/sci/ - Science & Math

Three things you dont ever want to talk about with a stranger

religion, politics, and family

stop being such a fag op

>>2911894
RABBITS DO NOT LAY EGGS!

Prepared to be pummelled with stupid.
Alone there's no way you can win against that many crazies

I bet your the same guy who posted on r9k about why you were so alone and you had no answer for that.

Here's your answer.

>>2911901

fucking lol'd

Your an asshole. kill yourself

>>2911903

This man speaks the truth.

>>2911900

Look at the origin of the phrase. You might find it interesting... though it'll have different forms.

>>2911900
they aren't exactly strangers, a fair few share accommodation with me.
i need to say something, i dont want to start arguments, i just want to make them think.

>>2911894

>easter bible discussion

>what points and arguments should i raise?


Just eat the free cake heathen and keep your thoughts to yourself.

also 3/10

>>2911921
Well regardless why OP wants to start drama somewhere where he will clearly be outweighed is just damn stupid and you're wasting your time.

An atheist believes theres no God with his logical mind, heart, and spirit. OP doesnt need to "prove" atheism to anyone. It just seems like lack of social interactions

>>2911915
How is he any more an asshole than students who criticise their science teacher because he's not teaching "the facts".
>But, Sir. The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, so how could there possibly have been people living 7000 years ago?

be sure to wear that shirt that says "I'm an atheist, debate me"

>>2911924
no troll.
i was planning on just eating the delicious cake, but i cant be sure that ill be able to hold my tongue.

Tell them you've got a neighbour who you think is practising witchcraft, and you'd like to find out the proper procedure for testing them and eventually burning them at the stake.

Here's the thing OP.

Every SINGLE individual who believes in religion will NOT critically assess their own perspective religion. Maybe you might raise some excellent points(there are many). But i have completely CRUSHED individuals with logic and reason but the simply wont lesson. They won't apply their critical thinking skills to their religion.

Some points you can bring up:
The bible is written by man. IF they object, point out how many things it got wrong

Even if the bible is true, and god exists, hes a morally corrupt in almost every sense. Everyone is more moral than the god of the bible.

Not a single contemporary account for Jesus's existence outside the bible. If they mention josephus, he lived almost 50 years after jesus's death.

That's just to name a few.

Good luck =)

According to the bible pi is exactly three.
yrly

easter is for little kids to get free chocolate and money, it's hardly even a religious event anymore. quit being a faget.

science will triumph over religion the same way that major religions triumphed over others. through slow assimilation of their culture.

Holy shit OP, immature by leaps and bounds. Enjoy your future of pseudo-intellectual militant atheism. I don't expect to see your names on any relevant papers in the future.

Fuck you, all of you are wrong anyway.

>>2911942
The basis for the Old Testament was an effort to "nationalize" the tribes of Palestine after they got repeatedly spanked by bigger empires. The dates are all kinds of fucked with no evidence that any of the events happened when the OT claims.

Google's your friend for sources.

>>2911942
thanks bro, some valid points
>>2911952
im not trying to be all hurr hurr atheyisum, this is a discussion that was open to everyone, and specifically non-believers. i dont want to start a shit storm, i am generally interested in the way religious people think and i wish to start some wholesome discussion

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

EVERYTHING YOU NEED

>>2911894
You're a faggot OP why are you gonna shit on their little ignorant parade just for a free cake. Seriously just leave them the fuck alone

No wonder /sci/ never gets laid, /sci/ cant perform basic social interactions

>>2911984
What makes you think we never get laid?
I've had sex tons of times

>im going to an easter bible discussion tonight

I don't believe you for one fucking second

>>2911989
Yourself doesnt count

>>2911990
why?

>>2911984

Sorry, i thought we where on /sci/. And science is interested in truth.

I can totally understand belief. And i will fight for your right to have that belief. But that doesn't mean we can't have a frank and open discussion about belief. If you think that all discussions about religion are shouting matches, then i you haven't been involved in discussions with mature people.

What are you? 17?

>>2911942
>Every SINGLE individual who believes in religion will NOT critically assess their own perspective religion.
You are so wrong.

You "atheists" are worse than GUUUUUURRL GAMERS!

You should be apatheist or a nihilist.

>>2912017

To believe in religion would be intellectually disingenuous, I believe his statement is correct on many accounts. I too have pointed out several flaws in various religions and moreover the fact that they were written by simple minded people. They refuse to acknowledge this and cherry pick the passages that make them feel [insert emotion here] for whatever reason they want.

>>2912017

How am i wrong?

>>2911978
>i dont want to start a shit storm, i am generally interested in the way religious people think and i wish to start some wholesome discussion
You'd be surprised how divided different sects of just a single religion is.

You'll have idiots.
You'll have people who just coast by and don't care.
You'll have people who actually put thought into things.

I'm not sure what denomination you're going to, but don't expect much from simple followeres.

Go to a Christian university and try to bring up topics to people whom their whole life has been dedicated to studying scripture. You'd be surprised.

>>2912009
I'm an atheist you dweeb once you grow the fuck up and realize that world doesnt work like your pathetic mind thinks it does then you would stfu.

NO religious person is gonna have an "open" discussion with something they STRONGLY believe in. IT's like you, hypothetically speaking if a Religious Person is PWNING you in a conversation you're still gonna hold your beliefs. That's what Facebook and 4chan and shit like that is for so you can talk shit and just talk shit. In real life, just dont bring up atheism to a religious person you're gonna cause a shitstorm.

>>2912026

I think that statement is true for Atheists as well. You have agnostics who at times somehow think they aren't anything like us... And you also have atheists who want to develop a counter version of the bible... Ignoring the lack of belief inherent in our description to try and topple the thing they want to destroy; Ultimately they'll just become the thing they hate IMO.

