/sci/ - Science & Math

yeah never really thought it through, always came naturally to me to be an atheist. Feels right. None of my friends are religious, why should I be?

>faith in atheism

>inb4 300 replies

>implying atheism is a faith

>touching my penis

atheism is ex vi termini blind faith in materialism, so blind faith in atheism is blind faith in a sort of blind faith.

>inb4shitstorm

>>3199845
To me, atheism was always too far-fetched to believe in.

>>3199888
>believe in

>implying Christians aren't all just angsty linkin park teenagers

Pic related; it's an average Christian

>>3199931
unsuccessfultrollisunsuccessful.jpg

>>3199936

u mad, emo kid?

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of faith. A lack of faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is only a religion in the same way that not believing is Santa Clause is also a religion. If everything you don't believe in is considered a religion then there are an infinite amount of religions. The burden of proof lies on people claiming that a god exists. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morality is independent of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good" and "bad" are only human perceptions.
Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and insult to reason. It is a political tool used to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. Religion is holding mankind from it's potential.
Religion continues to exist because of tradition, early indoctrination and an emotional response to deny the coldness of reality. Once indoctrinated the believer becomes loyal to his religion. Because he has invested so much of his life/time and emotion into his religion he becomes openly hostile to people that question his faith. He responds with anger and emotion instead of curiousity. He is unable to look critically at his beliefs. Religious people are feelers. They believe in their religion because they WANT it to be true. They are our lost brothers and sisters.

>>3199944
The #1 sign of a failed troll is when he says "U mad?"

>>3199964
>he so mad

>>3199885
This.

Also, who is the faggot in OP's pic? I keep seeing this face but I don't know where it's from.

>>3199960
Boring copypasta from richarddawkins.net is boring

>>3199989
>not being able to read filenames

>>3199960
Stolen that for troll thread copypasta

>>3199989

>>3199946
>thinking atheism=science
>2011

>>3200028
atheism are concerned with what is true as opposed to what is fallacious but comforting.

>>3200053
Well, I for one find atheism very fallacious. Nor do I see what is very comforting about it.

>>3199960
Underneath the smokescreen of obfuscatory and abstruse nomenclature, this is bullshit.

That some atheists think that mini-walls of copypasta like this are compelling or even convincing is a testament to their idiocy.

>>3200059
>make no claims
>get called fallacious

wat

>>3200001
What was the 3200000 GET?

>>3200074
Oh please, explain how. This should be good. Or are you just another anonymous poster who with the annoying habit of making statements you can't backup.

>>3200077
It makes demonstrably false/exaggerate claims about other religions.

EVERYONE READ THIS

Typing "sage" in the e-mail field right above the comment boxcase (where you write your repplies) will allow you to comment in the thread without bumping it. So, these kind of threads will not always be on the front page.

Thanks for your concern and remember kids: don't have sex without your sages or you'll get trolls.

E-mail =sage

>>3200087
Actually, atheism says nothing about religion.

>>3200096
>he/she/it's obviously never been to an atheist website

>>3200089
Ok

>>3200098
Antitheists have much to say about religion.

Anttheism is atheistic but atheism itself says nothing about religion.

>>3200106
>implying anyone ever hears anything from passive atheists

>>3200085
I love your tone, for starters.

That bit of text:
1) does not back up its matter-of-fact moral relativism ("good and bad are human perceptions," etc.)
2) claims that our existence is without purpose ("only causes")
3) regarding 2), determinism (causality) and atheism are strange bedfellows. When you blend the two, you inevitably end up with an infinite causal regress.
4) makes sweepingly generalizing and occasionally demonstrably false claims about organized religion
5) claims that religion is clung to because of a profound wish that it were true, when I could say the same thing about atheism. It would be bullshit, but I could do it.

I'm sensing alot of samefag in this thread

>>3200117
True. Soft or weak atheism is much less vocal.

Direct opposition to religion comes not from the atheist. Agnostics and apatheists don't have anything to say about religion and buddhists and ignostics are even complimentary.

Antitheists are you you oppose, not atheists

>>3200127
Yes, many so-called atheists seem to genuinely want there to be no god or heaven as opposed to saying "I'd like for it to be true, but I can't bring myself to believe."

>>3200132
no samefag here, boss

>>3200000

>>3200135
that's because they think that the christian god is an asshole

>>3200146
Exactly when in fact God may actually be a nice guy, but atheists are buying too much into their own press releases.

>>3200127

>1) does not back up its matter-of-fact moral relativism ("good and bad are human perceptions," etc.)
Show me you've found an objective moral truth. And the fact that people overwhelmingly agree does not make it objective.


>2) claims that our existence is without purpose ("only causes")
purpose is produced by man. there is no overarching purpose and anything you can come up with to suggest this is probably just you projecting.

