/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2800112
Same thing OP.

Both sides are irritating as fuck.

Both of them are faggots. I can't tell each is worse, because both of them are as equally militaristic and childish.

Agnosticfags are the ubermensch.

Basically the definition of Agnostic Atheism?
I think, the definition says Agnostic atheists don't believe in God but don't claim to know he doesn't exist.
The way I interpret that is they think there is a possibility of a deity's existence. Which is why I call myself an agnostic atheist. Amidoingitright?

Gnostic atheists were right. Tornadoes and trailer-parks ARE hilarious.

>>2800128

Yes. I don't presume the existence of a god any more than I presuppose the existence of an invisible undetectable rabbit floating above my head at all times.

Well the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both

>>2800137
try harder, faggot

>>2800128
Agnostic sort of means you take it on faith.

Agnostic atheist: You have faith that God does not exist, and you don't live in a caring an compassionate universe.

>>2800142
>didn't read my email address

>agnostic
Agnostic what? Agnostic Atheist, theist, apathetic?
Plus the whole I cant prove he doesn't exist is just plain dumb, you can't disprove unicorns either but that doesn't make it a 50/50 chance they exist or lend any credit at all to their existence at all.

if your a atheist then you dont believe in morals cuz god is the origins of morals and what stops atheists from killing baybies then? atheist are DANGEROUS and should be imprissoned!

>>2800145
wut
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. ..."

There is no other 'belief' that fits mine any better so I guess I'll just keep calling myself one.

>>2800150
i use the 4chan script on grasemonkey which makes all posts anomynous, faggot.

>Be someone who doesn't care if a god exists or not because it's something that wouldn't change my world views at all

>See debate on religion, laugh.

>>2800152
Except there isn't worldwide beliefs about unicorns (Are there?) so I find a deity more plausible then rainbow-shitting horned horses.
>>2800153
1/10 because I replied.

>>2800159
well then you can't blame me for your own lack of knowledge.

>>2800145
>faith
Your trolling, you have to be.
Agnostic means that you think that the matter cannot be solved because of lack of evidence. Agnostic Atheist means that you lack a belief in a god but honestly say that there is no way to ultimately disprove it. But that does not mean that gods or gods have just as much credibility as no gods. Just like you cant disprove leprechauns, doesn't make their existence more plausible just because you can't disprove them

>>2800145

That is not the meaning of agnostic. Agnostic literally means "not knowing" in greek. A Gnostic Athiest would be one who has faith that a god doesn't exist, an Agnostic Athiest is one who sees no evidence for any sort of divinity and assumes by default that it doesn't exist in the the same way that one assumes that unicorns don't exist. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>2800164
You do realize that even if 99% of people believe something, it can still be wrong. Right?

> he thinks it might exist despite logical inconsistencies and clear evidence it was just made up a few thousand years ago
laughingwhores.jpg

>>2800164
Almost every single medieval and ancient culture also had a belief about dragons too. That doesn't mean they are more plausible. if anything it lends itself to the fact that the human imagination is a powerful one. Also no culture could keep the concept of god or gods the same, evidence for the fact that it is probably made up just like dragons.

>>2800154
Sure, if you want to use 30 words to say "I believe/have faith that God does not exist, and we live in an uncaring universe." in a language that strengthens the Agnostic theists. I'd rather use -their- self-aggrandizing language to describe my beliefs.

I'm a Gnostic atheist. I -KNOW- the universe doesn't give a fuck about me.

>>2800172
> doesn't know what agnostic means
agnosticism is the belief that supernatural is unfalsiafiable

I always wondered why there is a word for not believing in god but no word for not believing in Santa.


But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.

>>2800190
You are fucking retarded.

>>2800178
Of course, I never said it DID exist, just that it was more plausible then unicorns. If there is a God you're assuming we would be able to understand him with human logics.
>>2800186
Wait, dragons DON'T exist?

>>2800164

Wow, because we all know that Argumentum ad Populum is such a strong logical argument.

Widespread believe is insufficient for proof without external evidence. Especially when the beliefs of these groups in fact vary wildly. The God of Abraham is most certainly NOT Shiva, but you're lumping these together as if they agreed.

OP here. I can't believe how easy it was to troll /sci/
trololololololo

>>2800190
>the supernatural is unfalsifiable
Just like lightning. Oh wait did we already crack that one.

>>2800190
Agnosticism is a -ism.

We're stopping at A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c.

>>2800200
I'm not seeing any mad people.

Back in my day we knew a thing or two about trolling...

...14 yr olds these days...

>>2800200
You jelly, buttrage Baptist mod?

>>2800164
1 billion chinese believe that the number 4 brings bad luck. guess they can't be wrong, amirite?

>>2800193
>more plausible then unicorns

Also:
>then

>>2800200

When no one is raging at YOUR comments, you're not really the successful troll.

These two are, however:
>>2800164
>>2800145

You could learn something from them.

>>2800204
>ITT: People believing I said that God MUST exist because people believe in him
Alright you, dumbshits. What I was saying was that it was more plausible then UNICORNS. Why do I say that? Because a belief has to start somewhere. If there wasn't at least a little logic people wouldn't start believing it.
Or am I being trolled?

>>2800205
awwww, he was mad enough to reply ^^

>>2800222

>>2800219
How am I trolling? I'm simply stating an opinion on the plausibility between unicorns and God

>>2800221
Unicorns are a horse with a horn. Makes sense to me.

God is an all powerful genocidal sky wizard. People only invented him as a god-of-the-gaps.

>>2800231
But unicorns are myyystical creatures.

>>2800231
See, I don't get this. People pretend that they aren't afraid of anything. Past generations believed in Zeuss. You call him a "genocidal sky wizard" just to show how silly it is. But you fear things irrationally too. So how are you better?

>>2800240
>Awaken

>>2800221

It doesn't make it any more plausible. There is no logical difference between saying that something is more plausible because people believe in it and it is true because people believe in it, because in both cases your only evidence is that people believe in something.

Going back to the unicorn thing, it's like saying that Unicorns are more likely to exist than the Loch Ness Monster because there are a ton of stories about them, and stories have to come from SOMEWHERE!

People make shit up. Even if somewhere along the line someone forgets it's not true, it doesn't suddenly become true. This actually happens all the time. Say you lie to your friend about where your signed baseball came from (like saying you met a player instead of buying it off ebay) and never tell them it's a lie. You leave it to your friend in your will. They pass it on to their kids or something under the impression that you met this player and didn't buy it from chinaguy53 on ebay. The mythos may even keep building like some generational game of "telephone", but it doesn't become any less false.