>>2912024
> I too have pointed out several flaws in various religions and moreover the fact that they were written by simple minded people
I'm not sure about other religious texts, but if you have read the Bible once, it doesn't give you the knowledge to be able to criticize it. It's quite complex.
>They refuse to acknowledge this and cherry pick the passages that make them feel [insert emotion here] for whatever reason they want
True, there are huge groups of people who do this in evey religion and actually every belief system, even atheists. But you're still implying this includes all of them, which isn't true.

Don't do it OP. You can't win. Even if you do somehow manage to get an argument in edge-wise while the whole room tag-teams you and just instantly agrees with whatever one of their members say, no matter how stupid, they won't listen to your arguments. You could deliver a philosophical argument that PROVES god can't possibly exist and they would just brush you off and call you a fool before kicking you out.

If you want to troll then just tell them that Satan is really the guy they should be worshiping since he gave humans knowledge and intelligence.

>>2912036
>NO religious person is gonna have an "open" discussion with something they STRONGLY believe in
You have totally talked to every person in the world, haven't you?

>I'm going to a social gathering of people I vehemently disagree with to make a total ass of myself. Any advice?
FTFY

>>2912039

>I'm not sure about other religious texts, but if you have read the Bible once, it doesn't give you the knowledge to be able to criticize it. It's quite complex.

Im not sure if YOU read the bible... More to the point im not sure if you read the Old and New testaments. They contradict each other on SOOOO many levels.

. >>2912045
Go to at least 10 Christians church
Ask any person if he's willing to debate Atheism with you

Mfw when you finally see how the world works faggot

>>2912024
Could say the same exact thing for atheists.

>>2911894
>op goes to bible discussion
>to argue and use atheist talking points
>complete disregard for etiquette and manners

people like you make educated atheists look bad.
although, you obviously aren't educated being as you started this thread

>well played op, i replied 3/10

>>2912036

>NO religious person is gonna have an "open" discussion with something they STRONGLY believe in. IT's like you, hypothetically speaking if a Religious Person is PWNING you in a conversation you're still gonna hold your beliefs.

Of course they will cling to their beliefs. But that doesn't stop me from having conversations with people. I don't understand how you can see that as a problem. It seems painstakingly clear that you can't realize a conversation that doesn't have a winner or a loser. I dont seek to dominate an individual , and expect a swift conversion. I raise these points, and i hope they reach the same conclusion i have.


> In real life, just dont bring up atheism to a religious person you're gonna cause a shitstorm.

Who said we where bringing this up in the middle of the day? Of course i understand that EVERY topic has it's area of conversation.I avoid discussions about politics or religion unless i know the person. Once i do, and they understand i don't mean to offend, i will have a conversation with them if the topic arises.

>>2912051
>Im not sure if YOU read the bible... More to the point im not sure if you read the Old and New testaments. They contradict each other on SOOOO many levels.
Okay, kid. Whatever you say.

I could go on so many levels where you are wrong, but I'm too tired too, and honestly, it would take a bit to write.

Anywho, I bet you can't even tell me why the OT isn't relevant to the NT, but is at the same time.

Have fun with that one!

>>2912055
This

>>2912053

We dont believe in sky wizards, magic fire and demons haunting the world. Explain how it is intellectually disingenuous to be atheist. Otherwise 3/10 you made me reply....

>>2912057
Because you're a faggot. You have your beliefs, they have theirs. No one wants to hear your atheism ideas when its their fucking EASTER CELEBRATION you gigantic moronic faggot

>>2912060

Cry moar. If you arent gonna explain your point, why bother raising it?

They might not be relevant to each other, but they are still doctrines that Christians are prescribed to live by.

So ultimately they are to be treated separate but equal? another integrity issue I see.

I've learned that arguing with a group of people who don't hold my opinions meaningless.

I get a 3 day ban for racism, and this shitty thread has been up for almost an hour...never change mods

>>2912064
>he can't comprehend a being far more advanced than we could ever comprehend making everything from physics, laws, light, mass, time, basically existence, but he'll cling onto theories riddled with wholes that will be replaced by more theories then those with more theories
Pretty much sums it up.

Just don't say anything, OP.

Dare question their skygod? HOW RUDE AND UNCIVILISED OF YOU!

Everybody play the hurt feelings card!

MATURITY.

>>2912064
>We dont believe in sky wizards
Stopped reading right there. Seems some people can't grasp certain concepts. Have fun being simple minded

>>2912083
>>2912064
Examples like this wouldnt go well in real life. OP you're still a faggot

>>2912081

>Complaining about the content of an anonymous image board

Stay classy, buttmad Christfag.

>>2912070

First of all, i don't have beliefs. I have conclusions drawn from demonstrable scientific knowledgeable. If i don't know the answer to a question, i say "i don't know".

Second, i wouldn't dare discuss to debate this stuff on easter. That's OP's deal.

I don't want to say it, but you fit the spitting image of an angsty teenage atheist. You might be confused at this point in your life. Know when to pick your battles.

>>2912084
>go to science board
>insult science
>people have a deep conversation with you
>MATURIDERP

>>2912084
are you trolling or clinically retarded?

>>2912099

>insult science

...Excuse me?

How the hell do you "insult" science? Science is a method, you twat.

I just don't even.

>>2912102

Little from column A and a little from column B.

>>2912098
No I know Evolution is a fact, and I am an Atheist. However, when you are being a complete moron going somewhere that clearly says "For Religious People only" Any logical minded person would not go there on a basis of trolling IRL (i hope) because it sets a bad image and makes you look arrogant. Therefore, you have to sometimes keep your beliefs to yourself. Same thing with Christians, it would be pretty stupid for a Christian to go to a Atheist convention just for some coffee and cookies. Just keep your believes and your logical explanations to yourself until someone inquires you about it. now shut up

>>2912098

Stop prescribing shit over an image board, you fit the profile of a douchebag wanna be smart ass who wants to exert his sophistry upon the world. See what I did there. No one likes it.

