/sci/ - Science & Math

It is time.

ur just mad cuz god put u in a weal chair

I at least like the ones that don't give Bible quotes.

can't we have a science program without constantly trying to ruffle up the theists? just leave them alone i want my science

>I still beleiv in god u twisted hamburgalar

>>3536386

>can't we have a science program without constantly trying to ruffle up the theists? just leave them alone i want my science

It shines a spotlight on the fact that theism obstructs science. We're unable to go public with results they disapprove of without enormous resistance. That's worth talking about.

They aren't even worth the time and effort. When their worlds start to collapse they all act the same way : human.

Why do you care?

Hawking wouldn't be a pioneer in science if there weren't luddites decrying him.

Also
>caring about what the average person thinks
>ISHYGDDT

yeah my fave is definitely the one about string theory

>dat font rendering

>>3536404

>Why do you care?

Hawking deserves respect from the public, not slobberjawed banjo pluckin' southern fried scorn.

>>3536407
the majority will always be slobbering idiots. The goal is to educate the ruling class into promoting science while minimizing the proles resistance. Unfortunately, we have a political party wrapped up in bronze age myths.

''WHAT ABOUT STRING THEORY''

>>3536412

>The goal is to educate the ruling class into promoting science while minimizing the proles resistance. Unfortunately, we have a political party wrapped up in bronze age myths.

Precisely. Therefore, programs like this are necessary.

>>3536407
...and the theists want the same for their cake god.

>Reactions to Stephen Hawkings' "Curiosity" TV special
My reaction: What is it and when did it air?

If God doesn't exist, then who keeps the Devil in check HAHAHAHAA

>claiming to have proven there is no god
>ISHYGDDT

Stay classy Hawking.

Seriously, if you want to argue with theists at least make a good argument, no "there was no time for god" or "universe came from nothing" lol.

Oh great. Another scientist, instead of making a documentary/lecture/special about science that appeals to me, is just going on about how religious people believe nonsense.

Sigh.

I don't get how these luddites can disregard scientific research. None of them complain when you tell them about the existence of something sweet like magnatars and they just eat it like the rest of the shit they are spoon fed. Then when you try to tell a christian that a body's intricate processes are not useful out of design but rather are a consequence of usefulness itself you are suddenly pulling teeth.

Makes perfect sense to me.

>>3536438

>Seriously, if you want to argue with theists at least make a good argument, no "there was no time for god" or "universe came from nothing" lol.

That's not the whole of the argument. It's a summation of new findings in physics that you apparently deny, like a creationist denies evolution.

Logically arguing with theists is one of the most illogical things you can do.
/discuss

>>3536446

There was no finding disproving the possibility of god as it is defined. Proving a negative is impossible.

If you think some scientific finding proved this negative, please point me to it.

>>3536438
This. Having no time inside this system ≠ some unknown external system does not exist. Fuck, it's analogous to saying, from the cell's perspective, that the grid didn't exist before a certain point, so a human cannot have created the 2D cellular automata.

Theists are still full of shit when they claim that external system is their god, though.

>>3536439
Look up Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

Should blow your mind.

Scientists: get to reading the 48 Laws of Power already, you piddly puddles of stool water.

No one was ever convinced by an argument.

>>3536439

I must say, I find this troublesome as well.

Now I don't study math or science, I'm a humanitarian student, however I go over new findings in physics, biology and geology to educate myself( a man should at least know about art and science, even if he does not specialize in any of them). Now I've gone over most of the documentaries, it's pretty much the same basic stuff over and over, it's frustrating, give me more meat, go deeper.

At least there are free lectures online now.

>>3536466
The attributes of a God (as in, created the Universe, created the stars, planets, etc) are all disprovable or explainable without the invoking magical super powers.

God is disproven to the point that The Matrix is disproven. Simply stating an argument of rebuttal as "technically you can not prove it absolutely 100%" is not a fucking argument for anything. It's a bullshit response to the obvious conclusion.

>>3536466
See, for a real argument concerning god's existence, you first need to prove that he exists. Not the other way around.
Because otherwise I could have created the universe, no way to disprove it if I put enough bullshit in my personal religion.

>>3536466

>There was no finding disproving the possibility of god as it is defined. Proving a negative is impossible.

You're thinking about it very narrowly. You haven't even considered some angles to approach it from that do make it possible to discredit *specific* gods of specific religions, which is more important anyway as those are the gods people actually believe in.

For instance if the defining criteria for the Judaic, Islamic and Christian god includes having manually created the universe, imbuing us with supernatural souls, creating life in Earth and so on, scientific findings discredit these gods. One can no longer truthfully say "the god who did X Y and Z things exists" if X Y and Z are proven to be natural phenomena.

>>3536479
Let me show you how a humanitarian major reacts to listening to actual information in an educational format and maybe you can figure out why science shows on the TeeVeeee cover the same basic shit over and over.

Please hold a mirror for the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLFawzBUFk

>>3536479

> give me more meat, go deeper.

Well... okay then. Here i come.

>>3536464
We should designate special people to explain what scientists are saying during debates. When rational men get flustered by the blatantly fallacious reasoning employed by most Religious spokespeople they tend to take for granted that the audience probably doesn't even remember the most basic things taught in early education concerning science. The sheep would much rather listen to the man saying "Look at how unreasonable that claim seems" rather than "Reason should be the result of discovery"

>>3536482

>The attributes of a God (as in, created the Universe

Nope, noone has proven what initiated the big bang or the state of the universe which lead to it, so the possibility of it being god is not yet disproven.

