/sci/ - Science & Math

OP is a religious fag, because only they care about atheism.

>>3166369

post images; tales of religious stupidity.

pic related.

>>3166461

bump for content

Anyone ever noticed how only atheists out there are lonely, angry, miserable people?

I guess that makes a lot of sense. Why would any normal person decide to become an atheist? They only do so because they lead sad, pitiful lives, have very little contact with other human beings, die as kissless virgins, etc.

If I was a sad social retard knowing that I will die forgotten and unloved one day, I too will most likely believe that no God would be cruel enough to inflict such misery on me, so therefore the God doesn't exist!

>>3166539

>>3166539
No matter how strong an argument an atheist makes, no matter how many reaction images, graphs, statistics, etc. he posts, it all falls apart the moment you realize it's just a sad fat guy posting that shit on the internet because he's heartbroken a skank made fun of him in high school when he asked her out.

>>3166539

>>3166559
>a fat loser spent hours making this graph to make other fat losers on the internet feel better about themselves

>>3166539

Yes of course, we all live a la Captain Nemo in lonely underground, self-sufficient submarines, accompanied only by our squadrons of cephalopod minions, each more tentacled than the last.

Fear us as we enact crimes too terrible to think of against your epistemiological paradigm!

Wooooo.... Scaaaary....

Also, guys, the grand meeting of the biology, cosmology, physics, geology, medical and chemistry branches of the glorious scientific conspiracy has been postponed to wednesday; we will be serving cans of chilled unicorn tears, cooled in the fridge of unimaginable horror powered by the great demon Maxwell.

>>3166550

But why do you believe in <unconfirmed entity of choice>?

What about <set of other unconfirmed entities>

>>3166566
Isn't it hilarious how atheists always assume that science is somehow on their side of a philosophical debate? Why are they so clueless about the topic they're trying to debate? Yeah, sure, if they weren't clueless, they wouldn't be atheists, but surely some atheists out there aren't dumb as shit? Surely?

Atheism is only the symptom. Rationality is the disease.

It is not a true philosophy, just a description for those who do not buy into the claims of one specific type of superstition.

>>3166573

In all of the documented history of science, it has never once observed the action of a divine agency, every observation can be explained with reference to physical laws.

Still, this only means that science is on the side of atheism in the same way science is on the side of a-Santa-ism, a-fairy-ism, a-vampire-ism, and so on. They may well yet exist, but there is nothing in the body of scientific knowledge which suggests or indicates it.

>>3166568

>>3166581
You read the post, but you simply didn't understand it.
How limited your mind is that you can't get its simple point? Why is that? What is wrong with you? Did your mother drop you when you were a child?

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate limited people, but you people genuinely believe you are superior because of it. And that is a tragedy.

>but durr invisible pink unicorn durrr

>>3166573

Of course, by now the sciences of astrology, faith healing, acupuncture and intelligent design have conclusively proved that yahweh really exists, and that he really did let <any natural disaster> happen.

All that stuff about how the world can be explained by 'natural' processes? Pfft, that's just yahweh testing your faith. And he's always watching you, so you'd BETTER NOT FUCKING STEP OUT OF LINE, BUDDY.

>>3166585

The invisible pink unicorn is a devil's lie.

The great Jovian Teapot will get the scalding liquids boiling for the unfortunate who perpetuates this heresy.

>>3166586


holy shit how fucking stupid must you be to misunderstood such a clear point of a post jesus christ

>>3166581

The scientific community does not just require proof, but at the very start ideas are judged from their very basis.

The entirety of many theistic religions is based on a book. A collection of verses, so they are pretty much a compendium of stories.

Storybooks.

The problem we rational people have with theists isn't that they cannot prove their claims of how the universe works, but that they so vehemently espouse their beliefs that are taken from A FUCKING STORYBOOK.

You cannot possibly not see how incredibly stupid this is, and that the act of having to willingly turn off one's brain to be theistic is a most aggravating thing.

>>3166585

Please explain how the invisible pink unicorn is different from a god. I grant that more people believe in the latter than the former, but it's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of reality.

>>3166596
>trying to use scientific standards to argue about a philosophical concept

some people are truly hopeless

>>3166595

Isn't it hilarious that theists can't find any physical mechanism that allows miracles to work?

protip: 'magic' is not a mechanism.

>>3166596

Don't forget that, for hundreds of years at the birth of our current science, they operated under the assumption that god did exist, and they were looking for his signature. Overturning this assumption took centuries of findings that showed no divine intervention anywhere.

>>3166605

>trying to use the same kind of rationality and integrity to argue philosophical concepts as we already use for scientific concepts

Actually.

>>3166607

Let's be fair here. 'Magic' is a perfectly acceptable answer, in terms of the world in which miracles could occur.

The real issue is that no miracles have ever occurred. No miracle claim which has been investigated has been found to be anything but a fortuitous interaction of natural laws. And that's when they are investigated, normally they are beyond investigation, and simply accepted on the good word of people who claim to have witnessed them.

>>3166612
no, just no.

You're wrong.
Deal with it.

>see I can do that too

>Science has all the answers

>>3166629

If we are simply arguing god as a philosophical concept, is there any reason to think it is any more real that Plato's cave?

Can one, through the kind of philosophical reasoning you prefer, show that god exists in the real world?

>>3166640
Science doesn't have ALL the answers. But between science and superstition, only science has ANY of the answers.

If God doesn't exist, how come I found my keys?