>>2912108
>insult subject
>expect people that believe in said subject to listen
>expect people that believe in said subject to engage in polite discussion
>DERP

>>2912117

We haven't clarified what OP was going to. Was the event intended to be a debate? If no, your correct, debates like these should only be had when the audience welcomes it.

>>2912119

Your personal attacks don't do anything to support your argument. I don't talk about this stuff unless someone WANTS to talk about it. This is a fucking science board. And although it may be off topic, we're talking about it. I think you are way too quick to characterize me as the aggressive atheist.I have many friends who have no idea what my "beliefs are" and i prefer it that way. It keeps things simple.

From my own experience of Catholics (not necessary yours), they make their cakes with way too much flour.
Then they try to get you to buy them for church's benefit.
When I was still in catechism, they even made me pay for a slice of the chocolate cake I brought them. It sold very well because it actually had sugar and chocolate in it.

>>2911894

Simple. If you cannot respect the beliefs of others, don't say anything. I sure wouldn't want someone at my Easter dinner with Richard D.'s crotch in his mouth.

>>2912134

That wasnt the point... It was to illustrate what YOU did conversely... I guess it went right by you though...

>>2912147

You're correct, i missed your point. Why would i care what people like your dislike? First of all, you don't know what all people like or dislike. You think you speak for everyone? You think that EVERYONE doesn't like it when people like me want to have conversations about religion.


That's certainly an assertion

>>2912162

Nice way to make your assertion look like it came from me.

>>2912176

>No one likes it.

>>2912201

>mfw you cant detect the sarcasm

>>2912216

>implying you can detect sarcasm though the internet.

>>2912228

>yfw I just detected your autism

>>2911932
>Implying Atheists have a spirit

>>2912294

You're correct; they don't. We Christfags do, but they don't.

/thread

>>2912294
>>2912297

Doesn't understand what spirit means as a metaphor - to be in a good or bad spirit - or to do something in the spirit of someone else.

You fags need to stop trying to get in the last word and let this thread die.

>>2912338
you need to stop being such a fag and let yourself die

Hey Op, Im a christfag myself, but I believe my fellow Christians should get a good debate, and I would like to give you some suggestions:
First of all, you can't have a discussion if you don't respect the other side, that respect has to come from both ways. You can't ever convince someone if they feel like they're just being insulted.
Also, Christians are usually not the stereotypes that are mentioned on boards like these. No thinking Christian for example sees God as a bearded guy on a cloud, that would be Zeus. Try to avoid those pitfalls.
Don't ever say that something is proven, without giving said proof, it looks weak.
Christians also wouldn't agree with you that there is no evidence for their faith. Many Christians have either had personal experiences, know someone who had them, or put a lot of value in the Bible and the long history of Christianity as a credible source.

Also, attempting to prove evolution is not going to work. Many Christians already consider the possibility that evolution is God's way of creating life.

What I would suggest is bringing up points from the Bible itself, they can relate a lot more to that. Ask why children are born with genetic defects for example, that sort of question is way more thought provoking than saying evolution is proven. Or focus on some of the events in the Bible which are morally somewhat odd, such as a case where several children are mauled by bears for making fun of Elisha. Or focus on slavery.

And many-worlds interpretation, try that. Very devastating. Way more so than evolution.

Oh and attempt to avoid situations where both of you don't know the answer. Both the origin of God and the universe are somewhat of a mystery. So "where does God come from?" will just be met with: "and how did the big bang start then eh?", both parties will feel like they're right, and convincing yourself should not be necessary.

>>2912433

>setup rival opinion to fail

I'd politely tell them that I don't believe what they believe. Then say that I am a non-religious transhumanist--who thinks of mind uploading as a true form of reincarnation--, and finish with:

"But I respect your right to think what you will--so long as you don't force your stuff on me."

How would most of them react to this?

>>2912450

They will laugh at you for thinking that training a computer to make decisions in a similar manner to the way you would make decisions is the same as being physically, mentally, and spiritually reincarnated.

>>2912433

>Many Christians already consider the possibility that evolution is God's way of creating life

So what the fuck was Adam & Eve in Genesis all about? This is specifically what a lot of atheists mention when we talk about being intellectually disingenuous. Being unable to call it bullshit despite it looking, smelling and tasting like it.

>>2912465

What if I replayed that they were being intolerant for not respecting my ideals, as I said I would respect theirs?

>>2912494

>replied

fixed.

>>2912483

>He doesn't understand metaphors

>>2912494

They would nod, smile and attempt to contain their laughter until you left.

>>2912500

So you admit that the various religions are simply metaphorical explanations that exists as a placeholder until science can fully describe the material world?

>>2912500

>he doesn't understand Christians take it literally.

>>2912516

>He think's ALL christians take it literally.

>>2912483
Mormon here, my religious beliefs are slightly different than those of mainstream Christianity but having graduated from a religious university where religion was required for any degree I may be able to help answer that better than most people browsing on /sci/. Mainstream Christians are welcome to disagree, add to, or change what I have to say.

3 to 5,000 years ago God was trying to describe to shepherds how the Earth was created eons and eons ago. Discussing in great detail about the origins of species, survival of the fittest, the nature of the cosmos, the age of the Earth and other such things would have confused the hell out of them. He kept things simple and explained their origins in relation to himself as their divine creator.