>>2800221
No, there does not have to be any logic at all. Ritual sacrifice is a lovely example of crazy shit that needs no logic to back it up.

>>2800178
The person who coined the term agnostic did so specifically because he didn't want to be considered atheist or theist.

>When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

>So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

-Thomas Henry Huxley

>>2800240
>So how are you better?
You make the mistake of thinking I want to be better than others. I just want to be right, and to be left alone.

>But you fear things irrationally too
Like what?

>>2800255
I didn't make a mistake. Calling God a "sky wizard" is a method of making him seem outdated and silly. Its an emotional tactic that you use. You didn't invent it.

As for being left alone, I doubt anyone wants that.

>>2800250
Okay, so lets assume Christianity is NOT true (Idc, whether it's your belief or not, I'm not a Christian so spare me the trolling).
Now heres an example of a logical starting.
>Man is about to fall off of building but is seemed to be grabbed by an invisible force (He really just didn't fall off)
>OMM! I've been saved by a higher power.
>Preaches to errone
>people come forth telling similar experiences
>Church of God appears
>One guy: didn't you guys know about the messiah? His name was Jesus

>>2800267
Fine, An all powerful everloving perfect being who somehow created imperfect beings which ruined His perfect plan within a few months of existence.

>>2800267
>him

The more you call a deity him, the more it reinforces Feuerbach's premise of god being a projection of man.

>>2800251

Meh. A lot of us who consider ourselves athiests don't have a positive disbelief in any sort of god though, we just by default assume that which is without evidence to be false and would modify the belief upon hard evidence. While in Huxley's time it was more meaning "I hate God", which some people still use it as today, and then there's the "I KNOW there is no god" atheists. Sadly such generalization leads to people with wildly different beliefs being categorized together, which is why we tend to fight about it so much. Especially when we are attacked for beliefs we don't have.

Agnostic atheist here, gnostic atheists and gnostic theists are fucking annoying.

>>2800268
Belief is Agnostic.

Knowledge is gnostic.

>>2800282
How nice we can lump you in with the people that believe in God.

I'll try and explain it to you OP.

You see, you're a faggot because you actually entertain the idea of there being a wizard in the sky.

Whereas I on the other hand, a perfectly sane individual, can realise that the chances of that being true are so incredibly miniscule, that to entertain its notion is disrespectful to our level of intelligence as a species.

Tell me OP, do you think you are smart when you shrug your shoulders at the idea that the universe was created by a wizard only 6000 years ago?

>>2800284

Not really, an agnostic atheist is someone that does not believe that god exists.

Most scientists will agree that a gnostic atheist is almost as illogical as a gnostic christian
There is no position in which one is not either theist or atheist, though atheists can be gnostic (hurr no way god exists) or agnostic (God probably doesn't exist/ I don't believe in him or against him).

If a god exists within physics they have made no noticable change to physical laws at any point, and all traits contributed to a christian god can be explained by the current model. The strongest citation I can think of for this is A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.
The problem of induction invalidates itself as any answers we deduce will be deduced due to a pattern we see in the question. Every decision made is based upon patterns we have noticed and now use to analyse the world. Simply put, there is no satisfactory answer, but should the scientific method be invalidated by the problem, so too should theology, and its assumptions that because praying or believing in the existence of god are done due to past results they are beneficial.

>>2800294
>Believe.

>>2800295
no, most scientists operate as gnostic theists. the moment we manage to find proof of god the perspective changes. thats what science and reasoning is all about, an adaptable world view.

>>2800308
>most scientists operate as gnostic theists
Less than half of scientists are theistic, and the whole point of science is that you are building an accurate picture through multiple pieces of information that may not be accurate, therefore what you think is *probably* true might not be.

>>2800311
typo, i missed out an 'a'.

guess where it goes.

correction to my post:

no, most scientists operate as gnostic Atheists. the moment we manage to find proof of god the perspective changes. thats what science and reasoning is all about, an adaptable world view.

>>2800317
whether it's on the gnostic or the theist the post is still wrong, the vast, vast majority of scientists are agnostic, and the majority are atheist, if I remember correctly. I'm just double checking though

>>2800324
>agnostic
>god of the unexplored spaces

>>2800324
how could it have been on gnostic? the rest of the post still doesn't make any sense. i mean i know we are on the internet but even then that's pretty retarded.

>>2800287
What are you 12?

Any sane, logical human being will realize that disproval of any theory is insane. Because when it comes down to it, we have revealed absolutely nothing about the inner workings of our universe, and know absolutely nothing about the origin of our existence.

The mere fact that you're lashing out at someone for not sharing the same belief as you proves you're either a troll or a twelve year old. In which case, I think it's a good idea that you head back over to /b/ and stay there.

>>2800332
Agnostic theists, perhaps? Not an overly difficult substitution to make, if I'm entirely honest.
>>2800328
It's a metaphor. example of a similar case:
>einstein talked about god not playing dice
>was not talking about god or dice

Found the source on more scientists being agnostic atheists than anything else:
http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
48% "unaffiliated" and 11% "agnostic".

>>2800345
>It's a metaphor.
That's an excuse.

>>2800345
>I can't say "gods do not exist", because I'm agnostic.

>>2800353
If you take everything that literally, why aren't you complaining at the use of "anonymous" as a name?

>>2800356
>agnostics
>must be gnostic atheists
>I don't think so
I agree they're mostly atheist, I don't agree they're mostly gnostic.

>>2800359
>I don't agree they're mostly gnostic.

Just because they're too scared to tell you to fuck off with your brain voices, that doesn't mean your religion is correct.

>>2800369
Assuming troll, nobody is that bad at arguing and capable of using a computer without electrocuting themselves

>>2800305

It would be idiotic and unprofessional to be a gnostic atheist. Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist

>>2800370

Damn, your're grammar is almost as bad as mine, possibly worse.

I've been awake for 2 days and just started another pot of coffee. What's your excuse.

>>2800337
>implying I was trying to disprove the existence of a sky wizard
>implying I even need to try and disprove such ridiculous ideas
>implying it makes sense to believe in a wizard simply because you can't disprove it
>implying you aren't just another primitive, self delusional thinker who is perfectly happy insulting his own intelligence for the emotional reward of believing in a wizard

>>2800372

Agnostics won't ascribe a definite answer because they don't know everything. God might be in the unknown dimensions of the universe.

That still is not proof that your religion has a basis in reality outside of your head.