Checkmate, "rational" atheists.

>>3166649
you're not even trying at not trying

>>3166309
Anyone got a bigger version of this?

>>3166642
You're trying to look at the idea of God through the wrong lens.

There never will be sufficient evidence for or against the concept of God. Every argument about God simply devolves into: "Well I have faith 'something' exists" and "Well, I don't."

>>3166642

I have one

1. If you don't believe in god he will fuck you up
2. therefore god exists

>>3166656

exactly. And in such cases, the overwhelming probability is that the entity in question does not exist, there being an infinite number of such entities but only a finite number of actually existing things.

>>3166309

>>3166559
>that image
solid fucking gold

>>3166658
>god wil fuck you up

Nope. How can an imaginary character fuck you up?

>>3166656

Yes, and the entire point of my "storybook" post is exactly that.

These are adults who are basing their lives on something likely written by particularly imaginative individuals. They are not acting on a purely philosophical standpoint.

To normal religious people, religion is reality, and that combined with its source makes it one of the worst concepts to ever befall humanity.

>>3166559

>>3166661
Don't know how you got the idea of "overwhelming probability," there's just no way of knowing, period. It's 100% faith.

>>3166656

How does this differ from pink unicorns? There will never be sufficient that they exist or don't exist. So it comes down to faith, right?

And besides, where do you get any of your information about god? You have faith and then make it up? Why did the first person have faith in the first place, did they just invent it?

>>3166665
>confusing religion with the existence of God

>>3166673

What is religion then?

>>3166672
>where do you get your information about God?

God is a philosophical concept, not just a religious one.

>>3166665
>written by particularly imaginative individuals
I wouldn't consider them to be particularly "imaginative", hell, I don't think I have had a DnD session with less originality then whats found in the bible

>>3166678

So how do the things you think about god differ from things you just made up?

>>3166309

>>3166673
>trying to justify his belief in imaginary friends

The thought of a deity can bring one comfort. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. Do not interfere with peoples religious beliefs.

>>3166693
Delusions can cause good people to do bad deeds.

>>3166686
Nice

>>3166684
I don't quite see your angle.

Does God differ from Pink Unicorns? It depends. Someone religious would obviously say yes. I think there are more logical reasons for the existence of a God (even a God of the Gaps) than for Pink Unicorns, but they're unprovable regardless.

>>3166693
>The thought of a deity can bring one pain and suffering

fixed 4 ya

>>3166693
except that 1. it is fucking retarded and pisses me off.
2. they do batshit insane things like suicide bombings, 'witch' burnings, crusades, etc.

>>3166693

And when someone equates the word of a book or cleric to the commands of a god, and this book is composed of obsolete science, abhorrent morality, incorrect history and mythology, and this cleric is self-interested, and either cynical or delusional?

>>3166695
Yep, perfect example is the woman who tried to kill her kids because she thought the world was going to end because an old man said so

>>3166695
Perhaps a person would have been evil but their love for Jesus Christ made them not want to sin, and their religion prevented murders and other crimes that they would otherwise have committed.

>>3166699

Just because more people believe in one god or another doesn't really make a difference.

How does god differ from pink unicorns? Seriously. You say it can't be proven, well, why place god in a different category from something else that must be accepted on faith?

>>3166699
>there are more logical reasons for the existence of a God than for Pink Unicorns

Nope. There is actually more logical reasons for the existance of Pink Unicorns then god. But I'll indulge your retarded ass.

Why do you think "god" is a more a logic choice then "pink unicorns"? EXPLAIN FAGGOT!

>>3166712
meh. religion still does more harm than good.

>>3166713
>Just because more people believe in one god or another doesn't really make a difference.

I have no idea why you said that, because I never implied that was the case.

>You say it can't be proven, well, why place god in a different category from something else that must be accepted on faith?

Because someone might find one alternative more logical than the other.

>>3166722
>implying the catholic church doesn't do a huge deal more for charity than any other organization worldwide.

>>3166724

So if an unprovable concept is more internally consistent, it is more rational to put your faith into it?

And regarding the amount of people who believe in god: I meant to say

>Just because more people believe in one god or another than believe in unicorns doesn't really make a difference.

Which you did imply with

>Someone religious would obviously say yes.

>>3166712
Perhaps a person would have been good but their love for jesus christ and their religion caused then to commit murders and other crimes that they would otherwise have never been committed.

>fixed once again

You have never heard of the cursades or the inquisition? Religion is not a positive tool, it is used to divide people and pit them againist eachother. Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

>>3166730
>implying that their charity work even comes close to the harm that they inflict in the world

>>3166730
>implying those self righteous fucks actually give a shit about anything other than themselves
>implying their so called 'charity' is not just to buy reputation from their imaginary friend so they can live in zombieland with him forever when they die, or so they think...deluded fuckfaces!
>implying catholics dont rape little children
>implying the pope doesnt own a palace and a fuckton of wealth that was payed for due to the extortion of gullible fuckwits.
>yes i mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

>>3166730
Last time I checked Bill Gates, an atheist, donates more to charity every year then the Catholic church does

/r/ing that pic of Bill Gates, that other guy, and the richest televangelist and how the first 2 donate heaps to charity while the televangelist owns diamond mines in Africa using slaves while not donating any of it

>>3166735
>Which you did imply with

That was meant to imply that people with different perspectives see things differently. If you thought I implied that, than I'm sorry.