Add to that the Bible has passed through hundreds of hands over centuries of time it is no longer the pure and perfect word of God it once was. Examples are everywhere within the Bible of mistakes. A good example is asking 'what is the proper method of baptism?' and you'll get 500 answers which is what creates splinters and opposing faiths.

Some parts are simply missing

Discussing with a scholar about the origins of Adam and Eve in relation to physical science and evolution will do nothing to further your cause. At best you can confuse uneducated people but then they'll simply ask a more educated preacher or scholar and you'll have failed 999 times out of a thousand to accomplish anything toward convincing anyone.

I could go in greater detail but that's enough for an anonymous image board.

>>2912506

What if I got really annoyed by this intolerance and scream they are just as bad as some of the really fanatical atheist which assault their ideals?

Or...

What if I quietly remarked that they would be roting, while me 6.0 will be walking on mars in his semi-organic body as I left?

>>2912483

There had to be a first creature that could be called homo sapiens at some point. We simply call him Adam. (or it could have been the first human to use language)
The question where Eve comes from is a bit more complicated if Adam was the first human, but being created from Adams bone.. It does sort of sound like she is also Adams daughter.
Although she may well be closely related to Adam, a sister perhaps.

Anyway, the idea is that Adam and Eve got separated from their ancestors, thereby forming a new community of humanoids.
A hint to the fact that Adam and Eve weren't the only humanoids comes from Kain, who ran from this newly formed community and found himself a mate somewhere.

>>2912521

So basically, you believe the majority of humanity is mildly retarded by design because God did not have the patience to actually describe anything of value to us, so instead left us with a single book to be dazzled by exciting stories... the analog of the truant parent who is incapable of educating their progeny so instead sits their children down in front of a television to develop ADD and autism one episode of Pokemon at a time.

>>2912528

>cant see the social construct is evolving to fit facts and doesn't wanna call it bullshit to avoid offending people.

>>2912523

I think you mean a robot made to vaguely resemble you and trained to emulate your thought processes to the best of its ability

find a chick who is at least half good looking, break her in, and fuck her in the church. do eeeeeet.

>>2912528

You are completely disregarding the eden construct, but its ok, only YOU have to THINK anything you said makes sense to self-validate your opinions.

>>2912551

why stop at a fat chick when you still have time to track down a haitian transvestite on craigslist?

if people were made from dirt why is there still dirt?

Trying to 'convert' people can be done a right way and a wrong way.
"So what church do you go to?"
"Well, I'm actually an atheist."
"Oh really? How come?"
...... Make logical debate.
Or go to a debate or discussion that has been set up for this.

What you are doing is.
*Burst into bible discussion dinner*
"GOD DOESNT REEL FAGETS DEBATED ME NAO! KEEP IT LOGICOOL AND INTELLECTCOOL THUGH!!"

>>2912521
>Mormon
Get the fuck out.

You're just as bad as Scientologists.

Not to mention the NT says a giant "fuck you" to your "extra episode."

Have fun with magic diapers and such.

>>2912567
>implying magic underwear is any more ridiculous than mainstream christian superstitions

>>2912547

Isn't that pat of the scientific method? Changing your theory when facts show that the original hypothesis is wrong?
Are atheists the only one who can change their theory then? Interpreting the bible correctly is apparantly not something that can be done right the first time. It's been almost 2000 years since the last books have been added, and still new insights are gained.

If you're a firm atheist, you should have some constructive arguments yourself, surely...

>>2912521
>A good example is asking 'what is the proper method of baptism?' and you'll get 500 answers which is what creates splinters and opposing faiths
It's acutally clear as fuck, but people are idiots.

The word "baptism" came from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to "immerse or plunge." Therefore sprinkling isn't an option.

Also, for people saying you don't need to be baptized to go to Heave are 100%. It's stated numerous amount of times that you need it to get to Heaven not to mention the sheer amount of times baptism is mentioned in the NT itself.

See kids like this are whats killing Christianity's image, but at the same time, just as the majority of people are idiots, the majority of Christians are idiots and have no clue what half the stuff in their text means.

>>2912550

But my body is just essentially an organic machine(from the cellar/molecular level up). I don't separate humans and our machines from nature. It's all natural to me. As for the soul, that's just hyperbole and metaphor for a sentient/sapient mind (I also don't distinguish between between an organic mind and a sufficiently advanced software mind) ...

>>2912574

>implying Theism and Science are the same thing.

Im almost 99.9999999 positive you are so ignorant you dont know what you just said. But thanks for the laugh.

>>2912574

>invent completely new parallel stories to well know stories of scripture
NEW INSIGHT GAINED

>>2912583

lolololol

The trick with Christians is to be passive aggressive. See, they have been hardwired to ignore anything against their faith. "It's Satan, It's God's way for testing our faith" and other bullshit.

The way I would do it would be to explicitly act like a retard hard believer Christian. Say your hear God's voice in many irrelevant situation, tell that if you have children you won't tell them about Santa because it would make them worship gifts instead of God, etc.

Sure, the low IQ ones will see you with reverence, but the other ones will start to doubt, and that's success.

It's like fighting a guy with no arms. Sure, you can win but you can't look good doing it.

>>2912579

Exactly, I too reject the idea of a soul, which means no matter how hard you try... the best you can hope for is a robotic simulation of a snapshot of your personality, not a complete reincarnation of the organic being you currently identify as yourself.

>>2912585
>See, they have been hardwired to ignore anything against their faith.

>>2912574

Also - Atheists dont have a Theory. We dont have a doctrine or a shared book. There is no scripture for us to "adjust. We are only united in disbelief, we dont have to make shit up.

>>2912592
Well, if you get a simulation of yourself or a clone of yourself, it's technically you, but it's not really you.

It's with the illusion of consciousness which some religious groups would call a "soul."

