/sci/ - Science & Math

Brofist

What about Atheists?

Atheists: The only people smart enough to realize that God was created so explain things we couldn't understand.

Agnosticism - lack of knowledge. Basically you're just saying: "I'm stupid."

>>3310522
If that were true they would accept his existence.@

>>3310518
They believe that nothing created the world, which is just the other extreme. Agnostics know that some things are unknowable and this makes them superior.

>i dunno lol whered my logc go

>>3310526
To say that you do know for sure would be narcissistic. I don't doubt that some form of god has existed to create the origins of the universe, but that god is definitely not a christian god.

I was always an atheist, went through the grrr I hate religious people phase from 12-14 years old. 14-16 I was agnostic on that basis, then 17+ an atheist again because I figured I have no reason to deem it plausible for something to exist that has no possible evidence.

Agnostics: Cowards who are in big trouble if it turns out God is real.

Define a god.

>>3310510

you can't prove anything about God, you say?

sounds like you are making a strong statement you have no right to make, by your own account.

agnostics: 0
every other animal: 1

Agnostic Atheists
They don't believe your god, and don't need to prove there isn't one either.
But they can disprove some of them. Probably yours.

>>3310560
A literal being as in most religions.

>>3310510
> he still thinks atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive

>>3310579
An agnostic does not rule out the possibility of a god.

>>3310547
> I don't doubt that some form of god has existed to create the origins of the universe

Why don't you doubt that?
What is the point in unnecessarily attaching a deity to the origins of the universe?

Why not just leave it at "We aren't sure yet what happened to cause the origins of the universe"? And just stop adding on unnecessary entities.

If there is any evidence to suggest that a deity created the universe then it may become necessary to discuss how it played a role. However, until any such evidence is found: No evidence = No need to make the assertion = No discussion = No reason to believe a deity played a role.

>>3310599
Zing! Right over your head.

Religion ignores observation to protect beliefs, like: "If I report my priest to the police for raping my child, I'll go to hell. Not to mention the problem of the fact that the police and the judge are members of my church."

>>3310608
Anyone who thinks that has a very poor understanding of their religion.

Agnosticism = not knowing how evolution and quantum mechanics work.

>>3310614
Baptists kick victims out of the community.

Catholics and Mormons move the rapists to other groups of victims.

Religion denies observation to protect beliefs.

^That REALLY is how it works.

>>3310649
>he thinks you have to belong to a church

Organized religion is a business who's primary aim is to get the butts in the pews. There is often nothing Godly about it.

>>3310604
Not only that, but god isn't even an explanation at all, because it's a complex entity that requires more explaining. The only way to actually explain the universe is to reduce it down to irreducible components, which clearly a god is not. So by saying "god did it" one has explained PRECISELY NOTHING.

The problem is that we're stuck with this paradox of either:

a. energy always existed for eternity
b. energy came from nothing

These are the only 2 opions and neither really makes sense, however quantum mechanics sort of explains b.

a. is plausible simply because b. seems more implausible

Interesting film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY

>>3310604
Proving that atheists are lazy and teach us to be satisfied with not knowing the answers.

>>3310649
>Baptists kick victims out of the community.

>Catholics and Mormons move the rapists to other groups of victims.

What's going on here is that they tend to view their church as a center of the community and believe that it would be really bad for everyone to hold it responsible for child abuse. It is not an approach I agree with at all, but it's what they do.

agnostic atheist dropping by.

>>3310691
I hope you go to jail.

>>3310708
Why? I didn't molest anyone.

>>3310712
Because you deserve to experience what the victim experienced.

>>3310724
Why? I did nothing to deserve that.

>>3310727

Neither did the victim.

If a corporation owner rapes a woman, do you put him in jail and lose those jobs, or let him go free to rape again knowing that he is now untouchable?

>>3310740
So, what exactly illegal things have I done to go to jail?

Agnostics: Smart enough to realise that you can't prove anything about the existence of any god at all; too stupid to realise that you can prove the claims people make about god wrong with trivial ease.

Atheist to any god in particular; agnostic to any god at all.

-or-

Atheist to legacy gods; agnostic to esoteric gods.

>>3310755
Oh, you're just there to be a victim, not a criminal.

>>3310760
I don't think you're likely to just get arrested at random in a civilized part of the world. This isn't Africa.

The only smart position regarding God is to never formulate the hipothesis of his existance in the first place. God is a useless word. I don't call myself atheist or agnostic, I simply don't take that into account at any given time.

>>3310769
I didn't say "arrested".

That's a gnostic concept, you dumb faggots.

>>3310756
Where did you get the misunderstanding that agnostics are 'too stupid to realise that you can prove the claims people make about god wrong with trivial ease. '?