Regarding the rest of your post:
The whole process is relative. Ultimately, it's a question that can't be answered in a general sense, it depends on each individual's perception. Do I find more comfort in God than in a Pink Unicorn? Maybe. Does it ultimately matter? No.

>>3166730
>catholic guild for all the centuries off mass murders they committed

The catholic church is one of the most evil orginzations in history

>>3166753
>Does it ultimately matter?
Yes, because adults with imaginary friends do more harm because of their beliefs than otherwise.

>>3166744
This song is really catchy. It made me laugh.

>>3166756
I'm gonna call a troll or just assume you haven't read the thread.

>>3166736
Jesus said we should love our fellow man, get along with each other and not make war. Religion is extremely positive if it is followed correctly.

>>3166762

>>3166753
>implying it is ok to believe in lies, as long as it makes you feel good

What are you fucking 12?
People like you should be fucking executed for stupidity.

Believing in lies, and refusing to accept reality is fucking harmful to yourself and others. I HOPE YOU DIE A VERY VERY PAINFAIL DEATH ASAP!

>>3166753

It matters when someone starts to talk about what god wants as though they know, and when other people start to listen to them.

If all faith was as inwardly focused as yours, my only issue with it is that it is unfounded, illogical, maybe even irrational. But it's harmless. But this is not the norm, not by a long shot. Most people think that either they, or at least SOMEONE, speaks to god directly, and that god has a list of things they have to do. And since, as you will agree, it's just people making this stuff up, either earnestly or cynically, it's just another specie of totalitarianism. And that does untold harm to people, to societies.

>>3166761
I haven't read the full thread. That is my informed opinion. What? Because I'm participating in an obvious troll thread? Meh. I've reported it already, and if the mods don't feel like doing something, then I'll respond to bullshit as best I can.

>>3166767
I never said that, but ok. I'm going to assume you're >>3166716 and are just being retarded for the hell of it.

>>3166762
you obviously havent read the bible then

>>3166762

YOU ARE FUCKING FULL OF SHIT!

Luke 19:27
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." - Jesus

>>3166774
Touche.
>>3166771
I've simply seen the whole process as "Religion does both harm and good." I think religion is antagonized more than usual on /sci/ (the entire board, really). It is responsible for many problems, but there's no way to quantify the damage or good it has ever done.

>>3166762
Nope

>>3166788
>It is responsible for many problems, but there's no way to quantify the damage or good it has ever done.
A rational person has to. You live in a world with incomplete information, but you still need to make decisions. You gather evidence as best you can, and then act on that evidence.

>>3166559

>mfw fat neckbeard complains about Christians cherry picking quotes and then proceeds to cherry pick quotes

>>3166803
You're missing the point. The point of the picture is manyfold:
1- Christians do pick and choose what parts of scripture they follow.
2- Thus Christians as a matter of demonstrable facts do not get their morality from scripture.
3- Also, thus even Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant.

>>3166762
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

>>3166782
Not all of the bible is true. There is no need to be rude.

>>3166798
I do make decisions, simply ones based on personal experience. People are too unique and one-of-a-kind to simply generalize into broad categories. If I think someone is overzealous than I usually find them distasteful (or in cases like the WBC, absolutely and criminally insane). But if I see someone actually using their beliefs to do good, or hell, even nothing at all, than I'm perfectly content with watching them live their lives.

>>3166750
thats not true at all. The catholic church donates BILLIONS each year to charity. You guys really have it out for these guys don't you?

What you're not considering is:
a) the pope does not live a life of luxury and opulence, any more than the president does. He wears fancy hats, yes, but thats ceremonial and he has a shitton of obligations to fulfill.
b) the rate of child molestation is no higher in the catholic church than in any other religious denomination, and is considerably lower than the rate among teachers in public schools.
c) the Catholic church advocates the teaching of evolution and the big bang.
d) If you actually went to a Catholic mass, you would see that the only things they ever teach are tolerance, love, and respect for fellow man. You have been indoctrinated most of your life to hate these people, but you actually have no idea what they are like.

I was born and raised catholic, and though I don't believe any more, the people I met at church are truly some of the most genuine, kind, and morally upstanding people I've ever met. Of course there are some bad examples, my mother being one of them, who are obsessed with hell and are generally intolerant, but these tend to be the older people. The priest at my church can only be described as a bro, and is one of the coolest guys I've met. He's an old irish guy who plays golf all the time and gets drunk at parish events.

TL;DR you guys are all ignorant, intolerant little fucks who think you are so god damn edgy and independent by having a little circle jerk of blind hate against a group you know nothing about.

Get a life.

>>3166806
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

>>3166807
are you fucking trolling? your making yourself out to be a christfag when i know full well you are an 'agnostic'
even though i already explained to you that that means you are an atheist.

>>3166807
>Christian claims, "not all of the bible is true"

LMFAO. So you just pick the parts you like, right? You only pay attention to the disney bullshit part of the bible. When shit gets real and god starts slaughering innocents and jesus does all sorts of fucked up things you ignore it?

LMFAO. Christians are fucking highlarious.

>>3166815
>getting caught up in another stupid religion thread

You're a fucking disaster

>>3166815
Nice to see EK turning on the only person who could tolerate her bullshit. EK supporters 1 ---> 0

>>3166815
I never said I was a christian. Some of Jesus' teachings are still very valid and moral. I am an agnostic because I don't know why we are here, but we must be here for some kind of reason, so I think there might be some kind of higher power out there. I just do not know what it is.