If you created a clone and you died, you wouldn't be controlling your clone, you'd be dead, but something that is 100% like you would think it's you, the original.

>>2912595
It's true. Those of us who used to be fundamentalists can see it in retrospect. The idea is to immediately suspect the motives of anyone who causes you to doubt. I think this is the entire idea behind Satan.

>>2912599
>It's true
No, it's not. I'm the ultimate example.

I've been questioning the shit out of everything since my life went literally to hell and back. Both sides have a hard time wanting to understand certain things; deal with it.

>>2912598

>it's technically you
>but something that is 100% like you
nope.jpg

>It's with the illusion of consciousness which some religious groups would call a "soul."
You should really study things and avoid extreme vagueness before you post comments.

>>2912592

When I said reincarnation, I meant more along the lines that my mind would continue on as copy. Think of it as a cells Mitosis--but where the former dies after the latter is complete--:you have my memories and other things contributing to personality in place of DNA. Each current me will experience his own life and repeat the process (thus keeping stagnation of fixed/one-time copy) before dying of old age. I will have my version of immortality through backups archives. Though another me might choose oblivion for me/I/us in his life cycle.

>>2912596

That is true, but you seem to be saying that theists are not allowed to refine their vision. Which obviously doesn't make any sense, hey if you don't believe the case to be strong enough to be called a theory, be my guest, but why would you want to constrain us to thoughts of centuries ago? That isn't helpful to anyone. Are you attempting to hamper the growth of theism, just like some atheists claim theists to hamper the growth of science?

(Oh and I said atheist, because yeah, you know, it's sort of the opposite of theist. Not because I think you guys are all the same, or all follow the same ideas.)

>>2912610
So if you make a clone and you die, then you become your clone? No.

You are an idiot.

>he still can't grasp simple concepts of the human mind

>>2912609
Obviously your experience may differ. But this isn't just some throwaway atheist line - many Christians really are taught to interpret doubts as Satan trying to influence them. I was. That's why losing my reilgion was so painful - I was convinced for months that I had given in to evil.

>>2912617
>But this isn't just some throwaway atheist line - many Christians really are taught to interpret doubts as Satan trying to influence them.
I've lived amongst Christians my whole life and I have never heard this, but you might be on the opposite side of the world where things are taken different, but as for me, I have never heard that.
>I was. That's why losing my reilgion was so painful - I was convinced for months that I had given in to evil.
I'm sorry to hear that. Doesn't sound like it was much fun.

>>2912612

what makes any theist qualified to refine a vision presented directly from God in scripture form?

>>2912611
> (thus keeping stagnation of fixed/one-time copy)

> (thus keeping stagnation of fixed/one-time copy away)
Fixed!
If me 1.0 is lucky enough for me/he/I to make Me 2.0, he and all the later ones are going to laugh at these typos...

>>2912619
Are you kidding? "Resisting temptation" is a gigantic part of Christian doctrine. And Satan is the tempter. This is pretty standard stuff.

>>2912613

If my computer breaks down and I get a replacement computer that looks identical and has the exact same specs and I perform an exact copy of the hard drive... is it the same computer as before?

>>2912621
I would say no one is qualified. And therefore I have never really accepted any sources but the Bible. We have however been given the challenge to learn about God, and knowing how to read the Bible is a very big part of that.
I am probably terrible at it myself, but I can only do my best.

>attend bible discussion for intellectual argument
>not there to meet girls

You're in for a terrible night, OP.

>>2912632
>I would say no one is qualified. And therefore I have never really accepted any sources but the Bible.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah
ahahahah
cantbreathe

>>2912631

If after all (or was it nearly all? I forget) of the cell's you had since birth have been replaced by the time you've become an adult, are you still you? [Real biologistfat need for citation]

>>2912637

I mean theological sources of course. Interpretations of the bible written by others.

>>2912655
Oh, so you know ancient languages, and have access to the first copies of the gospels? You should really tell a historian, their earliest ones are hundreds of years after the event and are all different to each other.

>>2912632

If no one is qualified to revise the scripture. Then who gave the original person qualification to write it?

>>2912640

Yes we are defined in part by our dynamic nature and ability to change.
You are always the current version of yourself.
You are not your past.
You are not your aspirations of what you want to be.
You are not your individual cells or various organs, but rather an amalgamation of those and many other constructs.
A copy of you is not you because (in part) it has not (and can not) undergo the exact same environmental stimuli as you have experience throughout your lifetime not to mention that physical matter (expecially adult living organisms) has not been proven (in practice or theory) to be able to be cloned or copied with 100% efficiency as you keep claiming.

>>2912632
I strongly suggest that you (and everyone else in this thread) read Bart Ehrman's excellent book "Misquoting Jesus" and then "Jesus, Interrupted".

If you are a believer you will learn a lot about the bible.

>>2912661

A translation is not an interpretation. A translation is just that, a translation.
The Bible does not necessarily refer to the first version of the scriptures that have been written, if the first versions we can find is as good as we can do, then the first versions we can find it is. The differences between those versions is grossly overestimated by many anyway, and in most bibles you will actually find that they say which sentences aren't found in all versions.

>>2912662

God? You are right in that this is arguably one of the weakest points of Christianity, having to assume that the writers were inspired. But I believe God will forgive us for not knowing the exact truth, if that exact truth wouldn't be written anywhere. The basic ideas should all be present at least, and you're just talking about details here.

OP, heres stuff to anoy bible fundies and prove the bible isn't the word of god...

>>2912672
>having to assume that the writers were inspired
>having to assume
>assume

Why do you give yourself permission to do this? It's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple, unless you have some good reason to think they were.

>>2912672

>A translation is not an interpretation.