GTFO of /sci/ for GOD'S sake

>>3310776
You've made the following claims:

*I somehow support child molestation
*I deserve to go to jail even though I've not done anything in the least bit illegal
*I would get arrested and jailed with no charges in a civilized corner of the globe

You make zero sense.

>>3310796
He was probably molested as a child and is mad at you for not being as mad as him at molesters

>>3310802
Yes well, I'm very sorry if he was molested by a priest (as I suspect many atheists were), but that's not my problem.

>>3310796
No, you deserve to experience what the victim experiences, because the victim doesn't matter to you.

Think of it as a comparable education in your personal faggotry.

agnostics

because nobody really knows if 2+2 = 4 or 5
math is just a theory

>>3310814
>No, you deserve to experience what the victim experiences

You fail to mention anything I did to deserve this. You're acting as if I personally molested a child.

>>3310510
I'm Agnostic Atheist.
So fuck you.

>>3310814
>people have to suffer so they can reach my level of compassion

Oh wow, you could be God himself!

>>3310802
>>3310812

I'm sorry that you lack morals.

This is a CRIME we're talking about. If a politician kills you, we let him go because he's a politician?

Serial-killers can't be arrested because they employ 10,000 people?

At what point do you realize these crimes must be stopped?

>implying you can prove anything about life

>>3310832
Sorry, criminal what? We're talking about the law now.

>>3310837
>If a politician kills you, we let him go because he's a politician?

Not in any civilized country.

>Serial-killers can't be arrested because they employ 10,000 people?

I can't name any serial killers who employed 10,000 people, do you?

>>3310837
you need to take your asspie meds.
This is a tread about agnostics.
your talking about sending people to jail who don't deserve it, and politicians and corporate heads killing people.

hi guys

i reckoned the only thing that could make this thread worse was a tripfag

>>3310847
>Not in any civilized country.

You're right. America is not civilized

.>can't name any serial killers who employed 10,000 people, do you?
Halliburton, while not a serial-killer, has killed a lot of people.

>>3310847
>Not in any civilized country.
This time you are just wrong.

>>3310863
>This is a tread about agnostics.
No, it's a shitty troll thread that was posted on /sci/.

>>3310867
name a politician.
give me an article.
Show some proof.

>>3310865

>>3310878
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reagan_was_the_butcher_of_my

but he had such a good sense of humour, so folksy

>>3310785

It's implicit in the statement.

They say you can't know if god exists or not. Which is fair, for any god at all. The gods that theists believe in, however, you can know about. And we know that they don't exist.

>>3310895
Ok, you just proved yourself to be another pathetic DailyKos liberal.

>>3310902

>>3310904

>>3310908

>>3310903
>2011
>implying the US never financed death squads

I hope you don't do this

>>3310878

There are VERY good reasons they are not arrested.

Want a good example of a murdering politician?

Cheney. You want proof? I'd like to have it myself, but those suicides will have to remain suicides.

>>3310909

>>3310903
>using liberal as if it was a pejorative term

Deal with it dude, being a politician, or a judge, will more often than not get you out of any sticky situation.

>>3310904
>>3310902
>>3310908
>>3310909

WRONG! THAT IS WRONG! NOW GIVE ME 500 PUSHUPS, YOU JACKWAGON!

>>3310909
What's the difference between an Agnostic Theist and a Deist?

>>3310925

>>3310910
>implying communists (ie. atheists) didn't kill 100 million people

I -love- the way you are flipping your shit.

>>3310930
>implying that's what we were talking about

>>3310923
Not much. A diest believes in a something that doesn't interact with this existence, in other words, an irrelevance.

An agnostic theist tries to maintain belief because it's comforting but admits he can't say anything about it.

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

>>3310929
False dichotomies. The only kind of argument that atheists can come up with.

>>3310930

>implying following absolute, unquestionable authorities wasn't the cause of the genocides of the last century

Religion is an ideology like any other. That they claim god invented their manifesto makes no difference to the critical analysis of their other positions.

>>3310938
>implying

>>3310948
sure is ironic in here

>>3310940

What I term 'honest deists' are something of a rarity today. But where they do occur, they share almost every position on religion or the divine that straight atheists do.

Dishonest deists are those who claim to be deists, but they also think they know exactly which god they think kicked things off, they just don't say.

Apologists often start by arguing deistic positions, get a tacit or implicit or explicit agreement from their opponent that god could exist; then they continue arguing as though they have proven their god exists.

Atheism doesn't necessarily make any propositions - or claims to truth - for you to choose to believe in or not.

At it's heart, atheism is just open-mindedness to anything that may be the ultimate reason for or cause of existence.