>>2800384
The only reason einstein didn't work on anything quantum is because he thought it was improbable. As a result he modified his theories to allow for a universe without them, and wasted years of his life.
Your graph has no scale. The "Christian Dark Ages" didn't exist, and during that time period the muslim world created fully operational clocks, did research on the curvature of the earth, and advanced mathematics significantly. "Scientific advance" cannot be quantified.

If you want something that happened in the past that stopped us from exploring the galaxy, read up on the library of alexandria.

>>2800384
>wizard

Fuck kid, if you're going to try to debate something, at least be mature about it.

Also did I at any point say I believe in any sort of god? Nope.

You're the kind of piece of shit that gives atheists and agnostics a bad name.

>>2800385
The lack of proof is not disproof. Come on, this is basic logic, and some very fundamental stuff. Don't even pretend you understand how science works until you can structure a decent argument.

>>2800407
I was arguing about your religion.

I count your last post as "a swing, and a miss".

>>2800391
>The "Christian Dark Ages" didn't exist,
No it was just an age were pillaging infidel paesants, bandalizing pagan monuments, witch hunting and inquisition were perfectly secular practices.

>>2800414
I re-iterate what I said: Lack of proof is not disproof. I am not religious.
>>2800418
Like they had been doing for the 1000 years preceding. Ask a historian whether the dark ages were actually that dark. Witch hunting was far more prominent in the late 17th century and throughout the 18th, and the inquisition wasn't in the "dark ages".

>>2800424
>Lack of proof is not disproof.
And I will restate: "Agnostic"(Lack of proof is not disproof.) does not make any religion correct.

Do you see what's happening here?

atheistfag: hurr durr let's worship dawkins
christfag: that's stupid, I thought you said you not like religion
atheistfag: lol but you believe in sky wizard
christfag: hurr durr bible

You're both wrong about something and you're both mad that the other is wrong about something but cannot admit you yourself are wrong, you're like 2 nude 65 year old norwegians screaming and howling at each other whilst slapping each other with trout in rage.

>>2800433
Nice straw man you got there

read my posts. Then I don't have to dislike you.

>>2800404
>You're the kind of piece of shit that gives atheists and agnostics a bad name.

And you're the kind of piece of shit that gives our species a bad name by entertaining all that primitive hocus pocus garbage.

But please, do go back to shrugging your shoulders at ideas like there being an omnipotent being who created everything 6000 years ago.

I would love to hear your theory of how this might be possible. Oh wait, you don't even have a theory. Science on the other hand actually does have a theory that is based on fact, and that is why religion will always be wrong.

>>2800437
Prove deism to be impossible, or it's true.

See what I did there?
Stop doing that.

>>2800424
>Witch hunting was far more prominent in the late 17th century and throughout the 18th, and the inquisition wasn't in the "dark ages".
Still they were a product of religious superstition that was counter-effective against the renaissance's achievements.

It's not a big secret that for a 1k years only masonry developed a bit in the Christian world while Islam was getting a serious headstart using previous knowledge of the classical world (predominantly greek culture that was pillaged by the earfly Byzantines and christian fanatics).

>>2800439
Prove lepprechauns to be impossible, or it's true.

>>2800436
You said you're agnostic. You can't say "you believe there is no God."

That is a wishy-washy piece of faggotry, and it is also why creationism has to be taught in some public schools. In science classes.

You feel me? My caffeine fueled rage has a purpose, and you're a fucking coward for not pointing out to religious freakjobs that "Lack of proof is not disproof." DOES NOT LEGITIMIZE THEIR RELIGION.

>>2800448
Typo.
>You can't say "you believe there is no God."
should read
>You can't say "you know there is no God."

Also, pardon the capslock.

>>2800391

What happened during the DA was that Europe suffered a total power vacuum after the Roman Empire fell. Nobody had time to worry about scinece and whatnot when they were too busy trying to survive barbarian invasions.

>>2800442
>two million years of nothing
>don't mind
>pagans actively kill people
>not mentioned
>jesus christ born
>SEE HOW TERRIBLE IT IS?

firstly you're attacking the weakest point you can find rather than posting a full reply, which is pretty rude. Secondly, my arguments were against the dark ages, not that Christianity hasn't caused harm. If you read my post, you'd know that.

Would you mind defining the time period you believe to be the dark ages for me? I'm fairly certain there hasn't been a 1000 year period in which the christian world did nothing of value, though I'm not sure.
>>2800445
My point exactly. It's annoying and flawed, therefore you should stop doing it.


>>2800448
Where did I say I was agnostic: I am not, I'm an agnostic atheist.
The entire bracket "agnostic" cannot plausibly exist without a suffix of theist or atheist, because it is not possible to neither believe nor not believe in a god, for if you believe there may be a god but don't believe that there is one, you are not a theist, and thus you are an atheist.

Creationism is not taught in any public schools that I know of, and there have been countless cases in which the teaching of creationism has been discussed and banned. That is a wishy washy baseless statement, and it is also why people often find atheists to be overly arrogant and smug about their relatively arbitrary beliefs.

depending on the definition of legitimate, any religion is a legitimate religion, including christianity, islam, and pastafarianism. You just _don't_ discount something because you don't agree with it and there is no proof for it. "Lack of proof is not disproof" is, as I have said, extremely basic, and something that any rational person will follow. If you can argue against it, I would like to know why you think it isn't

also if your rage is fueled by caffeine after just two days you're fucking weak.

>>2800439
>Prove deism to be impossible, or it's true.
>See what I did there?

No? When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me to disprove it.

>>2800460
you were doing exactly the same thing. You said, and I quote,
>I would love to hear your theory of how this might be possible. Oh wait, you don't even have a theory. Science on the other hand actually does have a theory that is based on fact, and that is why religion will always be wrong.

Which, paraphrased, is
>you don't have an argument
>therefore you are wrong

Also, religion has plenty of theories. Whether they're valid is a different matter.

>>2800465
>didn't greentext

>>2800458
>Where did I say I was agnostic: I am not, I'm an agnostic atheist.

I corrected that statement in the following post.


>Creationism is not taught in any public schools that I know of,

Texas, and some parts of the Baptist south. Google-fu it for a bit and you'll find where.

>You just _don't_ discount

Maybe you should grow a backbone, because religious nutjobs are killing themselves, their kids, and sometimes random people, and using their religion as an excuse for a lot of atrocities.

>after just two days you're fucking weak.

I'm an old man, kiddo. Grumpy and salty.

>>2800479

And yet...