Stuff like this hurts science. No matter what hawkings thinks he has found it is a philosopical law that nobody can know how the universe started. He just makes a fool of real science that includes an understanding of god and supernatural essence, which is what most scientists secretly know about. They can't say it because of liberals controlling their funding and calling them racists or nutjobs if they admit supernatural forces, God, angels, demonic possession, spirit healing and other higher phenomena are real.

We need to completely knock down the current oppressive institution of science in this country and rebuild it around a cohesive worldview that includes the supernatural. To make sure no scientists abuse their position to say something destructive to acceptance of supernatural truths, their department would have a spiritually minded Christian in charge who would read their papers before publication.

This is the best solution to a better relationship between the public and scientists. Opposing it means you are creating a false division between spirituality and science (Implying only one is true when the fact is both are true and belong in the same framework) and you are to blame for all the controversy. If you really value science, then stop saying it shouldn't include the supernatural aspects of reality.

>>3536512

>Nope, noone has proven what initiated the big bang or the state of the universe which lead to it, so the possibility of it being god is not yet disproven.

Yes they have, that's the entire subject of his new book. I bet you haven't read it yet.

>>3536498

Any specific moment or just watch all of it?

In any case, there are idiots everywhere, everywhen. This doesn't mean there shouldn't be information for those who want to investigate a given subject in greater details.

>>3536512
The possibility that Harry Potter started the Universe has not been disproven.

The possibility that Harry Potter created everything has approximately equal weight as the omnipotent God of our more refined primitive superstitions.

That is, very little.

And that is the entirety of the remaining argument for God's existence. "You haven't disproven the final edges of the natural world, and God lurks beyond the fog"

>>3536539
that's what youtube is for. Imagine that lecture as a reoccurring show on any commercial cable channel. A negligible number of people would watch it.

>>3536540
And Harry said, "LET THERE BE MUGGLES"
Ronald 1:5

>>3536540

>And that is the entirety of the remaining argument for God's existence. "You haven't disproven the final edges of the natural world, and God lurks beyond the fog"

Yes, thats all what I am saying. But Hawking says this argument is not just redundant god of the gaps copout, very improbable but not possible to be proven false, he positively says it must be false. Which is a logical fallacy, equal to saying "I am 100% sure there is no teapot orbiting the sun". Even more, since we can check the second claim, but we dont know know anything about the state of the universe which precluded big bang.

People like this exist because they don't understand anything that leads to the topic being discussed. They try to simplify it with their current knowledge. Video related. Its the difficulty in explaining why magnets work because people need to have a background of knowledge to even accept the explanation as to why magnets work. Its the same with this show. People don't have the knowledge base to even understand how Hawkings got to his conclusion without dumbing it down and that would be cheating them on a proper explanation which won't provide a real answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>>3536561

That's not how I interpreted it. He never said "I am 100% certain no kind of god can possibly exist".

>>3536537

These are all exceptionally valid arguments.

I pity atheists.

Pride comes before the fall.

>>3536586
Except, of course, your pride in your belief that atheists are wrong, and your belief that there is a god.

Good double standards there.

>>3536547

While I see your point, there are things you seem to neglect.

1. Lectures on youtube, academy earth and university websites are only accessed by those who search for them, average Joe cannot and will not stumble upon them by accident. That doesn't mean that Joe wouldn't care, it means that there is nothing to draw his attention on the subject.

2. Lectures like those are geared toward students. There is a difference between a student and a TV audience.

For example a student needs to know the formula, the audience needs to know only the method.

3. Listening to a lecture is boring - usually the one giving the lecture doesn't sound like Carl Sagan, he is of doing it in the matter-of-fact way instead of being enthusiastic about it (for a TV) and there is minimal, if any, visual guidance.

I agree that the general public will not show interest in everything, but more sophisticated information can be delivered to them in the correct manner and their attention can be attracted with the right publicity.

>Proverbs 10:14
The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.

>Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

>Proverbs 18:2
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

>Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

>Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.

>Proverbs 29:9
If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.

>Proverbs 28:26
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

>Psalms 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

what was it about ?

>>3536561
For the same reason we can conclude with enough certainty to discount Harry Potter as god, or that we all live in The Matrix.

It's not 100% absolutely no. It's the acceptance that the alternative is so fucking ridiculously invalid an argument that it can be discounted without the necessity to disprove every facet of its absurd premises.

Do you think Harry Potter as god is a stupid argument? Explain to me why, and those same points will apply to God creating the universe. As in, it's obviously bullshit.

>>3536613

"All Bible verses are invalid" ~Me

"But you're just some dude with no authority. I am quoting directly from the Bible which has authority based on thousands of years of tradition" you say.

Presto, an admission that your argument is based on authority and tradition, not reason and evidence.

>>3536373
"Mankind's arrogance will be it's downfall"
Couldn't have said it better myself.

This world is moving in the direction that we are God's. There is no God. How foolish of a mortal being to think this right?
Wrong, Science attacks God with no knowledge or understanding of him. Once this has been achieved, they think they are gods.

Remove god from the picture and you are god.
Pride comes before the fall.

Always.

>>3536613
Funny, this describes atheists to a tee.
10/10

awe shit, I know victor nunez...fuck

>>3536637
>Scientists are the first to admit that they do not know.
>I'm so right that I will call other megalomaniacal egomaniacs.
>Scientists are the ones with too much pride.
Yeah... about that.

This thread is saturated and fueled solely by terrible trolls.

>>3536568
>>3536568
>>3536568
Yes. This is the same reason why people think calling evolution a "theory" is outright dismissing it. They literally have no idea what the scientific method implies and the work behind it, and don't try to, because if they did they would feel infinitely stupid.

>>3536373

i raged

10/10

would rage again

Does anyone know where I can watch this online?

>>3536615
>Atheists use logical fallacies to discredit God.
Are you six years old? Come up with a valid argument.