Oh Jesus motherf...abulous Christ

>>2912672
YOU!

Read this >>2912668

>>2912672

So god gave this one (or however many) man the authority to write a book on his behalf. If god were omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent yet had difficulty interacting with pen and paper he would use humans as a medium. Thats fine... Its a pretty glaring issue though; Why didnt he just make the books appear in everyones house? it doesn't cost him anything, theres no production.... not cutting of trees and certainly no ink distributing or by hand translations... All that as an aside though. God is speaking through this man; He has all the knowledge, he has all the power in the universe. You honestly think you can "revise" his word? Someone/thing that knows all that has happened and all that is to come?

I think you're being incredibly naive if this glaring problem hasn't hit you. You dont "revise" the word of god. Deities revolve in absolutes... Either they are who they say "they" are or its all bullshit made up by power hungry men. Even if you could argue it was done with the best intentions, It certainly hasnt played out that way over the course of its history.

>>2912672

>God? You are right in that this is arguably one of the weakest points of Christianity, having to assume that the writers were inspired.
Except history shows that is actually the strongest point of Christianity since with out it, past leaders could not point to the divinity of scripture to justify conquering others and forcibly enforcing their personal ideals on other people in an effort to spread Christianity.

Assume for a moment that YHWH exists, he gives every man free will, this is how you argue against God being evil.
This then leads to giving the people who he asked to write the Bible free will. So the Bible is an interpretation of the word of a being.

Now remove the first assumption and you are left with schizo desert dwellers writing a collaboration over a few hundred years that was picked and chosen by another group of men a few hundred years after that to decide which books were better words of God than others.
Then it was translated a few times again with free will until you are left with the piece of crap you see today that is used to declare wars because God tells them so.

Seriously if there is a God do you think he wants you to follow that shitty book?

>>2912675

It's because I base my faith not on the Bible, but because I am a theist out of logic and personal experiences. The Bible then out of all religious scriptures has for me been the book that seemed the most accurate, and therefore I hold it high up in my beliefs.

>>2912685

Hey, It's the best I can do. And I hope I will be forgiven for the mistakes I make while doing so. I can't just put it aside and wait for things to happen.
As to the spawning of books, I think it should be fairly obvious by now that God mostly works though natural means. I'm still undecided if this is because He wants it that way, or if He has restrained himself to the laws of this universe.
I simply don't know how God works. Maybe He works mostly by collapsing the universal wavefunction into whatever He desires. It's just another guess, but I'm too curious to not at least attempt to figure out how He works.

>>2912679

I guess I will. Are there any online versions of it?

>>2912664
I could care less as long as that copy get's to walk around with my personalty when I'm roting in the ground. It's the fear that my mind won't have a working copy that terrifies me about death...

>>2912737
>The Bible then out of all religious scriptures has for me been the book that seemed the most accurate

Wow! You've read all of the world's religious scriptures?

>>2912737
I don't get it. So you think there's a God from personal experience and logic. Okay, I'm with you so far.

So then...... how did you get from there to deciding that one of the currently-existing religious systems must be correct? It seems very likely to me that none of them are.

>>2912737

>I am a theist out of logic

I never get it when people claim this. I can see how to get to Deism this way, but I've yet to see a clear logic reasoning for a theistic view.

>>2912739

Except, its not your personality, its a derivative personality based on a snapshot of your personality. How do you know the conclusions it draws and actions it performs after you are dead are the same as the conclusions you would draw since it would be a completely different mind from the moment of separation from you. Also how does it make you feel better to know that a robot will be pretending to be you and going around insulting and hurting those held dear when were alive since there is no possible way an immortal automaton can have the same level of empathy for temporary
organic beings as you could have had (being one and all).

>>2912725
>>2912686

The crusades and wars were terrible, terrible mistakes. Mistakes that came out of the people and their corruption though, it was not inspired by the Bible, it was only abused. I can't remember the last time I started a war at least, I can't even remember the last time I killed a fly.
Christianity doesn't only have black pages in the history book though, something could be said for the view that the general opinion these days that every human life is valuable, and that everyone should be treated with respect, mostly comes from biblical views. Unfortunately, some still abuse the Bible to for example hate gay people, but I hope that that time will pass.

>>2912765
>some still abuse the Bible to for example hate gay people

what

Doesn't "abuse" mean "use for a purpose not intended"? Are you saying that when the Bible says that God hates homosexuality, something else is intended?

>>2912765
certainty about the next life is incompatible with tolerance in this one

>>2912765
>something could be said for the view that the general opinion these days that every human life is valuable, and that everyone should be treated with respect, mostly comes from biblical views

ahahahahaha wonderful
I've gotta admit, you have balls. Backed into a corner, you claim credit for modern civilisation.

Those poor Buddhists, not realizing that everyone should be treated with respect... if only they had the enlightened morality of an American slave owner.

>>2912752
I believe that they think of it like this:
"If I'm wrong about religion being true, nothing bad will happen. If I'm wrong about religion being false, I'll burn in hell for all eternity."
They think it's safer to believe in god. They probably really don't believe in god and they practice their religion lazily at best.

Religion is entirely subjective.
For that reason, no theist can claim to have a superior belief than another.
But to the outside spectator, they inevitably believe in an invisible man (of sorts)
And hence they are all equally insane.

>>2912776
Sorry bro, but you are just plain delusional. The beliefs of the christians (or any of the abrahamic religions) do not add one iota to the ethics of buddhism, hinduism or even most of the hellenic faiths.

>>2912781
>Religion is entirely subjective.
Not entirely true.

But you're too stupid to realize it.

>>2912781
>Religion is entirely subjective.

