/sci/ - Science & Math

Which god do you worship?

>>2805862

Christfag here. I will admit that I probably didn't convert anyone, but I do so enjoy dismembering atheistfags. The main difference between me and them is that I didn't have the arrogance to declare victory in that cancer thread you mention.

Remember: When atheists start calling you names or whip out Russell's Teapot, they've lost the argument.

>>2805883
The right one

>>2805883

None because I'd prefer to not pick the wrong one and suffer his/hers/its anger. Any one of them could be correct.

please just sage this shit

>agnostic
>implying you aren't an atheist

>>2805890

last post before I go to bed.
It uses logic so simple that even christfags can understand it.

Since you were 2 years old, your parents have told you that vanilla ice cream is the only ice cream you can eat because it is "god's" ice cream. You fucking love vanilla ice cream and want everybody to love vanilla the most because it's "god's" ice cream.

I've had vanilla ice cream before and thought it was ok, but I enjoy eating other flavors because they taste better to me. There are more flavors of ice cream out there and you're a fool if you only stick to one for such a stupid reason as you do.

/thread

>>2805900
So you're functionally an atheist, right?

I mean, if you don't aknowledge any gods..

Welcome to the fold!

Because a master troll said his piece today and inspired all the trolls of /sci/


/thread

>>2805890

I didn't see that thread. Exactly how did you "dismember" them?

>>2805909

what?

I will attempt to ignore troll. Damn to late.

5/10

Pluses: I'm responding. Thats good enough. In fact, most of /sci/ will argue the exact definition of atheism, resulting in a 100 post thread.

Minuses: Too obvious. Calling everyone a moron in the image is a bit much. Plus complaining about religion threads while simultaneously creating one isnt quite subtle enough.

Comments: The ironic last sentence was cute. All in all, the troll would probably not work on other boards but will probably work here. You have passes your first test of many in the art of trolling.. Now move to /v/ or /b/.

>>2805912

I think he's talking about this thread

>>2804820

except christians got destroyed in this one

/sci/ is stupid. They don't know how to sage shitty threads.

>>2805912

Thread's gone because it reached the posting limit, but I know we (there were more than one of us) won. See >>2805890 for the reasons why.

>see thread
>0 replies

>click "view"
>13 replies

Dear /sci/, please grow up.

>>2805904

this.

/thread

le sigh

>>2805909
Krauss and Craig debated this afternoon.

please

>>2805862
>Atheists: You didn't convert anyone to your beliefs or prove that they're correct or win the argument.
>Christfags: You didn't convert anyone to your beliefs or prove that they're correct or win the argument.

Actually, according to various posts to Dawkin's website, PZ myers website, and so on, there are theists who change their mind after reading the new atheist books and hearing their arguments. Generally they're already in a position where they're open to listening, as opposed to die hard fundamentals like Kurt Wise.

Thus your premise is wrong OP.

If you're referring to AMDG, hes a master troll and impossible to debate with.

>>2805904

But what if you not only don't like ice cream, you tell those who do like it that they're stupid and throw all their ice cream cones on the ground?

>>2805943

no dude, we fucking raped AMDG in this thread >>2804820. I legitimately think we slightly cracked open his closed mind.

>>2805929
protip: you're called names because you are posting RELIGIOUS TOPICS in a SCIENCE AND MATH board. Fuck, stay on topic or gtfo. We don't like your kind around here.

Take that as a "HAHA i wun argument" if you want, I don't fucking care. Just take your drivel elsewhere, I have more interesting things to discuss.

I'm an atheist-agnostic-pantheist, depending on the day.

Problem?

>>2805942

I've heard all the atheist arguments before. They totally fly in the face of logic, common sense, history, human nature, and everything else.

>>2805945
Imagine a world where people make their children only eat ice cream, depriving them of essential nutrients.

Make it so other people can't adopt children if they don't eat the right flavor, or vanilla eaters go to war with chocolate eaters because the vanilla eater leader believes he speaks to the ice cream man.

>>2805961

you haven't heard the arguments in this thread >>2804820

>>2805957

I have debated with MANY times, and "won" a few exchanges. But he just keeps coming back, same arguments, same bullshit. At first i really did take him seriously, but hes a troll.

He posted on /new/ and /r9k/ alot.

>>2805961
>no evidence for god
>flies in the face of logic
>mfw obvious troll

>>2805965

god, we need to work on this, I think it has promise. we can use this to make christfags shutup forever.

>>2805958

Well, if atheists quit taking cheap shots at Christians, it wouldn't be necessary, would it? I have nothing against science and find it very interesting, but I do so dislike the tendency of certain people to use it as an excuse to attack the beliefs of others.