Stalin (atheist) Kill 20 million
Mao (atheist) Kill 40 million
Pol Pot (atheist) Kill 4 million
Hitler (pagan and friend of the ragheads) Kill 6 million directly, tens of millions indirectly
Castro, Kim Jong Il, and lesser communist tyrants (atheists) Kill at least a few million

If some god started talking to us tomorrow, I'd still remain atheist.
The fact that god doesn't exist is secondary. Our main problem is that religions exist.

>>2800495
All of those can fit as easily under "religious" because they did not know, they -believed-.

>>2800495
Disregarding the accuracy of those figures, and the fallacy of the claims regarding hitler's religion, the crushing majority of these deaths were not justified by atheism.

>>2800503

That's right. They believe that religion had to be abolished to build the new society.

>>2800508

And I was wrong about Hitler how?

>>2800479
Atheism isn't knowing, Gnostic atheism is knowing. Agnostic atheism is thinking but accepting the possibility you aren't right, which is what you're supposed to be doing if you're a scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Modern_legal_cases
is backed up by a few articles I googled. Not even intelligent design is taught there.

>Maybe you should grow a backbone
>stop thinking and start being arrogant

religion is a motivator for violence and conflict, but also a vessel for it, rather than a direct cause. I agree radical religions should be banned, and I also think religions that directly and knowingly oppose scientific theories without providing justification that is seen as reliable in a court, should not be allowed to interact with children, even those of believers. My practical views are not the same as my logical views, and from a purely logical perspective there is no valid reason to discount any religion.

In that case you need crack.


>>2800479
>>2800495

Hitler was a christian, and 20 million deaths due to stalin is a very conservative estimate. He was responsible for far, far more than that through the poor planning of infrastructure, leading to famine. None of these people were motivated by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

>>2800465
>Which, paraphrased, is
>you don't have an argument
>therefore you are wrong

Which is not the same thing as "x is true because you can't disprove it".

I don't need to even argue this because I don't bear the burden of proof.

>>2800509
>castro and hitler wanted the abolition of religion
Ridiculous.
Even Mao and Stalin didn't want that.

>>2800509
You're just mincing words. Religions kill off other religions too.

>>2800458
>two million years of nothing
>don't mind
yeah as if Homo erectus had the brain capacity to build airplanes
gradual transition from sticks, to paleolithic, to neolithic was the best we could hope for during alternate ice ages for a hairless ape and also there was an impressive cultural/technological blooming since agriculture came to be

>pagans actively kill people
>not mentioned
Yeah since the modern world is full of people trying to justify Thor's worshippers pillaging and raping and actively promote pagan panthea worshipping.

>jesus christ born
Religious zealots razing the Classical world. HELLenistic culture is literally demonized (btw "demon" has no negative connotations in its original greek context). The Great Library is burnt. The western world is divided and shattered by power play sustained by dogmatic propaganda. Crusades fuck up the last sanctuary of science, philosophy and progress and reduce Islam into a scotadistic blood-thirsty theocracy such as themselves.
>SEE HOW TERRIBLE IT IS?

>>2800520
>Gnostic atheism, Agnostic atheism
Stop making stuff up.

>>2800495
Except none of them killed in the name of atheism, dummy. Whereas plenty have killed in the name of religion.

Your low intelligence doesn't surprise me though.

>>2800524

In what way were Stalin et al killing in the name of religion?

>>2800520
>from a purely logical perspective there is no valid reason to discount any religion

Surely you jest.

>>2800534
>killing in the name of religion?
Chop chop chop, mince, mince, mince.

>implying Stalin was a bad person

>>2800521
which is not what I was saying. The point was that you said
>you don't have a theory
>I have a theory
>therefore you are wrong

and I showed that because I have a theory (deism) and you don't have a theory (disproof of deism) I don't trump you. The religious don't bear the burden of proof in showing their religion to be possible, because the default position of any event is possible. If you claim they're wrong you have to prove it, which you did not.
>>2800526
Of course, the human brain evolved spontaneously and then was harsly sabotaged by christianity. was it not?

current affairs have no bearing on history

have to go because tea is ready, will be back soon

>>2800496
Then you'd be an idiot.

If a God talked to me, no way in hell I'd remain atheist.

Religion isn't the problem.

Stupid people are the problem.

You can not prove me wrong.

>>2800552
>because the default position of any event is possible

Not the same as "based in reality".

>>2800552
What he said was
>you don't have a theory explaining god in logical terms
>I have a theory explaining the world in logical terms
>therefore you are wrong
Then you jump to no explanation = explanation.

>>2800554
>If a God talked to me, no way in hell I'd remain atheist.
You would embrace your new life as a schizo?

>>2800557
Religion has a defining influence on education, and thus makes people stupid.

Wat?

>>2800552
Not the guy that you're replying to, but are you retarded? You're the one claiming that a deistic god is possible therefore the burden of proving that lies on you. Similarly, if I claimed dragons are possible, I should be the one to provide an explanation as to why I think that.

>>2800112

Some faggots believe that 2+2=6. Other faggots believe that 2+2=4. I'm more enlightened than these extremists and accept that 2+2=5.

>>2800530

Regardless of whether the terminology he used is accepted in academic communities, he has a point. Agnosticism is an answer to a different question from atheism, and an intelligent person plots people's beliefs along two axes, one being theism vs atheism, the other being agnosticism vs gnosticism (or whatever you think it should be called). Plotting people's beliefs along a single line with agnostic in the middle and mutually exclusive with the other two is as retarded as plotting political beliefs along the left-right scale. The only reason anyone would do this is to be a faggot and use the golden mean fallacy, which is exactly why hipster agnostics do it.

>>2800554
Accepting to be controlled by a space wizard, even if he is real, would make me more of an idiot than refusing.

>>2800587
Not at all. Plenty of people are religious and go through school learning just fine and contributing to society. Only stupid and ignorant people refuse to learn because of their beliefs in religion or atheism. Yes it's a contributing factor, but the people were stupid to begin with.

>>2800596
>Some faggots believe that 2+2=6. Other faggots believe that 2+2=4. I'm more enlightened than these extremists and accept that 2+2=5.
That means only "Other faggots" are looking at simple things realistically.

>>2800552
>The religious don't bear the burden of proof in showing their religion to be possible, because the default position of any event is possible.

lol wut. The default position is that we don't know. Then science makes some claims based on fact and evidence, while religon makes some claims based on hocus pocus. Therefore, religions claims are not to be taken seriously because there is no fact to back them up.

>If you claim they're wrong you have to prove it, which you did not.

lol no I don't. THEY have to prove it because THEY are the ones making the claim. Scientists aren't claiming that god doesn't exist, just that it is extremely unlikely based on the evidence we now have.