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists

>>3536670
>If there were no theists, there would be no Atheists
Fixed.

>>3536670
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

There's no dragon, bro.

>>3536670

>If there were no God, there would be no Atheists

You don't believe in Vishnu. Does that mean Vishnu must exist?

>>3536644
go troll on /b/

>>3536691
Me? Trolling? Lol.

The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized. However, not only is this false and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons. A simple examination reveals this:

>>3536681
>The Dragon In My Garage
>by Carl Sagan

Go troll somewhere else. I find it sad that this is the best argument the Atheist can come up with. Now I know why people tag the word agnostic to it. Pitiful.

>>3536710

>The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized.

That does tend to be the case. I know of no examples where it isn't.

>However, not only is this false

Show me an example where it's false.

>and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons.

You don't accept that an invisible dragon has the same credibility as god, in other words. On what grounds do you assert god is a more credible claim?

>I find it sad that this is the best argument the Atheist can come up with.

Read the posts in the OP picture. Those are your people. That's how stupid Christians are. Might want to get off your high horse when 99% of Christians are complete retards and most scientists are atheists.

>>3536637
There's no fate
but that which we make for ourselves
But we are a breath,
just a moment
in time and space
We'd place the light of our sentience
within the machine
and we would send it to heaven
to end God's regime

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmD5wM7N8jY

>>3536710
>The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized.
False.

The author of that short story, just like I, am agnostic about things outside the universe. I don't know if there is a dragon in your garage which is in all ways not observable.

However, dragons as traditionally understood in my garage? Now that's observable, and testable. The evidence is in. There is no dragon in my garage, nor your either. If you insist on ad hoc hypothesizing it to the point that it's not falsifiable, then it doesn't even resemble the original proposition - the dragon is now, something, which we're not quite sure about. I am agnostic towards dragons which never interact with this world.

>>3536710

>>3536710
>false comparison
How so?
Humanity has imagined literally thousands of gods and spirits in ten thousand years of existence.

You claim one of these is real, others aren't.

That is hubris.

Yhere are no heroes, mankind is doomed.

As I said previously, using any logic-based arguments in arguments concerning theism is fucking retarded.
It just doesn't work. You can't disprove faith.

>>3536739

>You can't disprove faith.

You don't have to disprove faith. It has no substance, no content. It's invalid already.

>>3536747
That's pretty close to what I was trying to say.

>>3536763

Oh, I think I see now. Bro fist I guess.

believing anything this overly politically concerned faggot says. fuck hawking.

>>3536498
I'm sure not seeing 1-18 has nothing to do with the difficulty following session 19.

You will obviously never be able to convince these people. Its pointless to argue with them. Gods were created by man to explain the unexplained and over the course of 3000 years of human civilization, we have been able to make all of them irrelevant, through science, except one. The one that explains where they came from and what their purpose is on earth. Those are ideas that are just too complex for the average person to understand.

>>3536884
If you take a look at Dan Dennett's evolution of confusion youtube video, he actually has 6 atheist clergy who would disagree with you. At least one claims that Hitchen's book God Is Not Great was the tipping point for him to be an atheist.

Don't give up hope. They're not unreachable. It's my belief (or hope?) that most are simply ignorant of the facts. They do not understand how their beliefs are in contrast with reality and rationalism.

I've always looked at it like my mother does: Science explains how, spirituality explains why.

Sure, it's not "solid" thing I guess when it comes to spirituality, but it makes just as many people happy as it does not.

Also, I think even with massive advances in science there will always be spirituality.

Is there a link for this on youtube yet?

As far as I know medieval christians belived god created time, causuality and everything and exist in timeless eternity "outside" of the universe.

Existence of such god is pretty hard to disprove even with modern science.

You can download it here if anyone wants to watch it
http://planetsuzy.org/t476210-curiosity-discovery.html

>>3536923

>Science explains how, spirituality explains why.

But spirituality doesn't actually explain why. It's just opinion. And it's kind of hard to have spirituality in the first place when neuroscience has shown that spirits don't exist.

>>3536926
>Didn't even go to youtube
>Youtube search "Stephen Hawking Curiosity"
>Instantly pops up the 3 parts on first page

Might as well try fucking searching retard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOxTiotS9Y

If god exists, then he's outside our ability to comprehend and time is meaningless to him anyway.
Given that..the argument will probably go on forever.
Let's all just make peace with not knowing.

>>3536940
I use spirituality to mean the spirit and the belief in gods and deities, while religion is just a way to organize people to believe in the same thing. That's my opinion on the matter
> inb4 "ur wrong because your opinion is shit"

But the why is more of a "God put us here to do good" so that people can feel there is purpose to what they do. Not everyone needs purpose, but it definitely helps people to think they have one.

>>3536940
Looking for anything supposedly metaphysical in the physical is like looking for the sky by digging into the ground.

>>3536940
>>3536888
>>3536884

I really don't comprehend why some of you specific atheists attempt to constantly change the views of others, or push this notion upon others. Even as an atheist, I don't push my views upon other individuals, nor do I attempt to preach some scientific "gospel" to them. It's their right to search, to acquire the necessary research and to ask questions; it is not, however, your right to push this shit down their throats.

I'd rather someone live a happy life with their God rather than fuck with them. Some of you guys exaggerate about theists and I'll never comprehend the fucking hate you have for them. Most of my fucking friends are theists and we have very good relationships. When the topic of religion comes up, they respect my view point and I respect theirs. It really isn't that big of a deal. Of course, I've met the hardcore religionfags who decide to want to push their concepts down my throat, but I simply wave them off.