>>3166805

And you are missing the fact that his so called "proofs" are taken out of context and therefore inherently invalid.

>>3166826
lol shut the fuck up. who says there is any purpose at all.
Theres no evidence for god at all, you dont go to church or pray or any of that shit. you are an atheist agnostic and you know it.
Interesting to find out that you are a troll though, i didn't know that before.
good to know.

>>3166832
U just mad because most people like Harriet and everyone hates you.

>>3166811
I'm sure there are some "nice" catholics as well as bad catholics. In general the catholic church is much better the other christains denominations, in that they don't ignore science

However, It doesn't change the fact that they are ADULTS BELIEVING IN FUCKING FAIRYTALES!

If you accept the Big bang and santa clause, YOU ARE STILL FUCKIN RETARDED!

>>3166827
>And you are missing the fact that his so called "proofs" are taken out of context and therefore inherently invalid.
False.

>>3166832
You are a fucking moron and you know it.

>>3166832

Do you use pictures of slightly pretty girls to make up for the fact you're an ugly stupid whore?

Is that why you have turned your back on God?

>>3166826
>but we must be here for some kind of reason
Citations please.

>>3166836
Such strong words for a topic which is completely unprovable.

>>3166835
hahah! no, no1 likes harriet. shes fucking trolling a religion thread, shes a namefag, and she never uses pictures!

everyone loves me though. :D
problem?

>>3166836

which is why I no longer believe. But still, why waste your time hating others for what they believe? Faith brings people a lot of happiness, and who are you to take that from them? Leave their life decisions to them and worry about yourself.

>>3166835
Harriet is stupid as fuck, she cant even defend her own bullshit beliefs.

This is where the saying "as dumb as a christian" comes from.

>>3166845
>Such strong words for a topic which is completely unprovable.

It is provable. Prayers are not effective - we have double blind studies confirming. The Earth is at least 11,000 years old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
The story of Jesus's birth is an obvious forgery going by related Roman records.

What else do you need?

>>3166851
Another quality post by EK.

>>3166837

No, its fucking true. The picture is right here:

>>3166559

Even an atheist isn't so blindingly ignorant as to ignore so obvious proofs? I mean, your ignorance is already proven but this is on another level.

>>3166853
Because they make immoral decisions which hurt others because of their false beliefs.

>>3166844
Deep down I think we all know it. We may as well all just kill ourselves if this is not the case.

>>3166858
I'm not even going to respond to this. If you didn't understand what I was trying to say 50 posts ago you never will.

>>3166863

and who are you to define what is and what is not immoral?

>>3166861
I'm sorry. I don't see how "There is no designer" implies "I ought to kill myself".

>>3166865
I am a person in this world. That gives me sufficient right to.

Unless of course you're suggesting the only acceptable course of action is to be suicidal and/or a nihilist.

>>3166851
I was not trolling. I sometimes use pictures.

>>3166866
She was talking about purpose, not a designer.

Self-important tripfags everywhere.

>>3166858

Because an omnipotent being is at the beck and call of some dudes in a lab coat.

Even as narrow minded beings as you atheist should see this obvious gap in logic despite the fact that you have next to no ability in that area.

>>3166864
Apparently I do not understand. Note that I only joined the thread recently.

The overall tenants of the christian myth are demonstrably false.

>>3166869

so your opinion is valid because you exist. But catholics on the other hand are not entitled to an opinion because they obviously do not exist.

pick a better argument.

>>3166866
There would be no reason to live if we are all just randomly here with no purpose. Everyone may as well just be selfish and give in to whatever desires they have.

>>3166851
No one likes Harriet because s/he is the only one to stick up for your moronic and retarded self, for completely dumb reasons. S/he also sometimes gives you good advice but because you are a dumb ugly attention whore proceed to ignore. Trust me when I say if we had to choose between you and Harriet it would definitely be the latter.

Actually you would be the losing choice regardless of the other option.

What if your imaginary friend was your imagination?

Captcha: inevitably manduur

>>3166309
ITT: We just make fun of christians

We shouldn't try to engage christains in any kind of logical or reasonable conversation. If chirstians understood logic and reason, they wouldn't be christian in the first place. Don't waste your time Anons, just laugh at them, and then move along.

>>3166875
Of which I never said were true. Please continue to say random things which have zero relevance, whatsoever.

>>3166878
FUCK OFF DUMB WHORE

>>3166875

Yea thats a nice fantasy, but reality is quite different from the delusion atheist share. Nothing in the bible have yet been proven wrong.

>>3166878
>implying thats not what we do to a reasonable extent.
>implying if we went further we wouldn't be punished by established codes of law.

>>3166872
There are two kinds of purpose. To borrow Dawkin's terminology, there is archeo-purpose and neo-purpose.

The neo-purpose of something is the intent of the designer or creator. The archeo-purpose of something is an arbitrary description of some thing to which we can attribute a utility.

Presumably he wasn't discussing the second kind. When he was talking about "a reason" for us to exist, either that means the purpose of the designer, or it means whatever purpose we arbitrarily choose. Presumably in context it was that of the designer, because she tried to argue that without "a reason", we should kill ourselves.

>>3166877
It's moral claims. I claim that mine are better than yours. Deal with it.

>>3166892
To emphasize though, I am willing to hear dialog and discuss in reasonable terms, as to possibly change my mind.