>>2800546

You didn't define how killing in the name of Marxism, an ideology that states that religion is outdated and unscientific, is religiously motivated.

>>2800596
>agnosticism vs gnosticism

>belief vs knowledge

>faith vs wisdom

>>2800520

>Hitler was a christian

I've heard this argument from atheists 1,334,935 times and already refuted it, but I'm very bored of doing it again, so I won't.

>>2800624
Because it is not knowledge, it is a belief that the ideals it promoted were perfect and incorruptible.

An history from there.

>>2800641
You jelly.

>>2800641
Why the hell did you post then, retard?

>>2800648

A religion is generally defined as having belief in supernatural forces, which does not apply to Marxism. Try again.

>>2800641
>and already refuted it,

[pre-1943 source citation needed]

>>2800530
Google: Use it.
>>2800526
#3:good points, but the cause of the destruction of the library isn't known.The division of the world was inevitable regardless of religion. The crusades were genuinely stalling, and were responsible for an incredible amount of damage.
>>2800539
discount as in remove from all possibilities. It is not logical to hold an absolute opinion, when we cannot even establish the full workings of the universe.
>>2800557
Prove yourself right. We won't believe you 'till you do.
>>2800567
It's exactly the same. Like I said further up, holding any absolute belief is illogical
>>2800574
it's very simple. Just because I have a theory that hasn't been disproven, all other possibilities aren't removed.
>>2800596
This only works if you don't know the numerical value of 2, and you only have vague clues as to its meaning.
>>2800597
>even if he is real
I'LL FUCK YOU WITH A RAKE
>>2800613
nope. The default position according to current models is we don't know, the actual default is that literally anything is possible.
>>2800613
Lol yes you do. You have to disprove what they believe, not just tell them they have to justify it. >>2800634
do you know the original definition of "wise"?
>>2800641
All you had to do is read to the end of the fucking line. The end of the line. Just the end of it. That's like 10 words, you cretinous waste of carbon.

also: Yo holmes, smell ya later. Feel free to continue trolling me.

>>2800657
If the people believed Marxism was incorruptible, then they ignored all human historical evidence to the contrary.

Argument sustained.

>>2800661
>The division of the world was inevitable regardless of religion
Well, just MAYBE we wouldn't have the current iteration of global shitstorm if the dumbfucks in the middle east weren't so mentally backwards they would go die for their invisible skyfriend.

>>2800660

That pic of Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem certainly goes with what I said about him being pals with the dune coons. Practicing Christians could not be members of the SS either, but when it came to a certain other religion...

Being an agnostic is like being a virgin: you're two much of a pussy to put your dick in a bitch, but not lame enough to be fagfag.

Being an atheist is like realising life is a bitch and if you don't put your dick into her as deep as you can, you gonna get raped.

Being a religiousfag is like being friendzoned (by life).

>>2800661
>It's exactly the same. Like I said further up, holding any absolute belief is illogical

Probable != proof. Fail harder.

>>2800668

Wrong. You ignored the obvious definition of religion I gave that includes the belief in supernatural forces. You don't believe in those, you're not religious.

Aside from which, the connection between atheism and left-wing politics is extremely obvious and only a totally clueless lunkhead would claim otherwise. Have you ever noticed that the more socialist a nation becomes, the less religious it gets?

>>2800689

Belief != knowledge

Fucking idiot.

>>2800696

Still didn't refute what I said. You lose. Do not troll further, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, etc.

>>2800437
I your promotion of christian theology, assuming it is the only form of religion or belief that I could possibly support. I also enjoy that you assume I support any religion. Which is what you've implied in every single post.

I hope you are a troll you close minded fool.

>>2800702
Yes I did, because you're hanging onto the idea that "Marxism was an incorruptible belief", and arguing that is the same as knowledge.

You disappoint me.

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

"Agnostics" who feel superior to "both sides" are both retarded and bad people.

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

>>2800711
I "enjoy"*
I swear I typed that.

>>2800661
>Lol yes you do. You have to disprove what they believe, not just tell them they have to justify it

lol no I don't. Burden of proof, do you know what that means? If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

If I say leprechauns are real, do you take me seriously until someone disproves me? No you do not. You realise that I am a fucking moron because the chances of leprechauns existing are fucking zilch.

Why are you being so dumb? You give the appearance of someone smarter, but you are not....

I gotta quit too, now. My blood pressure is too high, and I'm seeing spots.

>>2800712

And you're going to claim you have no absolute, incorruptible beliefs? Get real.

>>2800727
There are a lot of retarded kids in this thread.

Quit while you're ahead.

>>2800596
>
Regardless of whether the terminology he used is accepted in academic communities, he has a point. Agnosticism is an answer to a different question from atheism, and an intelligent person plots people's beliefs along two axes, one being theism vs atheism, the other being agnosticism vs gnosticism (or whatever you think it should be called). Plotting people's beliefs along a single line with agnostic in the middle and mutually exclusive with the other two is as retarded as plotting political beliefs along the left-right scale. The only reason anyone would do this is to be a faggot and use the golden mean fallacy, which is exactly why hipster agnostics do it.
Plotting a political belief along two axes is more retarded than along one. Politics do not exist in some spiritual plane with set dimensions, they are the product of human history, and are build upon existing ideological and social segmentations. The resulting stances are consturcted so as to be relatively stable and sound, gathering ideas and groups that strengthen each other's position. The left/right dichotomy refers to that historical construction, partly because it was an element of it. Adding more axes only empties the description of the political stances, and oversimplify what's left by trying to sum up their components to 4 generic ones (or rarely six).
The only reason anyone would do this is to try and look too sophisticated for traditional politics while exempt himself from an actual reflexion on the logic behind his beliefs.
It's pretty much the same for religion, atheism and agnoticism. This added gnosticism/agnosticism axis is just a convenient way out of self-analysis for those that don't want to admit that their stance is not abstracted from their environment.
Agnostics know that they don't know as much as religious people know that they believe, but refuse to know why.

>>2800711
>I hope you are a troll you close minded fool.

Please explain how requiring evidence to support claims is "closed minded".

>>2800437
I'd love to see what garbage you'd spew out if I said I was a Taoist.

>>2800737
What exactly is my claim?