Why the hell is this a big deal for you? I really want to know. Why MUST you change their views? You're no different from the hardcore religiousfags trying to convert me. You're fucking hypocrisy incarnate.

>>3536965

Based on what? That's a cute analogy but you've offered no evidence that you're correct. If souls exist, and control our bodies, that NECESSITATES interaction between the supernatural and the natural. That gives us someplace to look for evidence of the supernatural, and the closer neuroscientists look the more clear it becomes that souls aren't real.

>>3536965

>Looking for anything supposedly metaphysical in the physical is like looking for the sky by digging into the ground.

Whelp, best forget about all that "physical" nonsense.

>>3536954

Dank ee vur mach

>>3536968
I like you.

Really though, a lot of people just really can't stand the idea that somebody thinks different then them, regardless of what it is. There's this arrogant part of everybody that says "I'm right and everybody else is fucking stupid".

>>3536968

>Why the hell is this a big deal for you? I really want to know. Why MUST you change their views? You're no different from the hardcore religiousfags trying to convert me. You're fucking hypocrisy incarnate.

Really? Do you oppose gay rights? Do you oppose stem cell research, and evolution education?

You must. I support these things, and you seem to object to it. Those are problems caused by Christians. We aim to solve these problems by going after the source.

>>3536968
>I really don't comprehend why some of you specific atheists attempt to constantly change the views of others, or push this notion upon others. Even as an atheist, I don't push my views upon other individuals, nor do I attempt to preach some scientific "gospel" to them. It's their right to search, to acquire the necessary research and to ask questions; it is not, however, your right to push this shit down their throats.

These people vote. They sometimes vote for what I consider to be malicious and evil policies because of their false beliefs. If only I could convince them of material facts, then they would agree with me that certain policies are in fact evil.

In other words, I am a citizen of a democratic republic, whose entire functioning relies upon an informed populace, which itself largely relies upon the marketplace of ideas of freedom of speech. It does them no good to let them wallow in a falsehood. I hope that they will show the same consideration for me and attempt to prove that I am right about the most cherished beliefs which I hold.

>>3536968
All kinds of this.

I'd also like to add in that some of these people you may hate may actually attribute very good genetics to the gene pool. You may have people with physical genius that are highly religious that help contribute to the survival of the human species by adding diversity.


The human species wouldn't likely thrive if we only allowed the highly intelligent to exist.

>>3536981
Err, typo. I hope that they will try to prove that I am /wrong/ about beliefs which I cherish.

>>3536973
I'm sorry for being so angry and insulting :|

>>3536970
>Based on what? That's a cute analogy but you've offered no evidence that you're correct. If souls exist, and control our bodies, that NECESSITATES interaction between the supernatural and the natural. That gives us someplace to look for evidence of the supernatural, and the closer neuroscientists look the more clear it becomes that souls aren't real.

The theory is that the soul is the part of your consciousness that extends beyond the body.
I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, just that saying it doesn't definitively because you don't see it under a microscope is misunderstanding what the thing is supposed to be exactly. It's one of the mysteries of life and probably always will be.

Assume all you want, but you don't actually KNOW. An educated guess is still a guess whether you like it or not. For all we know the nature of our existence is a much different thing then we can possibly have imagined. To say we know exactly what it is is just a show of human arrogance, honestly.

>>3536968
I dont try to force my views on anybody. If someone wants to believe in God or any spiritual being, they can do so. Its religion I have the problem with

>>3536978
Not all Christians are like that. The media has decided to pick some of the Christians that are and plaster them up as the image

I'm agnostic, but I grew up surrounded by Christians. None of them are how you describe. The majority of them are highly intelligent. Most I would consider above average.

You might as well start grouping people along with the places they're born.

I personally like one of the main messages that can come from Christianity, being tolerance and love. Accepting individuals for what they are: flawed.

>>3536968

>
I really don't comprehend why some of you specific atheists attempt to constantly change the views of others, or push this notion upon others. Even as an atheist, I don't push my views upon other individuals, nor do I attempt to preach some scientific "gospel" to them. It's their right to search, to acquire the necessary research and to ask questions; it is not, however, your right to push this shit down their throats.

You're not from a primarily religious country, are you? Some people just don't want to look for the facts. They conceal themselves in their safe little bubble, and reject anything that opposes their view point.

And science "gospel"? Sorry, but evolution isn't an opinion. Nor is any other aspect of science. It's either true or it isn't.

>Why the hell is this a big deal for you? I really want to know. Why MUST you change their views? You're no different from the hardcore religiousfags trying to convert me. You're fucking hypocrisy incarnate.

Because religion makes good people do bad things. If you're honestly having to ask this question, you haven't had enough time to think about it.

>>3536974

I'll never understand it. Yesterday, I was with a few of my friends who are Muslim and they asked me to pray in my living room because we were hanging out. I laid down a mat for them to pray, went in the other room and played SFIV. Ten minutes later, they came in and played me. I whooped their asses too.

>>3536978

>Really? Do you oppose gay rights? Do you oppose stem cell research, and evolution education?
>You must. I support these things, and you seem to object to it. Those are problems caused by Christians. We aim to solve these problems by going after the source.

Are you actually implying that theists are the only group who stand in opposition to a few of those things? There are staunch atheists who fervently believe that homosexuals are neurologically impaired individuals who deserve no rights; there are atheists who believe that stem cell research should be cut down to some degree. Evolution education? I agree that should be in the classroom, but instead of condemning them like you are, you should converse with them in a civilized manner. Period. You guys are being just as brash as they are.

>>3536981

>what I consider to be malicious and evil policies because of their false beliefs.
Okay.