>>3166851

Your denial is worse than the average religionfag

>sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me

God says to me, "These guys are retarded, laugh at them," and I laugh. Problem?

>>3166835
>U just mad because most people like Harriet and everyone hates you.
>>3166887
<<<

>>3166890
Sure is false dichotomy in here.

>>3166875
>The overall tenants of the christian myth are demonstrably false

Of course they are. Way to fuckin state the obvious. This thread is just for a good laugh at christians, nothing more. There in no point trying to "reasonably debate" with christians, as they refuse to believe obvious facts. Don't waste your time anon.

>>3166892

Ah, the glorious stupidity of atheist. Its quite entertaining.

>>3166888
Again, prayer has been proven to be not effective. The world has been proven to be created in a way other than that of Genesis. There was no global flood. There was no national Roman census in the year when Jesus was born which required everyone to go to their x15 great grandfathers home city - nor was there ever such a census. The entire Jesus birth story is an obvious fabrication after the fact to satisfy certain pre-existing prophecies.

>>3166898
Harriet is a whore, so much of a whore, that she could only be one person!

>>3166905
And the other kind of purpose is?

>>3166897
>>3166892

In other words you have an opinion, and demand that others change their opinion to conform to your ideal. Please excuse everyone else for not giving a fuck what you think.

>>3166890
>When he was talking about "a reason" for us to exist, either that means the purpose of the designer, or it means whatever purpose we arbitrarily choose.
I see that as a false dichotomy. People can contrive and believe in some spiritual, universal, non-utilitarian "purpose" to human existence, some ultimate goal we as a species are meant to reach or whatever, without invoking a creator.

>>3166913
You are preaching to the fuckin choir. What is your point though?

CHRISTAINS DONT BELIEVE FUCKING FACTS! SO WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYIGN TO PERSUADE DUMBSHIT?

gay is as christian does

>>3166908

>Butthurt atheist claiming they have proof that the bible being wrong yet so obviously do not have the faintest shred of evidence.

Ah, you you little atheist are so entertaining when you demonstrate ignorance. I guess reality is to big for you fragile little minds.

>>3166926
Goals without agents?

The sentence is grammatically correct, but it lacks meaning. It is incoherent. You've put the words together according to the basic rules of English, but the result is no more sensible than if you said "The square root of a pork chop is purple."

>>3166921
Well, why does a creator need "intent" regarding our purpose? Why could purpose not be some randomly coded theory in the same vein of some scientific axiom?

>>3166933
Because that's not what the word means.

>>3166932
>>3166932
Holy fuck you are stupid. Seriously.

>>3166936
Regardless, the true meaning of the phrase is intact. Are you deliberately trying to troll, or what?

>>3166914
leave her alone, asshole.

>>3166927
>>3166930
>>3166929
>christian

Guy who literally believes in fairytales seem to have a problem understanding facts. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>3166938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>>3166913

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Listen little buddy. Let me get you op to speed on something. We are talking about the existence of an omnipotent being. He can create and shape the world however he see fit.

Pffffhfff. Proof! You gave me a good laugh there.

>>3166941
No. I am not trolling. I am stating that talking of goals when no agent has set that goal is nonsensical. It has no meaning.

Talking of discovery of objectively true purpose when there is no creator is equally incoherent.

>>3166944

Not an ad hom, he merely pointed out that you are stupid. Which, you have again proved by your claim, so gratz.

>>3166948
And yet you believe in this being despite all evidence to the contrary. There are words for this - delusion, insanity.

>>3166942
Ohh, the I don't wanna face the wrath of EK.
Harriet acts and talks like a fucking 10 year old girl. She should grow the fuck up or leave /sci/!

>>3166950
Since when is a purpose necessarily a goal?

>>3166944

Ah, little boy. Its not an argument against any of your claims but rather statement of fact about your quite lacking mental capacity.

>>3166948
>christian

People who claim to be atheists, still have some values and principles they live by. Since the knowledge of a man is finite, those principles are based on nothing else but faith.

>>3166309
>christians in my /sci/

>>3166959
Try to keep up here. I was replying to a second someone talking about goals without agents.

The original claim was about "purpose". I gave the two kinds of purpose, which are the intent of the designer, and an arbitrary description of the thing's utility.

This is a definitional thing. It's what the English word means.

>>3166973
What's your point?

>>3166973
Yes, and? I have no rational argument why we should use science. If you disagree, then you are insane, and we have nothing more to discuss.

>>3166953

Ah, yes the one who believe in non existing evidence claims other to be delusional. Its quite cute but maybe you should see a doctor about. Living in your own fantasy all the time can be unhealthy.

>>3166309
>CHRISTIAN

ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS

deities are fantasy
your beliefs are childish

deal with it.
172 posts and 57 image replies omitted

FFS /SCI/.

>>3166309
>christians

Make great sex slaves

>>3166983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Thus the Earth is at least 11,000 years old.

Evolution and genetics. Thus Noah's flood did not happen.

The Roman records. Thus the birth of Jesus story is a fraud.

>christians

Disposable human beings

>>3166976
Purpose implies that the act is intended. Again, why couldn't it be possible for a God to inadvertently create purpose?

Why couldn't aliens give us a purpose when they visited 1,000,000,000 years ago?

Why can't purpose be some metaphysical concept encoded within the confines of the human mind?

etc.......

This is too much of a subjective and completely relative conversation. Yes, the alien part is meant to be a fucking joke.