Huh? Did you miss the part where Christians claim that a specific person physically rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

>>2912786

0/10

>>2912786

>>2912784
.....what
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension

>>2912800
I think he's trying to say that christianity doesn't teach any morals that bhuddism and hinduism teach.
I think he's trying to say that christianity is a backwards step from a positive religion like bhuddism and hinduism.

But I could be wrong.

>>2912803
I think he's trying to say that christianity doesn't teach any morals that bhuddism and hinduism don't already teach.
That's what I meant to say the first time.

We are no more free to believe whatever we want about God than we are free to adopt unjustified beliefs about science or history, or free to mean whatever we want when using words like "poison" or "north" or "zero."

The problem with faith, is that it really is a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It is a reason, why you do not have to give reasons, for what you believe. Where we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost both our connection to the world and to one another. Religious faith is the only area of discourse where immunity through conversation is considered noble. It's the only area of our lives where someone can win points for saying, "there's nothing that you can do to change my mind and I'm taking no state of the world ultimately into account in believing what I believe. "there's nothing to change about the world that would cause me to revise my beliefs Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse.

The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention—distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence—is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory. Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity—a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible. Religious faith is the one species of human ignorance that will not admit of even the possibility of correction. We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it.

You don't get anything worth getting by pretending to know things you don't know.

>>2912791

I meant with regards to the enormous amount of different religions and associated sub-beliefs.
Some people read the bible (f.e.) and come to the conclusion that it is metaphorical and other somehow come to the conclusion that it is literal truth.
Same book, different beliefs, no independent justification for either.

>>2912800
Try to give me and example of a moral or ethical rule from christianity that was not already practised by the religions preceding it.

(Obviously with the exception of "you shall have no other gods", which is not ethics but customer management).

>>2912807
But that's also what the person he was angrily replying to was saying.

>>2912828
Seriously dude, try rereading the thread. You're confused.

>>2912836
oh, now I see. Yeah, I misread. Thought he was saying the opposite.

That'll teach me to eat bagel and read at the same time.

>>2912760

What part of real me is dead while a new being that shares my memories/personalty and lives out it's life as if it was me, don't you understand? I want to have a fucking walking taking grave stone that lives and makes it's own walking taking grave stone when it dies!

Don't do it, OP.
1. You will be heavily outnumbered. Psychologically, people, especially people looking for confirmation bias, will take the fact that everyone talked over you as you "losing" the argument. so you will only reinforce their crazy.

2. You will be an asshole for doing this. You know those Jehova's witnesses that show up at your door and try to pawn their snake oil? Us militant atheists basically only have them to point to and say "has an Atheist ever knocked on your door and tried to convert you?". Don't fuck that up for us.

3. You won't convert anyone. You could reduce the women to tears and cause the men to flip tables with your flawless, godlike logic, and they'll only leave thinking you're an asshole trying to take their faith away.

4. You may lose your own faith. In humanity, when you hear some of the arguments they bring up.

>>2912752

Okay, well my general reasoning goes as follows:

1) I think therefore I exist.
2) I remember, therefore there is a past.
3) There being a past implies that everything that is, either started in the past, or was there forever.
4) If something started in the past, it must either have been started by something, or it must have started itself.
5) Because 1) shows there is something, and it follows from 3) and 4) that because there is something, there must have been a first something. Something which either existed forever, or which started itself.
6) From 1) it follows that thinking things can exist.
7) From 1) and 5) it follows that there either I am the first thing, or that there are at least 2 things that exist/have existed.
8) From 6) and 7) it follows that it is possible that the first thing to exist was a thinker.

>> continuation

>>2912866

Now the question lies open if 8) is true. Because this world is more complicated then I can comprehend, I believe the assumption that 8) is correct has validity to it. From this it also follows that I'm not the first thing myself.

A thinker that started everything is what is usually referred to as God. We already know several things about Him: He thinks, he can create other things or is all things. Among things there are at least matter, energy, time and the laws of physics. Because he can create those things, He will likely also have control over them.
These two assumptions (the thing is a thinker, and he can control that what he created) already show a lot of the qualities Christians describe about God.
You're free to not make the same assumptions, but I have found them to be good enough to be made in combination with my personal experiences (you know feelings, weird coincidences concerning praying, other stuff which I could never use as proof).
I also believe that a thinking God, if He created other thinkers (in His image) would want to at least contact them. And if the God were any other God than the Christian one, He would have done a pretty bad job contacting me at least, and I hope He would forgive me for not being with the right religion.

Hey I know I won't convince anyone with this, but it's also not something I have never thought about.

>>2912776

I don't claim modern civilization. I claim that Christianity has also had positive influences on it, not just negative ones in the form of crusades.

>>2912866
>>2912869
Wow that has got to be the least logical logical proof I have ever seen. Even granting all your assumptions, and even granting all the conclusions you draw from those assumptions, all you "prove" is that God is technically possible, and nobody's even debating that.

>>2912760
I never said it would have to be a robot or an AI. An organic body that is created though tissue engineering (using man made cellular scaffolding and bone with imprinted cloned cells/tissue) and an organic brain engineered the same way to more-or-less match my own would suffice.

I could just as easily switch moods/perceptions (be it from a brain injury, drug overdoses, random disorder, etc) and harm my loved ones while alive.

Please keep in mind that this just a hypothetical wet dream of mine, and that I doubt it would ever be achieved within my life time...

>>2912876
>not just negative ones in the form of crusades.
The Crusades are sort of minor considering what Christianity did to the peasant farmers they ruled over. Hundreds of years of purposely hoarding all the knowledge for themselves is what kept the dark ages going, if you weren't clergy back then you weren't educated, and they made sure that nobody could read but the priests, so they stayed in charge.