Inform them, but don't push it down their throats. Those aforementioned friends of mine, while in strict opposition to certain facets of the atheist culture, do agree on certain parts. Let people decide; don't force it into their fucking brains. The more you enforce it, the more they'll oppose. Why can't you understand that?

>>3537001
As he said, they're the source of laws against early term abortion, against stem cell research, against a proper science education which teaches that your mind is an algorithmic material process.

>>3537001

>Not all Christians are like that. The media has decided to pick some of the Christians that are and plaster them up as the image

Then why is gay marriage still illegal in nearly every state? It was voted on. A majority opposed it.

>I'm agnostic, but I grew up surrounded by Christians. None of them are how you describe. The majority of them are highly intelligent. Most I would consider above average.

Aren't you aware that this is anecdotal? Your personal experience isn't definitive.

The overall point was, we're the ones trying to solve those problems. Yet you're attacking us. It'd be easy to conclude that you're privately siding with the fundies.

>>3536978
You know, Michael Ruse(an Atheist by the way) wrote this article about how your kind of attitude doesn't really solve anything, it just makes people defensive and alienates them.

I know I'm opening up a can of worms here..but I'm a Christian. Maybe not a very orthodox one but I guess I am in the big picture.
I don't oppose gay rights, stem cell research, and I believe in evolution. And pretty much every Christian I know is the same..

If you're worried about politics your goal shouldn't be to destroy people's faith and cherished cultural traditions. That just makes them hate you. A lot.

>>3537006
>Inform them, but don't push it down their throats. Those aforementioned friends of mine, while in strict opposition to certain facets of the atheist culture, do agree on certain parts. Let people decide; don't force it into their fucking brains. The more you enforce it, the more they'll oppose. Why can't you understand that?

I'm sorry that there's no polite way to say "Good sir. Have you considered the possibly that you've spent your entire life on a falsehood?".

You exaggerate how bad atheists are. We're not the ones claiming the other side is the devil, and that they're going to burn in hell, etc. etc. The other side is intelligent. Some are ignorant. Some are merely brainwashed as children. Some are in a trap where they can't dare risk coming out lest social ostracization.

>>3537004

>Because religion makes good people do bad things. If you're honestly having to ask this question, you haven't had enough time to think about it.

This is completely, COMPLETELY untrue. Most 'good' people may use religion for bad things, but not ALL good people who are religious. You're being just as discriminatory against those you mock.

>You're not from a primarily religious country, are you? Some people just don't want to look for the facts. They conceal themselves in their safe little bubble, and reject anything that opposes their view point.

I'm American.

>And science "gospel"? Sorry, but evolution isn't an opinion. Nor is any other aspect of science. It's either true or it isn't.

I placed it in quotations to emphasize a point. It wasn't meant to demean the field itself.

>>3536968
You would be right if religion wasn't affecting anything else.
Religion causes wars, it takes up money that could be used for greater good(not necessarily scientific purposes), it hinders education and research, it's used as a political tool. There's plenty of other examples.

>>3537006

>Are you actually implying that theists are the only group who stand in opposition to a few of those things?

No, I'm saying it's atheists.

>There are staunch atheists who fervently believe that homosexuals are neurologically impaired individuals who deserve no rights

Prove it's a statistically significant amount compared to the Christian equivalent, or you have no point.

>there are atheists who believe that stem cell research should be cut down to some degree.

Prove it's a statistically significant amount compared to the Christian equivalent, or you have no point.

>Evolution education? I agree that should be in the classroom, but instead of condemning them like you are, you should converse with them in a civilized manner. Period.

You don't get it. They consider ANY OPPOSITION to be militant barbarism.

>You guys are being just as brash as they are.

So what? Nothing wrong with that. Everyone's brash in a conflict.

> Then why is gay marriage still illegal in nearly every state? It was voted on. A majority opposed it.

All I can say there is not everyone votes on every issue.

Like here where I live, Kansas (shudder), the vote on gay marriage here had a really low turn-out compared to other topics at the time. Likely because young people don't give a shit and old bigoted people do.

>>3537016

>I'm sorry that there's no polite way to say "Good sir. Have you considered the possibly that you've spent your entire life on a falsehood?".

My question is this: Why say that? Instead of that, say

>Good sir. Have you been informed about evolution? Let's talk about how interesting it is.

Why must you immediately attack their religion or spirituality? This is what I don't comprehend. Inform them of Science, but don't attack their religion. I think the majority of atheists feel this intense discomfort when someone is as religious as they are scientific.

>>3537034
>Why must you immediately attack their religion or spirituality? This is what I don't comprehend. Inform them of Science, but don't attack their religion. I think the majority of atheists feel this intense discomfort when someone is as religious as they are scientific.

Because their religion is inherently unscientific. It is retarded to believe in falsified empirical claims, and it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable empirical claims. That is the heart of the problem.

>>3537009
Everybody I know, religious or not, is at least a little uncomfortable with abortion. Even the atheists.
I'm still trying to figure out where I stand with that one, but all the reasons I'm uncomfortable with that have nothing to do with religion.

>>3537014

>You know, Michael Ruse(an Atheist by the way) wrote this article about how your kind of attitude doesn't really solve anything, it just makes people defensive and alienates them.

So? He can have his opinion. It absolutely does make people defensive and alienates them, but that's because they know they're wrong.

>I know I'm opening up a can of worms here..but I'm a Christian. Maybe not a very orthodox one but I guess I am in the big picture.
I don't oppose gay rights, stem cell research, and I believe in evolution. And pretty much every Christian I know is the same..

Because you hang out with the ones like you. There are barely any like that, and they're not real Christians anyway.

>>3537018

>This is completely, COMPLETELY untrue. Most 'good' people may use religion for bad things, but not ALL good people who are religious. You're being just as discriminatory against those you mock.