Remember: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God

>>2805978
Neither can Christians.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

>>2805978
>Remember: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God
Yes it can. It has disproved the existence of god, just as much as it has disproved the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

If you're going to bring up the strawman of a non-interfering god, I'll just tell you to fuck off. Almost no one actually believes in a non-interfering god, so it is a strawman. They believe in miracles, and science has shown that miracles do not exist.

>>2805978

you know what friend, there might be a god.

atheists are mostly attacking your stupidity for doing what the man in the funny hat tells you to do and only eating one flavor of ice cream and being mad at people who eat other flavors.

you're a sheep

>>2805978
So why should religion have anything to do with science or a pragmatic education?

This is the problem secularists have with theists. They force their religious doctrine on others, when there is no verifiable reason for that doctrine to be valid.

>>2805985

you don't need to disprove god, you just need to prove that christianity is full of shit.

>>2805965

>Imagine a world where people make their children only eat ice cream, depriving them of essential nutrients.

Exactly. That would be like raising a child with no moral standards and telling him "Aw, there ain't no God. That's just BS designed to hold you back from having a good time and doing whatever you feel like."

And then your child ends up like this,

>>2805999
don't respond to this post.

Just sage the fucking thread you goddamn retards and piss-poor counter-trolls.

>>2805999
In great shape and having a great time?

>>2805985

Whoops. Can't prove a negative. Try again.

>>2805999
>And then your child ends up like this,
I see nothing wrong with anyone in the picture.

Inb4 the automated bot spam about gay engineers.

>>2805999
I have no problem with adults participating in leather enthusiasm.

Morality does not require a god. I can be good without your daddy watching me all the time.

>>2806008
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.

>>2806011
>Inb4 the automated bot spam about gay engineers.

Wait....really?

guys you are arguing the wrong point.

you can spend years trying to convince christfags that there is no god, or you can simply attack their religion at the base and expose why it's stupid without even having to talk about god.

>>2806017
Sometimes I swear there are times as soon as someone mentions engineer in a thread, someone posts a gay joke. Maybe it's not automated, but just some jackass who /really/ wants to force that goddamned meme. I wish I could perma ban anyone who does that inane shit.

>>2806013

You can do whatever you feel like. In the privacy of your bedroom.

>>2805999
Except humans have been around far far longer than Christianity and they clearly were able to keep from murdering and raping everyone around them. Nice logic bro.
The bible can't be a source of morals because it contradicts itself on nearly everything.

P1: If there were a higher power, it would not let the posters here be such idiots.
P2: The posters here are idiots.
C: There is no such higher power.

R1: The higher power in question is a dick.

>>2805989

>and only eating one flavor of ice cream and being mad at people who eat other flavors.

Wrong. I respect all beliefs and religions that are based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

>>2806023
It seems like everyone in that picture is having a good time.

Why would anyone be there who wasn't having fun?

Unless they wanted to stop other people I mean.

>>2806033
>Wrong. I respect all beliefs and religions that are based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
And if they wanted Sharia law done unto themselves, then...?

The golden rule is a good starting point for morality and ethics, but it's definitely not complete nor sufficient.

>>2806026

Strictly speaking, the Bible has general moral guidelines rather than absolute commands.

>>2806033
You know as well as I do that the majority of people do not feel this way.

>>2806047
Yknow except for that part where if you don't repent, you suffer for eternity.

The only command is that you have to be God's bitch.

>>2806047
What? The bible is full of specific rules. Chock full of them.

>>2806041

That still wouldn't have been a problem except that...well, I'll let you figure out what's happening here.

>>2806047
Yes, and many of them are in complete contradiction with each other.
The fact still stands that humans had morals loooong before the bible.

>>2806048

Certainly not Muslims and atheists anyway.

>>2806060
Yes, and?

Is that any worse than a young girl in a two piece bikini "showing off her body" at the beach?

I admit, the parents are probably showing somewhat poor judgment because it's not accepted in our culture, and that could be bad for the children because they'll have hard times interacting with other children, but there's nothing wrong with that beyond that culture relative issue.

>>2806058

You're not forced to obey them. You can gladly destroy yourself as much as you want.

>>2806060
Oh no, shirtless men.

>>2806073
You're being intentionally dishonest.

>>2806082

This is an almost universal taboo that you don't expose children to sex if you can help it, especially not that sort of behavior. Any parent who takes their child to a leather parade belongs in jail.

>>2806095

Oh, it gets worse.

>>2806100
I'm going to need some more evidence that image is from an explicitly sexual event.

>>2806100
Nice morality judgement. Very narrow-minded and an example of the average person not understanding cultural relativism

>>2806105
Where are the children in this picture?

>>2806100
I don't know much about it. I also disagree that exposing children to sex is wrong. It's a taboo that's rather silly.

As I said, I'll stick by my opinion that they're showing bad judgment because they'll make the kids's lives harder because they'll think it's "normal" when society is sexually repressed. So yes, I'm saying that perhaps a little bit of sexual repression is good for them, sadly.