>>2800596
Plotting a political belief along two axes is more retarded than along one. Politics do not exist in some spiritual plane with set dimensions, they are the product of human history, and are build upon existing ideological and social segmentations. The resulting stances are consturcted so as to be relatively stable and sound, gathering ideas and groups that strengthen each other's position. The left/right dichotomy refers to that historical construction, partly because it was an element of it. Adding more axes only empties the description of the political stances, and oversimplify what's left by trying to sum up their components to 4 generic ones (or rarely six).
The only reason anyone would do this is to try and look too sophisticated for traditional politics while exempt himself from an actual reflexion on the logic behind his beliefs.
It's pretty much the same for religion, atheism and agnoticism. This added gnosticism/agnosticism axis is just a convenient way out of self-analysis for those that don't want to admit that their stance is not abstracted from their environment.
Agnostics know that they don't know as much as religious people know that they believe, but refuse to know why.

>>2800746
Your claim is that it's perfectly reasonable to take seriously the idea that a god exists despite there being no logical or factual reason to hold such a belief.

It's logically no different to believing in leprechauns. If you think otherwise, state how.

>>2800740
I'd say the same thing I always say: show me some evidence otherwise your claims cannot be taken as fact.

Gosh I sure love being a normal rational person, you should try it some time!

Some people become easily frightened when they don't know something, so they have to convince themselves its one way or another, rather than just being able to keep both in mind.

Once you come to a point that you realize you cant definitively know anything, you are able to much more freely shift perspectives at will to analyze any situation more completely.

Its hanging on to truths that cause people to become set in their ways and ultimately continue to blunder down the wrong path when a better one is found.

Once everything becomes shades of probable and you throw out the idea of truth you'll be happier ^___^

>>2800764
Its perfectly reasonable to take seriously the idea that the teapot exists also, as well as gigantic floating pink elephants in space that shoot energy from their trunks that turn people into mosquitos.

All ideas should be taken seriously, because all ideas are useful.

Hey, cool thread and all, but someone tell me that man's name in OP's pic. Really.

>>2800764
My claim is that it is illogical to automatically disprove any higher order of existence/intelligence simply because we have no proof. Maybe in the possible future where science has advanced enough to actually delve in to the mysteries of existence and the universe substantially enough to shed light on the fallacies of spiritual belief your arguments(?) might hold some merit. But given the simple fact that we can ultimately not disprove or approve anything I find the whole debate to be pointless and derogatory.

That being said, my beliefs are far more spiritually intertwined with Buddhism than anything else. Assuming I am in any way associated with christian beliefs is almost insulting.

>>2800787
Thank you.;

Proving something dosn't exist is irrelevent it's why the Agnostic argument is false and why you are a dumbass for not understanding the principles of logic..

I don't have to prove unicorns DON'T exist.

I don't have to prove that magic doesn't exist..

I don't have to prove that monsters under my bed don't exist...

Burden of proof lies on whoever makes the accusation that monsters under my bed exist.. THEY are the ones that must prove it exists, without evidence Okhams razor says their argument is false..

The burden of proof for the existence of god lies with Religious people, THEY are the ones making the claim god exists-- Because they can't prove god exists-- Their argument is false. Okhams Razor says god doesn't exist until evidence to the contrary is found.

Which is why my dumb niggerdly friend you are wrong..

>>2800804
logical fallacies, logical fallacies everywhere.

>>2800787

This is an intelligent way to look at the world in general, but when it comes to specific ideas, no one lives this way. Being open minded does not mean accepting radical claims without evidence, it only means having a willingness to consider new ideas.

Just because you throw out the idea of absolute certainty doesn't mean that you have to treat all ideas as equally valid.

>>2800788
>its perfectly reasonable to take seriously the idea that the teapot exists also, as well as gigantic floating pink elephants in space that shoot energy from their trunks that turn people into mosquitos.

Explain how that is reasonable. I'll give you a hint: you can't.

>>2800793
>My claim is that it is illogical to automatically disprove any higher order of existence/intelligence simply because we have no proof.

Nobody's claiming that there is definitely no god, only that the chances of one existing are extremely unlikely, given what we now know.

If something is extremely unlikely then you should not, in your right mind, believe it. Especially not when the ramifications of such belief is so strong.

I just think you are clinging onto this belief of "there might be a god" because the idea appeals to your emotions. I would say, put your intelligence before your emotions. To entertain the idea of a god is insulting your own intelligence.

Lets not sidetrack this thread with talk of Hitler and Stalin, etc.

>>2800821

Godwin's Law

The stories in the Bible are tangible proof that God (and therefore the entire Christian faith and any related religion) is complete bull.

Noah's ark never happened. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. It would take FIVE TIMES the amount of water on Earth today to flood the world to the proportions mentioned in Genesis. The Noah's ark story was just a cheap copyright infringement of the Mesopotamian story of the Gilgamesh (look it up) with God and Noah filled in the character slots.

Ancient Israel was influential on nobody in the Middle East. The only document even mentioning ancient Israel besides the Bible is the Merneptah Stele which very briefly mentioned beating Israel like a drum.

The Bible claims that the Assyrian king Sennacherib's siege on Hezekiah was ended when God smote down 185k Assyrian soldiers. Well how ironic that from Sennacherib's account of the story, he successfully blocked Hezekiah off from all trade and communication. He may not have conquered the city, but he certainly didn't mention his army getting obliterated by some unseen force.

The stories in the Bible are either made up entirely or highly dramatized. If Jesus were real, you'd think he would have had a bigger impact on the world than he did. He did nothing to advance the the studies of science, mathematics, or economics. All he allegedly did was wave his hands and snap his fingers and suddenly some random farmer could see again. Thanks for helping that nobody see so he could slap his wife around more effectively. Too bad there's murders and rapes and child abuse happening every day that you seem to be avoiding. u mad, christfags?

>>2800843

Some exaggerated/made-up Bible stories do not disprove God's existence. Epic logical fallacy.

>>2800817
Everything is valid, not everything is useful.

You can say certain ideas are more helpful to certain tasks, or certain situations, sure.

But that's what i call local applicability. Things that work where they work and when they work.

>>2800819
The thing itself does not have to be reasonable for taking the idea of the thing seriously to be reasonable.

That does not exclude the possibility of space elephants however. I certainly wouldn't gamble on encountering any in my lifetime though.

>>2800843
Yet every culture has a flood story long before they could have compared notes.

>>2800843
You sound like a murderer.

>>2800859
No, they don't. I'll agree that poster is not doing
a very good job of arguing, he's probably just trolling.

The underlying question is decent though. With so many easily refuted claims within the Bible, why do people take it as a credible source?

>>2800872
I think /sci/, and science alike, fail to take into account the maleability of the human mind. They fail to consider that they engage in fantasy activities which their minds do not distinguish from "real" activities. In fact, "real" is only a word that part of the mind understands.

>>2800859
And yet the burden of proof still remains with you, and you still remain unable to provide any proof for your beliefs. The best you can do is mount an argument from ignorance.