Any idea of god or other reason or cause for existence that you can come up with at this point is arbitrary, and vague.

there could be an near infinite number of inconceivable explanations to everything that is unknown.

Atheists merely question whether or not YOU have found the ultimate truth.

As much as I would like to believe in a God that loves me, it is equally probable that everything was created for another reason and that we are but an unintended, unnoticed consequence.

No one can explain ultimate origins/why questions etc. And that's it. We can end it there, for now. it doesn't mean we have to speculate on that answer because chances are we'll be complete wrong as our any responses will be complete arbitrary. more problematic, our answers will based on an understanding of physics that exists in this universe that may or may not apply in some 'elsewhere'.

Why has atheism risen? Aside from the obvious antitheist remarks (which aren't entirely unfounded).
But more importantly because the idea of "God" marks ignorant reduction to a spontaneous, causeless, sourceless, purposeless, meaningless entity by the intentional effort of theist apologists (because you have to ask, why does god exist?). It's understandable people would be discontent with this 'resolution'. It doesn't solve anything and in fact creates more problems as it breeds an arrogant presupposition that we are the centre of the everything when new knowledge would indicate the opposite.

"Agnosticism" in a nutshell:

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

The typical self-described agnostic will have no problem telling you they believe the sun will rise tomorrow, or that leprechauns are imaginary. However, when it comes to religion, they will pussy out and hide behind ridiculous standards of proof and take a fallacious "middle ground" position.

I kind of believe in humans having souls

>>3311015
And you can still believe in supernatural things if you're an atheist, just so long as they're not a god.

>>3310950
But Stalin et al were good, non-superstitious atheists. I thought there was no way anyone but a Christian could possible kill millions of people. No, those atheists are such kind, compassionate enlightened people.

>>3311015
if by "soul" you mean "life" which is to be cherished, then I agree.

>>3311033
idk if you read the conversation leading up to this or

jesus fucking christ sage this religion bullshit

>>3311033

Superstition is one component of religion. Ideology is another.

Communism had it's superstitions, not least of which includes Lysenko's biology. But not quite as far reaching as the superstitions that infuse religions. Either way, both religions and communism are based around the idea that there is an essential truth inaccessible to the general public directly, but which can be interpreted for them by a special class. They are both, after all, ideologies invented by men and run by men for whatever ends they may have.

Atheists reject the superstitious notion of a deity. Another set, for which we have no good, single, non-loaded name; rejects the notion of living under an unresponsive, unquestionable authority. They often overlap, but not exclusively.

>>3311058
>rejects the notion of living under an unresponsive, unquestionable authority. They often overlap, but not exclusively

So then you're an anarchist. If anything, Somalia sure demonstrates how well that works.

not GOD god, but the god of the desert? we pretty much know the history of the holy book, so we know THAT one is fake. 3 religions down, and the others don't matter! HA!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AGNOSTIC BELIEF. THERE IS ONLY AGNOSTIC ATHEISM/THEISM OR GNOSTIC ATHEISM/THEISM.
10/10. I so fucking mad.

>>3311068
I don't think you know what anarchist means.

>>3311068

I reject the notion of living under an UNRESPONSIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE authority. If I feel that those who are asked to live under it are given a fair chance to alter those rules and laws they deem unnecessary or unjust, or a reasonable opportunity to leave the rule of this authority; then that's just fine by me.

In this way, the protestant reformation was a relative improvement over the orthodoxy. People get to interpret the book for themselves, not have its meanings and commandments dictated to them. The counter-reformation was a relative improvement over the protestants. People are told that the book is simply a guideline, and so people, a select few admittedly, are able to alter those rules that no longer work. And the enlightenment was a massive improvement over any of this. People got to throw out old, obsolete rules and institute betters ones as decided by debate and democracy.

And also, I am an anarchist. Fuck you, Somalia improved it's quality of life and economic development in the years of anarchy more than any other African nation in that time period. They were all ruled by UNRESPONSIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE authorities. So at the very least, anarchy is demonstrably preferable to the kind of absolutist governance you see in undeveloped parts of the world.

I'm agnostic. I don't believe in knowledge.

>>3311115
Isn't Somalia an impoverished shithole run by warlords, pirates, and Islamofascists?

>97 posts and 19 image replies

why.jpg

>>3311190

Yes. It is a relative improvement from the dictatorship that was there before, and it's situation has degraded somewhat just lately, following the rise of the ICU.

The point being that anarchy in Somalia was better for it in the decade or so that it existed, than the authoritarian governments were for other African nations in the same time period. That an authoritarian system takes hold now and makes things go back downhill is maybe an argument against the meta-stability of an anarchy, but it's not an argument against the efficacy of the anarchy at raising the quality of life.