Excuse me? I'm not trying to be discriminatory at all, nor do I consider myself to be at all.

I guess when Islamic folk decide to blow up some buildings in the name of Allah, that was just on a whim, huh? Not because they were religious?

Seriously, this isn't even up for fucking discussion. Religion can and DOES make good people do bad things. It's god damn sickening, I don't take joy in saying it.

>>3537012
I'm siding with being kind and tolerant to people with differing views. This doesn't necessarily agreeing with something that is harmful.

I would blame the lack of education and stigma that comes from different cultures towards homosexuality being illegal.
I think there is also the possibility that homosexuality being an extreme minority when it comes to sexuality in general could contribute to the stigmas that exist. Without exposure the people that hold the stigmas may not ever break them.

I was using my anecdotal experience as an example that labeling the entirety of Christians to be a certain way would be untrue.

>>3537034
I'll break it down for you: religion is bad. We must fight bad.

>>3537042
>Because you hang out with the ones like you. There are barely any like that,
The evidence is clearly against you.

>and they're not real Christians anyway.
No True Scotsman.

>>3537032

>All I can say there is not everyone votes on every issue.

In other words, you lose the argument. If a majority of US Christians supported gay marriage, it would be legal.

>>3537040

>Everybody I know, religious or not, is at least a little uncomfortable with abortion. Even the atheists.

Again, completely anecdotal. The majority vote disagrees.

>>3537043
People can misconstrue ideas and theories in harmful ways.

I don't think there is any type of group that has people that use the set of beliefs in some manipulative or misconstrued way.
Even in science.

>>>3537039
>Because their religion is inherently unscientific. It is retarded to believe in falsified empirical claims, and it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable empirical claims. That is the heart of the problem.

I don't think you know how faith works..or more specifically how it is supposed to work.
It's many things, but in Christian tradition it is far from a declaration of certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_night_of_the_soul#Spiritual_term_in_the_Christian_tradition

Having faith doesn't mean giving up all skepticism whatsoever.

>>3537047

>No True Scotsman.

No, that doesn't apply here. Christianity is sufficiently well defined that it is possible to validly observe that some new form of it does not satisfy even the most basic criteria.

It sounds like a no true scotsman, but it isn't one. Like how something can sound like an ad hominem but not be one (relying on an insult in lieu of argument versus presenting a valid argument insultingly)

>>3537055
Doesn't matter if they're skeptical a little or a lot. Having any (positive) belief in empirical claims in the absence of evidence is retarded, and possibly a form of insanity. A shared delusion if you will.

I again apologize that there is no polite way to say these things, but I believe that they must be said.

It is this lack of critical reasoning skills and proper methods of learning that produces these bad laws and public policy.

>>3537014
well boo fucking hoo christfag

>>3537055

>Having faith doesn't mean giving up all skepticism whatsoever.

You might not view it that way because you don't like thinking of yourself as unscientific, but that's the fact of the matter. Faith means believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is a denial that evidence is necessary to justify belief. That directly contradicts empiricism, which affirms that necessity.

I don't want to hear a comeback on this one. It's plainly true.

>>3537048
I'm not trying to win, I was giving a reason why some states don't legalize it.

When people are called up to vote, it doesn't mean they have to. So you get skewed votes.

And sure, it'll be great when the religious folk say ok to gay marriage. Until then, the people who agree with the gays need to out live the people who don't.

>>3537058
I might be sympathetic, except that they would say the exact same thing about you. That is, no one agrees on the definition of what constitutes a true christian.

>>3537048
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/22/time-majority-americans-support-gay-marriage/

The majority of Americans support giving gays the right to marry.
The majority of Americans are also Christian.

>>3537045
>religion is bad
Depends on the person, doesn't it? And that's kind of a broad term.."religion". Which one? I don't see anything wrong with Bahaism..
Every ideology on earth, religious or secular, has been used as justification for evil. Religion isn't some unique case.
But that doesn't mean the core values of those things are evil.
It doesn't mean it's okay to make massive generalizations either.

After all, communists did and continue to do a lot of fucked up stuff.
I got no problem with Marx himself though, really.

>>3537055
Sorry, but having faith exactly means throwing away all skepticism in at least one question. You can't believe in God and question his existence at the same time.

>>3537065

>I was giving a reason why some states don't legalize it.

Prove that's why gay marriage, specifically, failed the vote. Do it now, or concede and apologize.

>>3537069
>Every ideology on earth, religious or secular, has been used as justification for evil. Religion isn't some unique case.
Not every ideology on Earth makes factual claims contrary to reality.

Also, I think you're overreaching a bit saying that all ideologies have caused wars. The Janes religion likely has never caused a war, ever.

>disprove God
advicescientist.jpg
>start own religion

why so butthurt, /sci/ducks? you all from irish church school or what?

(this is a trick question. Obviously if you attended real church school, you would have understood logic of why trying to disprove even a very intervening God with science is fallacious)

>>3537069

What people say and how they vote are two different things. I have seen studies proving that atheists are vastly more accepting of it on average and that most Christians aren't.

>>3537039
>Because their religion is inherently unscientific. It is retarded to believe in falsified empirical claims, and it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable empirical claims. That is the heart of the problem.

Seriously, why does this bother you?

There are Jews who are ardent scientists, but practitioners of their faith. There are Muslims who are ardent Scientists, but practitioners of their specific faith. Christians, Catholics, etc.

Why is this so fucking bothersome for you? Why do you call it a problem?

>>3537043

Then, they weren't good people to begin with. Even Aquinas states that one should be good for the sake of good itself even before turning to Christ. Rationalization in Classic Theology was a heralded view point and was considered to be the perfect life before turning to the Christian religion. As crazy as that sounds, it's true.