>>2800859
The stories prove that if God were real, not only does he blatantly favor some subjects over others, but he isn't even omnipotent enough to band together a group of prophets to write a convincing story. The Bible is an interesting story, but it doesn't offer shit in terms of role models. God's key characters (Noah, Moses, Jeremiah, even fucking Jesus) tried their damnest to opt out of his crazy schemes.

Think of Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel. God didn't step in, but he told Cain that he would be doomed to a life of wandering as a vagabond. A few passages later, Cain goes on to found a motherfucking city. Then when Cain is worrying that he'll get his ass kicked for killing his brother, God places a protective mark over Cain to protect him from harm. Funny how Abel wasn't treated with this same luxury to prevent all the wickedness to begin with, right? Curious how God decides to wait until this particular time to intervene for a killer when his hapless victim (whose sacrifices was looked upon with favor in God's eyes) was mercilessly slaughtered and left for the vultures in the middle of a field. Suddenly God's motives are looking sorta sketchy. But wait, he works in mysterious ways. Right.

>>2800862
>The thing itself does not have to be reasonable for taking the idea of the thing seriously to be reasonable.

Um, why not?

>>2800862
Everything is not valid. Some claims and ideas are backed up by the reality we know, others are not.

Stop using arguments against absolute certainty to promote fence sitting. Its counter productive to whatever progress is possible for thought.

>>2800819
I think you are slightly confusing the concept of a "god" with the concept of a "personal god".

>>2800886
Co-fucking-sign

>>2800886
Look, you need to be quiet. Its okay if you don't believe in the bible.

>>2800893
Well there are two ways to answer that.

On the smaller local scale, an idea can be useful even if its false because it can shift your perspective for looking at other ideas or situations, allowing you to gain insights you would not have otherwise.

Try constructing entire universes in your mind with specific rule sets you make up just to observe how things react in them to give you more insight on those things. This is very useful for understanding a thing more completely.

On the larger scale of 'the all of everything', i am quite sure that somewhere floating pink space elephants that shoot mosquitoifying rays from their trunks do indeed exist. So why would you say they don't? Do you have something against them?

>>2800906
>>2800906
Damn right I don't. And you shouldn't either. But it's okay. With technological and scientific advancement comes knowledge. And knowledge and a need for God are inversely proportional, knowledge being the independent variable. Eventually we'll weed the world of this stupidity once and for all and we can all live happier lives.

>>2800895
>backed up by the reality we know

You basically just argued that some things are valid because we think they are, and other things are valid because we don't.

There is no reason to be off the fence unless you have to actually make a decision about something. Really everyone should be on the fence about everything unless they no longer have that luxury. Then they should timidly do what looks the most probable, and hope they were right.

>>2800917
Fence-sitting too often is a sign of a wishy-washy person.

DAMN IT /SCI/.

THIS IS THE TEN THOUSANDTH TIME

REPORTED AND SO HELP ME GOD I HOPE YOU GET BANNED FOR ALL TIME, OP

YES I MAD

>>2800910
>On the larger scale of 'the all of everything', i am quite sure that somewhere floating pink space elephants that shoot mosquitoifying rays from their trunks do indeed exist. So why would you say they don't?

Because the idea is preposterous?

Sure it may be fun and even benficial to hypothesise about these fantasy scenarios, but when it gets taken seriously as part of society its kind of a problem.

>>2800920
What you don't understand is that being unsure about everything allows you to experience being sure about everything.

There are no differences between all and nothing.

If i take the position that i do not believe anything can be definitively known, i can also just believe everything, because i already have to trust things i do not know as being true enough to live my day to day life by.

So by being skeptical of everything, you can also believe whatever you want. You really can't fully understand an idea unless you believe it first, because an idea is not just a statement, but also a window which you see the rest of the universe through.

Im not on the fence because 'i cant decide', im on the fence because its the best vantage point.

>>2800917
>some things are valid because we think they are and others are not because we don't

What other standard would we use to evaluate claims beside our own minds? Even if we managed to find another standard, we'd have to use our minds to evaluate it as useful.

>>2800929
The further away from our current frame of reference we get the less and less preposterous is becomes.

Ive already said i don't suspect to ever encounter any, I however dont see what that has to do with the all of everything.

>>2800935
So to oversimplify: You're claiming to forgo being on a side so that you can fully understand all sides.

Is it necessary to do that in order to fully understand an idea? I don't think so.

>>2800927

These threads won't go away. There's a demand for them. Perhaps moot will provide us with a more suitable place for them to go.

>>2800939
Which is why i said:
>Everything is valid, not everything is useful.

Ive already got that covered. ~_^

The usefulness of an idea for any given situation is going to vary.

>>2800952

Why here? Why /sci/?

Why. Fucking. /sci/?

I want to talk about answerable goddamn questions, not engage in subjective philosophical and theological dickwaving..

>>2800947
I think so, because you cant understand an idea unless you also understand the.. counter idea(s)

And you cant understand anything fully unless you believe it while understanding it, which ive gone into already above.

An example, since /sci/ seems to be 'science and religion'. The argument of an atheist can not be given credibility unless he was at one time a theist, and the argument of a theist can not be given credibility unless at one time he was atheist.

The only person i will trust on anything is someone who has argued the opposite of what they are telling me, because then i know they actually decided what they think rather than were told what they think.

>>2800953
This discussion, while interesting, has little to do with the topic at hand.
It has now passed into the realm of "shit that doesn't matter."

>>2800968
This is where we disagree. Just because someone has never held a position personally doesn't mean they don't understand the position. Nor does it make the position they are arguing against more or less valid.

>>2800985
And that's not been my experience. You can think you understand the other side. You can know what words are strung together to make the arguments they use. But you won't actually understand what they are saying. Because your initial frame of reference of the thing in contention is different, all the arguments and words will simply act as a modifier on your understanding of it. You will have an idea of the other position which is your idea stretched or skewed to fit into a mold you have constructed with their arguments.

Once i learned how to believe what ever i wanted to, and change what i believed at will, i was amazed.

>>2800962
I agree with you bro.
Now, sage for the sage deity!

The whole point of defending Agnostic philosophy is basically "there is a chance that common sense may exist, so we should protect the parts that are COMMON for everyone."

The whole point of defending Gnostic philosophy is basically "there is a chance that common sense may exist, so we should protect the parts that make SENSE, for everyone."

See the fucking problem? We protect for the -common-, not the -sense-.

Agnostics are as useful as average pot smokers.