OP, they are giving you a free dessert, don't be such a faggot. Just go along with it and if anyone asks just say "you're not really religious, but you like community events."

If they try to confront you, try and diffuse it and speak to them on a personal level. Bring the conversation to hobbies, about the even, etc. and just have a nice time.

>You're also too beta to do anything anyway

>>2912866

>something existed forever
>first something

You need to re-examine your understanding of "forever". If there was a "first something" then there wasn't something there forever, because "first" implies that there was nothing before it.

>>2912876
Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer

If we celebrate the easterbunny's birth why do we
symbolicly eat his sweet chocolate flesh?

>>2912866
>>2912869

Your 'logic' deduction has so many fallacies in them that I couldn't even decide where to begin, but even if we take all that, it just shows that - derived from logic - there could be some sort of deist (non-)being.

Thanks for proving my point.

>>2912896
Same could be said about negatives to.

Pres and cons of the religion are irrelevent to its validity.

>>2912880

Well no if you grant me my assumptions, then there is a thinking God who has great power.
Without granting me my assumptions, you are absolutely right though, it's not proof. If anyone had proof I'm sure the world would know by now.

But please try and argue for the big bang (or whatever caused it) with less assumptions. That is assuming you think that the big bang is currently the most plausible scientific model, I think you'll find it quite hard. Not that not being able to prove the big bang means anything for theists, but I thought it would be a nice thought experiment. I certainly can't do it, even when doing my best as the devil's advocate.

>>2912760
see
>>2912611

>Think of it as a cells Mitosis--but where the former dies after the latter is complete--:you have my memories and other things contributing to personality in place of DNA.

>Each current me will experience his own life and repeat the process (thus keeping stagnation of fixed/one-time copy) before dying of old age.

>I will have my version of immortality through backups archives. Though another me might choose oblivion for me/I/us in his life cycle.

It's uncertain immortality(every rendition will age) by asexual reproduction. This is considerably preferable to just roting in the ground.

>>2912906

Yap, I kinda missed the deist part somehow in retrospect.
I guess the step from deistic to theistic comes from my personal experiences, and not logic.

Oh and I would ask of you to tell me those fallacies, even if I'm wrong, I would still like to learn. And I can't honestly see the real fallacies if you discount the things I labeled as assumptions myself.
Okay, well maybe there is a past is a fallacy. But if there is no past and my memories are imagined, then well.. This universe would be weird then, I won't accept a universe consisting of me typing on /sci.. And I probably don't have a good reason to care then anyway.

>>2912866

sounds like TAG which is completely groundless and can easily be re-arranged to form a contradiction

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

>>2912936
>I guess the step from deistic to theistic comes from my personal experiences

READ: "I hear voices in my head that tell me that the most common religion in my area is the correct one."

>>2912952

Well I don't know anyone around me who has such an abstract view on religion, most of those I know are of the literal kind.
But otherwise, yes, you are right, that's basically it. And it saddens me to know that I will never be able to use that to convince someone.

>>2912968
>he is sad that a bad argument wont convince anyone

this is not how truth works

>>2912936

1) While this is a popular philosophical quote, I don't see how it's a logic deduction. The process of thinking itself would have to be defined. Depending on that definition, we can or can't make a solid argument about if 'thinking' requires 'existence' (yet another word to define) or not. Still, this is probably your strongest point.
2) 'Remembering' is no solid indicator for the flow of time, as people are 'remembering' facts that haven't ever happened by still believing that they did.
3) The concepts of 'existence' and 'forever'. One would have to determine how an eternal 'existence' is possible in a ... 'thing' outside of our space-time and what 'forever' means when we can observe a limited past/beginning of time/space.
4) Point 1 can often be observed in our environment. Point 2, a 'sudden existence' is still being debated within quantum mechanics. So if P2 is not supportable, then there would be yet ANOTHER 'existence' before. (Not to mention the fallacy of existence without a space-time-continuum... again)
5,6,7)Refer to my answer of 3. Our deterministic view is based on our space-time continuum. However, there isn't any concept that explains an "existence" out of these constants and it's questionable if we can ever conduct such a thing.
8)If I give you every other aspect you've conducted so far... yes, implying that there's such a thing as 'sudden first existence' outside of our current constants and that thinking is a process derivable from existence - you can make the assumption of a deist being.

>>2913014

1) Existing needs to be defined? Doesn't that ruin basically every logical argument used if we can't define that? Use 'being' if you prefer, it's meant in that way.
2) 'Even though you're right in that every memory could be implanted, the fact that I can remember my thought processes of a second ago seems at least a very solid indicator for time (a flow of time isn't necessary I'd say).
3) Forever is having no beginning. In time there are only 2 possibilities, either something has a beginning, or it does not. There are no other options. Not being affected at all by time would go in the second category.
4) Yes exactly, either a beginning was started by something which already was. Or a beginning just happened. Perhaps adding a beginning that was started by something that didn't exist is also possible, but that can be lumped in with a beginning that came out of nowhere without really changing the argument. There would still have to be a first.
5,6,7) I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you clarify? Is the assumption needed that the universe follows causality?

>>2913078

1) Yes, because our current term of existence relies on the environment we live in.
2) I agree with you on the part, that there is a 'past', I was merely showing you that 'remembering' isn't necessarily a good way to show it.
3) The term forever itself is bound closely to our understanding of time. I don't see how this term can exist without time. Just the same as 'beginning' and 'existence'. The disappearance of 'time' would also destroy our definition of said terms.
4,5,6,7) We're running into the same problem over and over again. Assumptions over how something can 'be' or 'do' something without our space-time or how there's a thing as 'before' without time. Everything that we can logically deduct both comes out of and relies on our space-time continuum. That's why I doubt that we can ever make a solid claim about said states.