>>3166995
>christians

Nope. Not even once!

>>3167002
>Purpose implies that the act is intended. Again, why couldn't it be possible for a God to inadvertently create purpose?

For the same reason that it's impossible that anything can inadvertently create purpose.

Purpose has two meanings. The first is the purposeful, as in not accidental, design or intent, a goal if you will, of an agent. The second is some description of utility that one can give to some thing after the fact, whether there is a designer or not.

>>3166309
>killing christains

The way to start a good day

mfw when atheism is becoming the religion which teachings tell that Christians are people who think the world is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen

>>3167005
>christians

Nigga please

>>3167012
Where are you getting your definition of purpose? I've never known it to be so specified.

>>3167022
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose

>>3167016
>christians

Worse then Jews

>>3167016
Only some of them thing that. By some, I mean ~50% or so in the US.

Note how I also addressed the birth story of Jesus as a fraud in order to get some fair and balanced coverage of most of the christian religions.

>>3167020
>christian

The voices in their head make them kill their children

I nearly feel sorry about your ignorance so I will see if I can enlighten you.

1. Let me repeat, since you clearly did not grasp it the first time.

Omnipodent being, he can create a world in whatever state or age he want. So "proofs" derived from the worlds age and state is not a proof at all since it can easily explained away,

2. I never claimed the world to be x years old. Maybe god created it over billions of years?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
>Thus the Earth is at least 11,000 years old.

So what? Either it was created that way or god created the world in a slow manner.

>Evolution and genetics. Thus Noah's flood did not happen.

So what? Either the tale was symbolical or recounting of earlier extinction events. Perhaps its a recounting of local flooding of the Arabian peninsula which have happened.

>The Roman records. Thus the birth of Jesus story is a fraud.

And the records show that in fact Jesus existed no matter how much you pretend it to be otherwise.


So, after we have gotten those childish arguments out of the way to you have anything that is above the level of a preschooler?

>>3167026
>a : something set up as an object or end to be attained :

&

>the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

Understandable, if not still arguable.

>>3167041
>Omnipodent being, he can create a world in whatever state or age he want. So "proofs" derived from the worlds age and state is not a proof at all since it can easily explained away,
Then what reason do you have for believing in such a being? I claim that the only rational reason to believe in factual things is evidence. Anything else is insanity and delusion.

>>3167041
>Omnipodent

>>3167045
All belief and knowledge is grounded in some sort of faith. The only thing that differentiates the different beliefs is the grade of faith needed to believe them.

>christians

More flammable then the average human.

>>3167051
Yes. I call you insane and deluded because you believe in factual things without evidence, and further in spite of all available evidence.

Thus, that is about the extent of our conversation.

>christians

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

>>3167060
>>3167060
>>3167060
>and further in spite of all available evidence.
Don't know how you knew what I believe and what I don't. You must be a mind reader.

>>3167041

So your argument is "God lied", either in the Bible or in the fossil record?

>>3167072
>christians

We have to make dog food out of something

>>3166309
>christians

The only group gayer then engineers.

>>3167041
> >The Roman records. Thus the birth of Jesus story is a fraud.
>And the records show that in fact Jesus existed no matter how much you pretend it to be otherwise.
Note that I did not claim Jesus the man did not exist. I said clearly that (only) the story of his birth is a myth, specifically the whole shooting star, traveling parents, three wise men, thing.

>>3166369
>christians

Slightly less fucntional then children with down-syndrome

>christians

because that bullshit isn't going to believe itself.

But my imaginary friend > your imaginary friend

>>3166370
>christians

Trollin humanity for 2000 years

Just to be clear, though, there is no definitive "record" of Jesus' existence. The guy who claimed otherwise was lying.

>>3167112

This. Earliest references post-date him, and Saint Paul didn't seem to be aware that he was supposed to be worshiping an historical figure.

Also religion threads belong on /b/, get back to it.

>>3167119
> religion threads
> get back to /b/
Are you new here or something?

>>3167132

Religion threads have ALWAYS belonged in /b/, just because that rule has long been flaunted here doesn't stop it being a rule. If more of you lazy assholes would report these threads, they'd get taken down a lot quicker.

What is the reason behind atheism?

Leave my /b/, monster.

An atheist believes in Reasoning, but doesn't believe Reason exists... Could a person be more retarded? An atheist doesn't believe in imaginary deities, but will put full faith in an definite present deity such as a President or Government. An atheist doesn't believe in morality but can safely say that "Religion is not Good," (i.e. Religion is evil) - just sugar coated with lots of formality. What kind of a retard would claim their an atheist?

>>3167206
>claim their an atheist
>their

What's personal about atheism, it's the belief in taking away other peoples beliefs and making sure other people don't get converted into believing in a Religion, it's the most impersonal cult of retardness.

>>3167171
>>3167206
What's up aether? How much cum have you swallowed today?

An atheist is a singularity worshiping sub-human that takes pride in failure and death. They are led by old and grey Jewish Capitalist pigs. A belief in Atheism is homogeneous, "We're gay, but we're staying, and we want you to be gay too", should be their slogan.

As you can see by the pictures they post, they're attempting to force their gayness on me. The proof is in the pudding.

Case closed.

