian morality instilled there by Darwinian evolution.

That's a bad pseudo-intellectual answer. The average person doesn't think like that or even know who the heck Kant is. They just think "Eh, religion is rubbish that stops me from putting my dick in anywhere I feel like."

I don't think Larry Flynt attends church every Sunday, do you?

>>2752033
See, I said that was the difference. Religious people claim people need to be educated to be moral. I said that (most) are innately moral. It doesn't matter if they know the word "Kantian" or the word "evolution". They are still innately moral with an innate Kantian morality, whose rules are shared across the species.

>>2751999

>It keeps religious faggots like Scientist
>~implying that I'm religious~
blindly dogmatic is close enough to religious that they can be used interchangeably

>who think they are smart,
>Yes, and?
and... you are not because you are "wholly incapable of independent thought and investigation" (hallmarks of people who are actually smart)... I thought that one was easily deduced.
Besides the truly smart know it is better to learn more and refine your knowledge rather than stew in your current "knowledge" as if it is the best you can do

>but are wholly incapable of independent thought and investigation isolated to single threads of retarded circle jerks which is pretty valuable to the rest of the threads/boards.
>So, let me try to read that. You're feeling threatened because your belief system is so flimsy, so you have to resort to name calling. Right... Or you're a troll.
What name did I call you exactly in that quote?
No I just feel obliged to point things out when I see hypocritical people spouting dogmatic views without evidence while reprimanding people with equally dogmatic views doing the exact same thing.

Sorry. Bedtime. As always, my secret evil plan is to get everyone to post under the name Scientist. And always judge my content based on its value, not on its name.

Night all of /sci/. I apologize for shitting up the place, but it was enjoyable for me at least, and I think largely related to the scientific mindset.

One more apparently, then bed.

>>2752038
>blindly dogmatic is close enough to religious that they can be used interchangeably
No. They're not. I am blindly dogmatic in evidence. It would be quite hard to convince me that evidence and inductive reasoning, aka science, is not the way to discover truth about reality. This is blind faith, blind faith in science.

Religion is a whole separate beast from blind faith. Religion requires some act of worship or reverence to some sort of "higher power". Science has no such element. Science is not a religion.

>>2752020

Besides, "non-religious" could also include agnostics and things like that.

But as I was saying, you have people today that identify as Christians, but who believe in all kinds of /x type stuff like astrology as well as reincarnation and other concepts of Eastern religions. A few generations ago, you would have been told that a lot of that was forbidden by the Bible.

>>2752037

If people were inherently moral, there would be no need to teach them morals in the first place. No, most are animals who will gladly do you wrong if they could get away with it.

And atheists will criticize the carrot-and-stick approach of religion (behave or face God's judgement), but it does in fact work very well. How many people do you think only obey the law so they don't go to jail? If we got rid of all police for a day, we'd find out very quickly.

>>2752041

Then why do you say so much bullshit that supports your position without providing any other evidence than games of semantics... because you have become a blindingly dogmatic propagandist for the secular power structure without even realizing what you are doing or receiving so much as a salary?

>Religion troll thread
>289 posts and 34 image replies

why.jpg

>>2752079
Because stupidity is as universal as dark energy, it permeates even /sci/.

>>2752079

>offended by thread
>bumps it instead of hiding it
why.png

>>2752092
>because stupid people don't seem to realize when they're being stupid
>protip: posting in this thread without a sage means you fail at intelligence forever

Anyone who posted in this thread is as stupid as the OP was.

>>2752079

Not to mention the fact that Godwin's Law was invoked in this thread.

>>2752107

Why wouldn't the biggest purposeful atheist/eugenics/evolution based genocide in the history of the world be brought up in an atheist thread?

>>2752123

Noah's flood?