>3) regarding 2), determinism (causality) and atheism are strange bedfellows. When you blend the two, you inevitably end up with an infinite causal regress.
Causality is a fact that we must to accept. I don't claim to know where the universe came from. All I can say is we might as well through causality out the window when thinking of pre-big bang because causality is a condition of this universe and I can't say anything about anything beyond it. It may have a beginning, or there may well be infinitely recursive

>>3200192
>4) makes sweepingly generalizing and occasionally demonstrably false claims about organized religion
Yes, there was an antitheist or at least a critical perspective in this block of text. Critism of religion is by no means wrong. it is responsible for a number of atrocities. At the same time, I don't characterise myself as an antitheist. I was catholic. I know religion can be beautiful.

>5) claims that religion is clung to because of a profound wish that it were true, when I could say the same thing about atheism. It would be bullshit, but I could do it.

throughout history it is clear god has represented the gaps in scientific knowledge. magic and the divine have all too often been assertions that follow from ignorance. Again, too many people follow the morality of the bible in spite of what is known and what is right (see Westboro baptist church hate group). this is what they were getting at.
I do agree that religion is not wishing it to be true. Indoctrination means that people actually think what they are right.

>>3200153
>>3200146
Do you guys believe in God?

>>3200197
I am inclined to agree with Madeline L'Engle when she said that religion, science, and magic are all different aspects of one continuous reality.

>>3199960
Actually, science is, theoretically, incapable of proving or disproving God solely because it is in the same boat as religion--or rather, a different boat floating in the same vast, metaphysical ocean. Let me explain, science, in and of itself, works off of presuppositions--be it presuppositions of an empirical reality or presupposing causality. As a result, we ultimately reduce science to a process of "shed of the garments" of reality. The process of shedding garments had become more intriguing than what lays underneath. Science is almost as useless as religion; it is a forlorn and endless striving; a search which will never achieve truth.

>>3200208
I am an agnostic personally.

>>3200217
see that computer right in front of you you're typing on? just as useless as religion? theres no way its anywhere near as useless as philosophy, its already made you into a worthless piece of shit.

>>3200209
Of course they are. that phrase doesn't really say much when you think about it.
I'm talking about what is most likely to be true: Science that *strives* for truth or identifying some as magic and being content with leaving everything as a mysterious unknown?

the continuous reality is undoubtedly: magic ----> Religion -------> Science

>>3200223
Then you're an atheist :)

>>3200236
No, because I do not discount the possibility of the supernatural.

>>3200232
Actually she implied that all three are equal and one was not above the others.

>>3200240
That does not really have a bearing on whether or not you hold or do not hold an active belief in a deity.

>>3200217

You certainly strike me as a logical positivist, which is pointless mental circle jerking. To assume that our primal basic senses as unreliable is doing them a great dis justice. We have demonstrably shown our ability to investigate how the world works. It's logically incoherent to assert that we can't know if there is a supernatural, because not a single person has ever demonstrated what the supernatural actually is. By that extension you could believe a number of unjustified assertions. Absolute knowledge is a red herring, we don't use to to draw reasonable conclusions.

>>3200257
you are retarded

>>3200217
I agree you can't prove or disprove that which is deliberately designed to be unfalsifiable. Like string theory until they make some testable predictions.

Science is clearly not useless, chances are you would not be alive were it not for advances in medical science.

>>3200240

Once we know about the supernatural, if it exists, it is just the natural.

>>3200248

And I'm saying I don't agree. that it is clearly nonsense. they are valued in very different ways.

>>3200240
agnostic isnt a choice

agnostic atheist reporting in.

you probably are as well.

>>3200222
Imagine a group of individuals deciding to dig a whole to the center of the earth. As they dig, they'll suddenly realize that their work remains an infinitesimal, insiginificant amount of progress measured against the grand scheme of their work. They'll soon realize the problem--the fate of their work is uncertain, they may never succeed. To prevent themselves from falling forward into a spiraling abyss of existential crisis, the individuals take advantage of the minerals they find and the laws of nature they stumble upon. These individuals are scientists. They're more comfortable with the process than the results.

>>3200258
Incorrect; the supernatural likely follows a completely different set of rules than the physical universe.

>>3200266

And you can substantiate this claim how?

>>3200269
Well, we're told that ghosts and other supernatural things can do stuff that is physically impossible.

>>3200282

And? Can you substantiate the existence of ghosts?

>>3200266
Of course, I remain open to the idea that there is a realm of something supernatural. That's all you can be. But what the implications for this level of open-mindedness that make it different from someone who is a weak atheist?

And if there is a supernatural it would be natural. How can it not? How are you defining this 'supernatural'? If it's something you can't define as separate from the natural then it has no bearings on anything.

>>3200295

For once i agree with EK. Well said.