/Having sex/ with children is pretty wrong though, but that's not what's happening here.

>>2806082
Thanks. You just fucking made me remember those youtube videos of little girls dancing in lingerie.

Y'all can look up the details about the Folsom Street Fair. They've got naked people, guys whipping each other, masturbating in public, etc. They ain't just walking around in funny costumes

>>2806100
An alien viewing earthlings would think it quite absurd that we try to hide one of the most basic, fundamental, portions of our existence from our young ones. Why is it tantamount to keep knowledge of reproduction under wraps? Grow up.

>>2806105
Ok, going to incredibly poor judgment by the parents if that is to be expected from attending the event.

Of course, you're trying to imply that atheist -> poor judgment, and you're just providing anecdotal evidence, so you're going nowhere fast.

>>2806100
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh0QGKgucKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYRIYL5uP6w&feature=related

Is this all theists can do? Point at gay men and preach how obviously evil and corrupting they are?

Religion always needs an enemy to scare people into believing their doctrine. Since god conveniently isn't here to do it nowadays, theists need to turn real people into the boogeyman.

Before it was Blacks. Then it was Communists. Now it's gays. What do you suppose the next group will be, atheists?

>>2806127

Because as we all know, leather parades are just as wholesome as your grandmother. In fact, they're even more wholesome than your grandmother.

(pic semi-related)

>>2806124
Probably not the event to take a child to. I fail to see what this has to do with the god, though.

>>2806130
Wow, how morally corrupt. All of their parents must be atheists.

>>2806134
>Before it was Blacks. Then it was Communists. Now it's gays. What do you suppose the next group will be, atheists?
It always was atheists. The atheists are just a bit more vocal now, so the theist engine of slander is turning their attention our way now.

>>2806137
Define "wholesome" as if I were an outside observer, and I'll spend the extra time to read the rest of your reply.

>>2806138
>atheists
Bullshit. You know they are christian.

>>2806144
Sarcasm.

I don't think any of the pictured people attend church on Sunday. That aside, they had an official poster which was mocking Christians in essence.

>>2806147
I apologize. On /sci/ it is hard to discern sarcasm for trolling.

>>2806148
Why wouldn't they mock one of the most prominent groups involved in keeping them from behaving as they wish?

>>2806137
So, bringing you kids to see some men doing sexual acts in leather is "child abuse"?

Scaring your children by telling that if they don't go to church every Sunday they would be damned to hell for eternity is not child abuse?

>>2806153
Hm. I would not bring a child to either event, but one of these is socially acceptable and the other is not.

Which is more common, as well? Regardless, the problem lies with the parents who bring them, not the other people.

>>2806153

>So, bringing you kids to see some men doing sexual acts in leather is "child abuse"?

Yeah, I would say that.

>Scaring your children by telling that if they don't go to church every Sunday they would be damned to hell for eternity is not child abuse?

I honestly don't know anyone who does that. My mother is strongly religious and also believes in the full panoply of /x stuff, but she doesn't belong to any church because she says that none of the ones she's attended were that inspiring.

>>2806100
>This is an almost universal taboo
the ignorance is strong in this one

>>2806164
>Jesus Camp
I know some fucked up christians who do that to their kids. Fucking south mang.

>>2806152

See >>2806023

>>2806168

In what way is it not a universal taboo?

>>2806174

Don't live in the South or know anyone who does that.

>>2806180
see
>>2806127

THINK about it. With your bran. You're on a science and math board, try to use reason.

>>2806186

>>2806127 is a totally baseless assertion.

>>2805943

AMDG is a cool guy. I don't agree with all of his views, but he spanked the atheist trolls in that other thread pretty bad.

>>2806164
>>2806183
Let's say that you hear about a parent who lies to their children, telling them that the words in a book are the absolute truth and they should never question it. Imagine if that parent fully convinces their child that a fairy tale is the truth and they should reject science. Imagine if they tell that child that a cosmologically powerful being was looking out for them, either giving them false hope or intimidating them? Does that constitute as child abuse?

>>2806180
in the same way that the abrahamic creation story is not universal

Keep it in one thread you retards:
>>2803286

>>2806180
Repeat after me: what is natural is not necessarily moral, and what is moral is not necessarily natural.

In fact, natural and moral are frequently in direct opposition.

>>2806200

But that's just your own POV. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

>>2806188
>baseless assertion.
>oh, wait..