>>2800985

I would have to disagree, here, too. If one did not fully understand and accept another viewpoint, then the only argument that results are strawmen and filtered through personal bias.

When it comes to spiritual matters, the key to understanding another view is weighing idea equally is to have believed each idea equally, before deciding.

>>2801011
The point still stands. For example, if two people have a disagreement over whether it is day or night in Dallas, the person arguing one side doesn't have to believe what the other person believes to be right. The sun doesn't give two shits either way.
I think you're very intelligent, and I agree with some of your perspectives. However, your arguments all hinge on everyone else being inherently intellectually dishonest, and this comes off as quite smug.

>>2801046
Also wrong. An argument isn't formed in a vacuum, that's for sure, but that doesn't necessitate that the entire understanding of a position is built on bias. Stop making claims you can't possibly back up without being a fucking mind reader.

sage and report

>>2801065

I wasn't saying understanding a position is built upon bias. I was saying a MISunderstanding of a position RESULTS in a bias.

>>2801046
>When it comes to spiritual matters,

The problem is, you still elevate having faith to a higher degree than knowing what's happening.

Thinking like that is why schools HAVE TO dumb down education every year. To protect the idiots instead of educate the talented.

>>2800962

I gotta agree with you. I'm not an atheist, but I do enjoy discussing science because it deals with hard, objective reality. Religion OTOH is totally subjective. Men have sensed since the dawn of time that there's some kind of divine force out there, but they can't really understand it, which is why there have been multitudes of religions and gods throughout history.

>>2801089
I know, I guess I wasn't very clear in my statement.
>An argument isn't formed in a vaccuum, but that doesn't mean that whatever understanding a person forms is necessarily built on bias.

Better?

Back
>>2800677
For the sake of fuck, listen to the words that I am saying instead of fabricating things that don't make sense, telling us they don't make sense, and then insulting me.
Every religion is based in reality in some way or another
even if it were not it would, scientifically speaking, be impossible to determine that religion to be false
therefore scientifically no religion is false, and saying that because we have a theory and they don't (a false claim) is wrong.

>>2800723
I know exactly what it means. You're making a claim (religion is absolutely wrong) against the claim that religion is not absolutely wrong and therefore justifying it. As you say,
>If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.
If you say leprechauns don't exist I don't believe you, and do you know why? not because HURR UNLIKELY MUCH?, but instead because I have evidence that they don't exist, such as the improbably low number of cases of contact with leprechauns. I accept that they could exist because unlike you I'm not being absolutist.

Tl;Dr my entire point was that you were making a baseless claim. I used a further example to show the irrationality of that baseless claim, and now you are badgering me because I made a baseless claim, as if I have made some kind of obvious logical fallacy and you hadn't.

>>2801094
I elevate neither and personally hold both spiritual discernment and knowledge as equal. Well, because to me personally, they are both and the same.

no comment on your strawman about education.

>>2801058
But see you already make up your mind that it has to be day because the time.

What I would do is start with "okay, so its night. How could it be night in dalas?"

Then if I can not figure out any explanation for how it could be night in dalas, I will assume that it is probably not night in dalas.

>>2801094
Oh, God. Then politicians would have to be honest, AND deliver on their promises. Intelligent and knowledgeable citizens?!

Madness.

>>2800503
dumb, dumb, dumb

>>2801121
We are lacking knowledge far more than we are having faith in what we are educated in.

You may value both equally, but that is not what education is.

You can comfortably believe "A or (not A)" about any A. Your position is trivial.

>>2801121
We are lacking knowledge far more than we are forced to have faith in what we are educated.

You may value both equally, but that is not the standards of education.

>>2801121
I can't believe that you are not a troll. Forget everything I have said so far, it is physically and universally impossible you are this dumb and still on a science board.

>>2801141
Belief in a philosophy is as sane as any spirituality as it applies to people.

>>2801125
Aaaaand I'm outta here. Have fun guys.

>>2801159
He's probably one of the Baptist moderators. I'm betting he's a Protestant.

>>2801159
Ummm... Am I stupid?.jpg

>>2801187
neither. google Brahman. in short: it's all the same, just rearranged.

>God
>guaranteed replies

Apathetic master race reporting.

Have fun wasting your collective energies arguing over the existence or non-existence of something you can't conclusively prove on the internet.

Meanwhile, those of us who can put aside our religious beliefs (or just don't give a fuck either way) will be working together to do positive things in the real world.

>>2801216
>Brahman

Soooo, your kids should be taught(pick one):

A: Wisdom

or

B: Faith

in school?

>>2801236
Lazy agnostic atheist detected.

Enjoy hell.

>>2800112
>See OP, laugh at yet another lame attempt at a religion troll thread on /sci/, tell OP to go back to /b/ and lurk moar

.>>2801239

In school?

C. neither; knowledge.

>>2801271
Wisdom -is- knowledge(functional knowledge, like history being taught WITH economics), not "how many prayer beads can dance on the head of a pin".

Climb a wall of dicks, you ass-faced retard.

>>2801313

you really should look up the definition of wisdom before being a Billy Badass over tha interwebs.

>he doest understand the nature of reality

>>2801348
forgot pic

>>2801171
dumber, dumber, dumber

>>2801340
You really should not depend on "wisdom" from people who lived 2000 years ago, faggot. Experience is the best source of wisdom.

defining yourself as an agnostic is straight up retarded. it just shows you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

if you call yourself agnostic, i guarantee you're an atheist.

>>2801353
go experience drinking a gallon of bleach, k?

>>2801352
Explain. What are you referring to? For example: What Nietzsche sarcastically talked about and insulted was later corrupted and promoted into a Nazi philosophy by his sister.

>>2801369
Jelly rage is jelly.

>>2801354
Everyone that has faith in God is an Agnostic theist.

People that know God is there are Gnostic theists.

>>2801376
you know that from experience?

>>2801425
OOOooo. The jelly grows, and fumes.

If you're religious, then I think it can be experimentally shown that you have some reduced understanding of your mind. Usually religous people make some weird attributions to why they go through some life experiences, although they have nothing to base them on, other that some ancient stories of dead psychotic men or their own mild forms of psychosis/delusional thoughts.

>>2801439

>>2801451
Oh, and I forgot to say this. If you're agnostic, youre' nothing but a formerly religious who is in search of a new one. So, you got a lot in common with religious fags. ;)

But you want "something else", which is not so "mainstream".
Fuckin' religious hipsters.

>240 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I hate you, /sci/.

>>2801476
>formerly

>implying faith is not a precept of all religions

>>2801500
Don't hate /sci/, hate the mods.