>>3537081

>(this is a trick question. Obviously if you attended real church school, you would have understood logic of why trying to disprove even a very intervening God with science is fallacious)

Cool opinion, but it's wrong.

>>3537069
No. Each and every religion demands you to take something as granted, without asking why or how. That hinders progress. That is bad. And if you have such a half-hearted faith that you question the validity of your religion, then why have it at all.

>>3537086
>Why is this so fucking bothersome for you? Why do you call it a problem?
Because they vote. Because they teach others, their children, that this fundamentally broken process of "learning" is desirable or even admirable.

>>3537014

>If you're worried about politics your goal shouldn't be to destroy people's faith and cherished cultural traditions. That just makes them hate you. A lot.

So it's my fault if I tell the bigoted circle of Christians I know that their beliefs in me roasting in Hell forever in torment is wrong?

Yeah yeah I know, not all are like that. A VAST majority are.

>>3537086

>There are Jews who are ardent scientists, but practitioners of their faith. There are Muslims who are ardent Scientists, but practitioners of their specific faith. Christians, Catholics, etc.

You're pretending most scientists aren't atheists now? You really think we'll fall for such an obvious lie?

>>3537064
>You might not view it that way because you don't like thinking of yourself as unscientific, but that's the fact of the matter. Faith means believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is a denial that evidence is necessary to justify belief. That directly contradicts empiricism, which affirms that necessity.

>Faith means believing without evidance
This is a really terrible definition..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
>Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity.

That's what faith is. Trust. Not certainty, not outright belief, it's not a claim to truth. It's seeing a possibility for what it is, and taking hope and joy in that possibility. Believe me, I struggled with this whole thing for a long time and in a lot of ways I still do.
But no, faith doesn't mean giving up skepticism.
There's this quote from the Dalai Lama, "If Buddhism begins to contradict science, then obviously Buddhism will have to change."
I believe that too.

But acknowledging that fact doesn't mean I can't place my trust and hope in god. I might not be 100% certain if he exists or not, and sometimes I catch myself saying he doesn't.
But who isn't like that? We can't know for certain. I don't pretend to.
Until we can I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and hope for the best. I'll find out when I die.

>>3537096

>Because they vote. Because they teach others, their children, that this fundamentally broken process of "learning" is desirable or even admirable.

This. Why is this so difficult to understand.

>>3537097
No. But you should approach people with respect and understanding. Not blind hatred and condescension.

>>3537086
To be fully truthful, there really aren't that many muslim scientists. In terms of top of the line, almost none. There's been maybe 2 muslim winners of the Nobel prize in history. Was it roughly 1/4 are Jewish? There's maybe, what, 20 million Jews? Do the math. The Muslim religion / culture is totally keeping them in ignorance.

>>3537096

We're talking about individuals who believe in God, yet accept scientific evidence. If this is the case, then they won't do what you stated. My aforementioned friends believe in evolution education in the classroom, stem cell research and don't oppose gay marriage.

In fact, many of them condemn the Muslims who decide to inflict pain/damage upon others. They hate how individuals look at them like they're terrorists when, in reality, they've done nothing wrong and attempt to live their life accordingly with their religion.

I truly believe you have this desire to just tear down their religious faith. Even if they voted for Science, I think it would still bother you.

>>3537100

>That's what faith is. Trust. Not certainty, not outright belief, it's not a claim to truth.

This is how you view it. But IN PRACTICE, when it comes down to accepting or denying scientific findings, I described accurately how faith comes into play.

>There's this quote from the Dalai Lama, "If Buddhism begins to contradict science, then obviously Buddhism will have to change."
I believe that too.

Yet you believe in souls, in spite of what neuroscience has discovered about the brain. And you think Hawking is wrong about the origin of the universe.

>>3537100
Doesn't science have a bit of faith and trust in the accuracies of the approximations given thus far?

Go check out the thread of scientific facts that still feel unbelievable.

We still do not know everything and we put faith in what we do know to be true.

>>3537106
I try to be courteous, but I cannot be respectful of some idea which I think is simply wrong.

>>3537112
I'm totally for tearing down religious faith

lol why did you say that like it's a bad thing

>>3537106

Never said I did any of that.

And on top of that, even if I was filled to the brim with rage and undesirable intentions, that makes their views no better or reasonable in the slightest.

I'm out of here, this conversation is going nowhere.

>>3537106

>No. But you should approach people with respect and understanding. Not blind hatred and condescension.

They're not people. They're religious primitives, provably inferior to the rest of us. I'd show you the averaged intelligence comparisons, but you don't accept evidence you don't like anyway.

>>3537112
>We're talking about individuals who believe in God, yet accept scientific evidence
No such thing. Perhaps they mostly accept most scientific evidence, but obviously they have a rule which says "believe only in evidence, except where it concerns religion X".

>>3537110

I don't know about you, but I see a lot of Muslim Grad students where I am. To be honest, a lot of Hindu Grad students too. Pakistanis, Indians and Asians everywhere in my Grad department. Sigh. Moving on ...

>>3537099

Not saying that; there are Jews/Muslim scientists who do exist, though. Way to completely twist my words.

>>3537100
>>3537106
No. That's wrong. You do not teach kids about dragons in a garage and teapots in orbit. If we change religion so it wouldn't contradict science, there would be no reason to call it religion anymore.

>>3537112

>I truly believe you have this desire to just tear down their religious faith.

Not the only completely unreasonable faith based decision you've made.

>Even if they voted for Science, I think it would still bother you.
>voted for science

Refer to reaction image.