>Quite a few discarded their weapons and gestured to us to throw the fish. The women came out of the shade to watch our antics...A few men came and picked up the fish. They appeared to be gratified, but there did not seem to be much softening to their hostile attitude...They all began shouting some incomprehensible words. We shouted back and gestured to indicate that we wanted to be friends. The tension did not ease. At this moment, a strange thing happened — a woman paired off with a warrior and sat on the sand in a passionate embrace. This act was being repeated by other women, each claiming a warrior for herself, a sort of community mating, as it were. Thus did the militant group diminish. This continued for quite some time and when the tempo of this frenzied dance of desire abated, the couples retired into the shade of the jungle. However, some warriors were still on guard. We got close to the shore and threw some more fish which were immediately retrieved by a few youngsters. It was well past noon and we headed back to the ship...

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

>>2806211
>>2806216
>>2806219
Thread is here:
>>2803286

>>2806219

So some tribal people are equivalent to the same civilization that invented electricity? Seems to me that Western culture has contributed a lot more to the progress of mankind than they did.

>>2806232
go to
>>2803286

>>2806239
>>2806222
>>2806209

fuck off samefag

>>2806243
Fuck yourself. There isn't even supposed to be one of these threads, let alone three on the front page.

>>2806232
>WHOOSH

There is no such thing as a "universal taboo", the thought is ludicrous.

As is hiding the evils of...'why any of us have ever come in to existence, by means of our fathers impregnating our mothers' from our children. It's fucking stupid. Why is that knowledge considered not-wholesome? What is wholesome? That is a HUGE part of the human experience, reproduction is not a taboo. Penises are not taboo, half of us have one. Vaginas are not taboo...etc.

Again, mature yourself.

<span class="math">
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\def \f {\f} \f
[/spoiler]

>>2806232
>>2806232
>Seems to me that Western culture has contributed a lot more to the progress of mankind than they did

I agree thank goodness for the romans and greeks,

>>2805862

>>2806249
>>2806255
thread is at
>>2803286

>>2806255

Strictly speaking, a merger of Christianity and Greco-Roman culture.

>>2806258
>XKCD

Are you trying to convince us of something, or are you trying to make a satire?

>>2806271

Not the same guy, but I think the pic is supposed to represent agnostics.

>>2806258
But the MOST important thing is that Randall has found a way to be superior to all three!

>>2806276
Agnostic...what?

You can't just be an "agnostic". You're either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Don't sit on the fucking fence all day. You either believe in a deity or don't.

>>2806289
What the fuck are you saying? Agnosticism is generally considered to be a lack of positive belief for god, and a lack of positive belief against god. That's a perfectly sensical position to hold. I disagree with it, but it's comprehensable.

All agnostics are atheist in practice.
>MFW I realised this

112 posts and 19 images

why.jpg

>>2806313
forgot your sage

>an agnostic thinks that OFF is just another TV channel

>>2806300
Doesn't it all boil down to a simple yes/no question? You can ask an agnostic: "Do you believe in Krishna/Odin/Zeus/Rama/etc." and if they answer "yes", they're a theist. If they answer "no", they're an atheist.

Whoever sits in the middle is too stupid to answer the question. Theism/Atheism isn't that complicated.

>>2806327
Nice analogy. Didn't think of that.

>>2806327

Actually it would like a TV channel dedicated to telling the other channels and their viewers how much they suck.

>>2806331
Depends how you define the terms. Here are the common groupings of people:

- Theist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who regularly interferes in human affairs.
- Deist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who made the universe, but otherwise does not interfere.
- Ignorant - Hasn't made up his mind yet, and/or is waiting for more evidence. Sometimes called agnostic. Sometimes called atheist.
- Strong agnostic - Holds a positive belief that there cannot be good arguments for or against the existence of god, theist or deist. Sometimes called atheist.
- Atheist - Aka the common Dawkins-style weak atheist. Holds a positive belief that the evidence disproves the theist god. Holds that the other kinds of gods are unnecessary, untestable, and ultimately simply mental masturbation. Furthermore holds that positive belief in either kind of god is delusion.

You're taking a rather broad definition of atheists, which the agnostics do not like. The self proclaimed agnostics want to differentiate themselves from the Dawkins style atheists like me who actively proclaim that god does not exist.

>>2806331

> Whoever sits in the middle is too stupid to answer the question. Theism/Atheism isn't that complicated

Oh I'm sorry, and you have somehow an authority of what a deity really is? All talk about deities are nonsense, deal with it.

>>2806339

We agnostics prefer to not associate with Dawkins atheists because we don't go for the "LOL CHRISTFAGS BELIEVE IN INVISIBLE PINK LEPRECHAUNS AND GOD SUCKS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GIVE ME TWO HEADS SO I CAN DO HOMEWORK WITH ONE AND LOOK AT PORN WITH THE OTHER! XD" schtick.

>>2806342

Theists present to you their ideas on what a deity is just like fairy tales present to you the idea of what a fairy is.

Neither of the ideas are based in reality.

Get over it.

/thread

>>2806350

Okay hipster. We get it already. You are too cool for us agnostic atheists!

La di da!