I'm an atheist because baby sammiches are delicious

I was raised atheist, or at least secular but now consider myself a rational theist.
To be clear, I belive in god, but my ultimate faith lies in rationality, such that if a rational argument convinced me otherwise I would like to think I would change my beliefs.
I have no issue with anyones beliefs, I am far to relativistic to do so, however I find it amusing that while I have never been yelledat my Christians I am going to hell, far too often atheists attempt to proslytise their view of the universe as being the one true way.
If you consider the presentation of invalid and false arguments against religion as a 'greater good' to prevent some percieved dark age of religon, I propose you are guilty of the same crimes against rationality as any fundementalist.

>>3167247

>>relativistic

What does the invariance of the speed of light have to do with any of this?

A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes
to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow.
The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and
temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine -
surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!"
The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."
The philosopher says "How dare you, a mere scientist, question my
wonderful philosophical reasoning?"
Scientist: "I'm not questioning your reasoning - I want to know if
your machine really produces sausages."
Philosopher: "Can you point to any flaw in my argument that it
produces sausages?"
Sci: "I don't know - I just want to know if it produces sausages. Here
is some meat. Why don't you feed it through and see if you get any
sausages?"
Phil: "And sully my wonderful machine with mere offal?"
Sci: "You said it was a sausage machine. I want to see the sausages."
Phil: "Are you questioning my ingredients?"
Sci: "I'm just questioning whether it produces sausages or not. Show
me the sausages."
Phil: "Ah, so you cannot attack my premises and you cannot attack my
argument. Therefore I'm right and you lose."
Sci: "Don't be such a melodramatic prancing arse. Show me the sausages."
Phil: "The sausages inevitably flow from the argument. You see my fine
machine. You can even inspect the meat & onions. The sausages
necessarily flow."
Sci: "Show me the sausages or I'm off to Tesco."
Phil: "You are a mere scientist with no understanding of philosophical matters."
Sci: "Bye."

>>3167288

either side of this argument is retarded. It's just trolls trollin trolls trollin trolls.

no one knows for sure if God exists or not. If you think you do, you're incorrect. sorry

>>3166573

Did you know that one of the charges against Socrates was that he was an 'Atheist'? Even though he was clearly a Platonist?

>>3167371

How could he be a Platonist, wasn't Plato his student?

>>3166573
>does not understand the how the scientific method works

>>3167247
>>3167247
What is your rational justification for believing in a God? Or do you just stop being rational at that point and go for blind faith?

Serious question here.

>>3167394

let me ask you this. Do believe in right and wrong?

>>3167394

You'll get one of these:

-bible is true because the bible says so

-everything needs a creator. Oh, except my deity, because he's magical

-I never came to terms with mortality and don't want to try. I don't care about the real world, so long as I'm happy.

-You can't prove the nonexistence of any entity, therefore my beliefs have are practically proven!

>>3167411

>>theist being asked about his god
>>goes into a tangent about ethics

inb4 HURR athiests have no morals

>>3167411
Yes. I believe that we as a society determine whats right and wrong through what benefits us as a whole the most.
I.e. not killing each other makes us live longer and not die out, all that stuff.

>>3166539

Tell me what kind of Christian you are, so I can explain what Heresy you are guilty of.

>>3167423

tangent? I'm just setting a base for having a discussion. why does everyone here jump to conclusions immediately?

fine let's ask this what's your rational justification for not believing in God? or do you just go on blind disbelief?

>>3167426

ok so every society is different and has a different set of morals and ethics.

Do you believe in any universal right and wrongs?

>>3167436
Guy who made the first post here >>3167426

My reason for NOT believing, is the same as with the tooth fairy, leprechauns, you name it.
There is no evidence for any of those things to begin with, oh and its also supernatural (outside our laws) which makes the claim even more ridiculous than a unicorn for example (we do have horses which could've grown a horn over time, at least that's more probable.)

>>3167447
Universal, no. You can see through nature and different societies as well that there are different morals, like you said.
Most humans and animals usually don't kill each-other, and generally do what benefits them as a whole, but there are evolutionary advantages to that.

>>3167450

so being unable to prove something makes it impossible?

>>3167468
No, but it gives you no reason to believe that it is true.
Especially with extraordinary claims like that.

>>3167460

see the only problem I have with that kind of thinking is that...well how do you know if it's really beneficial?

>>3167482

you have no reason to not believe it's true. you can't prove or disprove something/someone that lies outside of perception.

>>3167497
Well, not killing each other is obviously beneficial as we survive longer and can reproduce more. Not stealing for example is also beneficial as it makes us produce more, if people would just steal everything then we'd have no one to make anything. These are just basic things though, there is a lot more things that is just created my modern society for different reasons.

>>3167503
The fact that it is NOT proven, and no evidence points to it, is in itself reason not to believe.
If you are going to use that logic, then you better start believing in unicorns, giants, fairies and all other claims like this. Not to mention every other God aswell, Hindu Gods, Zeuz etc etc..

>>3166309
>OP is mad he got rid of all his friends

>>3167503
It is a reason to reject all the unsubstantiated claims regarding the entity, however.

>>3167512

again you are basing this all on the assumption that survival is a good thing.

what I'm getting at is everyone has a set of beliefs that lie outside what you can prove. Because that's what everything is. belief.

>>3167530
>>3167520

personally I don't believe in a god. But I will not say I know there isn't one. If you can say you know for certain there isn't a god you're an idiot.

>>3167532
>>3167532
Survival is a good thing, because otherwise we as a species would die out. Which we haven't, species adapt to survive more (those who don't, die out). Which is what we are, and have been doing.
You must realize, more species have died out than what exists now. For all species survival is top priority.

>what I'm getting at is everyone has a set of beliefs that lie outside what you can prove. Because that's what everything is. belief.
I don't believe this applies to me, maybe I just don't get what you are saying. An example maybe?

>>3167546
Nobody made that claim. What WAS said however is that since there is no proof or evidence that points to said God (or any) existing, is non-existant. Thus there is no reason to not believe.

This is not saying "there is no God"
Believing and knowing are two different things.
What it DOES say is "there probably is no God" or "there might be, but since it is not proven and nothing points to that, why would one believe in that"

>>3167546
Rejecting all unsubstantiated claims includes rejecting the claims that thing does not exist.

1.0; God
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Nothing is a state of non-existence which is referred to, in this case, as ‘the word’. It has been given this name as it bereft of any known qualities or characteristics; it is best described as a pure definitive (i.e. a word). A constant truth about nothing is that unless something was to manifest into existence, it would be non-existing for an eternity; therefore it is accompanied by infinity, a second factor, which is referred to as God. Infinity indicates nothing, in the same way nothing implies infinity, without one the other cannot exist, they are both indefinitely reliant on each other.

A paradox occurs due to a present truth, upon the indication of nothing, nothing would indicate that infinity is also defined; and after the indication of infinity being defined, infinity would imply that nothing is also infinite. The word implies God, God indicates the word, the word is equal to God. Another way of explaining this is through conversation.

1. Nothing says, “I’m going to be here for eternity,” which implies ‘infinity’.
2. Infinity says, “That is nothing,” which indicates ‘nothing’.
3. Nothing says, “If I’m nothing then you’re infinity,” which indicates ‘infinity’ as being ‘nothing’ (defined).
4. Infinity says, “You are going to be here for eternity,” which implies ‘nothing’ as being ‘infinite’

It is possible to simplify the language used as the word wasn’t in English, rather the simplest form of communication. The process of saying is equal to the final result; “I’m going to be here for an eternity” is equal to the implication of ‘infinity’, as “That is nothing” is equal to the indication of ‘nothing’.

1. 0 says, “0”, which implies infinity.
2. Infinity says, “1”, which indicates 0.
3. 0 says, “1”, which indicates infinity.
4. Infinity says, “0”, which implies 1.

1. 0 implies infinity.
2. Infinity indicates 0.
3. 0 indicates infinity.
4. Infinity implies 1.

This evidence shows that infinity is equal to nothing and that they are both immanent (i.e. within each other) and transcendent (i.e. neither can comprehend nor defeat the other); therefore the word is God, and the word is with God. Further elaboration would be; nothing is equal to infinity, for they are both defined as words, ‘infinity’ and ‘nothing’. Infinity is equal to nothing, for they are both transcendent, above and beyond comprehension. They exist together, but as individual components to an empirical picture, with characteristics from each other within themselves. This explains how the word is with God, and how the word is God.

Notes:
An implication is equal to God. An indication is equal to the word. An indication is equal to an implication.
An indication and implication is equal to the word and God.

>>3167547

you can say survival of the fittest is natural order but to assign "good" or "bad" to it is a belief or opinion.

>>3167512

Almost every society ever has the same basic rules; don't kill, don't injure, don't steal, don't betray. All of which can be shown to flow from the very nature of our existence. They then have a set of rules for who these primary rules apply to, and how exactly to ensure these primary rules apply. As we developed, we spread our application of these rules outward, to other tribes, other peoples, every human, and now even animals are considered to be protected as a principle. And we refined the set of subsidiary rules to better promote the basic rules. We are more moral than any generation before us, meaning, we know better how to live in a society that is at once robust and vigorous, and also fulfilling to the individuals within it.

Religion fucks up the whole equation by applying them to the soul instead of the life. So now any apparent discrepancies in the moral equations can be balanced after death, and any inexplicable rules can be justified by reference to the sanctity of the soul. But of course, there is no soul. And so those who say they know how to care for this thing are wrong, at best delusional, at worst charlatans.

Worshipping a religion does not necessarily mean you believe in a series of irrational events, but could also mean you believe in the philosophy of how to interact with other beings which the particular religion specifies.

>>3167560
Oh. I see what you mean. "Good" is just a label put on something that benefits us (in this case anyway).
Wanting to survive is a part of the human by nature, it is an instinct. But really, we should not be arguing over labels, yes, you are right.
Maybe some people do want to die, and say that is "good" instead of "bad". But generally, the majority agrees that being alive is "good", which is why we cry and grief when someone dies. But yes, it does come down to the individual.

>>3167566
>>3167566
If you are going to choose which parts to follow or believe, and which parts to not. Why not just scrap the entire thing. You could just say that you agree with some things stated, or practiced by said religion.

>>3167572

yup so asking for a "rational justification" for a belief is nonsense. Everyone uses their own belief system and they also use their own logic system. So if someone disagrees they can say "oh that's irrational and illogical" but if you go back far enough they all do the same thing. You just have to accept that people believe different things because of the experiences they've had in life.

>>3167578

yes I think everyone can agree that organized religion is an outdated concept

>>3167599

Religion the ideology has been thoroughly discredited. Religion the superstition is no big deal, no worse than astrology or homeopathy. At worst, a danger to oneself.

>>3167592
If we just scrap rationality and I instead just ask you what your reason is for believing.
A "rational" reason I would say, would include observations, and possibly evidence to support a claim.

Why do you believe?