>>3536618
>I tutor high school students. Right now, I am helping a 9th grader in biology, and the class is studying evolution. The boy I am helping comes from a VERY religious family, and he takes almost everything in the bible literally. He is very confused about evolution and almost refuses to study it. He keeps telling me that he won't waste his time learning something that is fake. I am getting really frustrated, because if he won't study evolution, he fails the class, and it is my job to help him succeed. Does anyone have any advice, on how to handle this situation? Do you think his teacher might excuse him from the subject if I explain the situation?

That kid's parents deliberately left him ignorant and at a disadvantage in the educated world..
All of my sadness.

>>3537126

>Not saying that; there are Jews/Muslim scientists who do exist, though. Way to completely twist my words.

Your words only constituted a valid argument if you were making that claim. Otherwise you were pointing out a statistically insignificant portion of scientists and looking for vindication from it when the very fact that they are so underrepresented in science defeats any point you could've hoped to make.

>>3537114
>Doesn't science have a bit of faith and trust in the accuracies of the approximations given thus far?
Science has faith in inductive reasoning on observable evidence, and no more.

When a journal publishes a find, that means there is a scientist who likely actually did the research. Compare and contrast with religious "experts" who themselves never claim to have firsthand experience. There is no expert in the religious community.

The alternative to the scientific journals being mostly truthful is that I live in the Truman Show. Despite your insistence to the contrary, eye witness testimony is valid evidence.

See Dan Dennett's AAI 2007 speech.

Dude why? Just ignore it.

Here's a tip incase people don't realise this yet

THE GENERAL PUBLIC ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

THEY ARE IGNORANT AND THEY ARE HAPPY ABOUT IT

Let them be. Who gives a shit. Let them get on with it.

>>3537122
>They're not people. They're religious primitives, provably inferior to the rest of us. I'd show you the averaged intelligence comparisons, but you don't accept evidence you don't like anyway.
>mfw
Man, if this is what atheists are like I'll vote for Bachmann out of spite

>>3537126

>I don't know about you, but I see a lot of Muslim Grad students where I am. To be honest, a lot of Hindu Grad students too. Pakistanis, Indians and Asians everywhere in my Grad department. Sigh. Moving on ...

Again pal, you're not quite grasping the bigger picture. Do you think there is a nice big bucket of multiculturalism going on right now in Islamic cultured...cultures?

NO.

>>3537135

>Man, if this is what atheists are like I'll vote for Bachmann out of spite

Can I regain your favor with this delicious banana?

>>3537129
You know what I meant. I'm refreshing/reading four-to-five replies per refresh. I meant, if they voted for policies which are backed by scientific evidence and/or a scientific/logical mindset.

>>3537122

>They're not people. They're religious primitives, provably inferior to the rest of us. I'd show you the averaged intelligence comparisons, but you don't accept evidence you don't like anyway.

Wow. Scientist tripfag, get a hold of your friend.

>>3537135
Ignore the trolls and/or emo teenagers.

>>3537133

>Let them be. Who gives a shit. Let them get on with it.

POLITICS. THEY VOTE. GOD DAMN.

>>3537143
>Wow. Scientist tripfag, get a hold of your friend.
Friend? No. And if I had the power to ban asshats, he would be the first.

Or perhaps these valuable beads? Ook ook?

>>3537132
It doesn't change that there is still a component of faith.

Science has and can change what we believed once to be solid truth.

>>3537141
The middle east has a shitty academic environment because it's impoverished, most universities have little funds or resources, it's politically unstable, and every government is a police state.
There's a lot of political and economic causes for all of this.
But blaming Islam? That's just stupid. In the middle ages the middle east was one of the most advanced societies on earth.

>>3537122

>They're not people. They're religious primitives, provably inferior to the rest of us.

3/10.

>>3537152
So, this applies to all of the nice and rich Muslims too who live in Western Europe? They've been there a while.

However, I do give you that it's hard to control for religious influence in culture and shithole dictatorship influence in culture.

>>3537151

>Science has and can change what we believed once to be solid truth.

Not for centuries. There was a time when the methodology of science was still being laid out and big mistakes were made. But the scale of those mistakes has shrunk exponentially since then.

Example; We once believed the Earth was round. Now we know it's an elipse. Is that a complete upheaval? No, it's a refinement.

That's what happens when science is "wrong". We gradually refine the picture of the universe to make it clearer than it was before.

Or do you think scientists will say tomorrow that the Earth is actually a cube...?

>>3537152
The middle east also seems to be constantly at war with itself. why? religion

>>3537152
>politically unstable
>every government is a police state

Gee, I wonder why. If it weren't for religion they would have at least 1 less thing to kill each other for, don't you think so?

>>3537152

The politicians use Islam as a tool to control the people. This isn't up for debate, it's flat out true.

>In the middle ages the middle east was one of the most advanced societies on earth.

Yeah I know. Hence why it's such a shame they've turned out this way.

>>3537113
>This is how you view it. But IN PRACTICE, when it comes down to accepting or denying scientific findings, I described accurately how faith comes into play.
No, you didn't. You describes how it comes into play for some people who just stick with it out of habit. Not me. If you want to pretend I'm some closed minded zealot that's all fine and good, but in truth I'm not. I used to be pretty much an atheist..it's not like I never thought about any of this before.

>Yet you believe in souls, in spite of what neuroscience has discovered about the brain. And you think Hawking is wrong about the origin of the universe.
No, I said it's unknowable. Because it is.
Hawking might have the physical aspect of it right, sure. But god isn't supposed to be physical. Same thing with souls.
I claim it's all up in the air.
Faith isn't the same as belief, I went over this.

The only way we can know is to die.

>>3537160

>UHHH SCIENCE ONCE THOUGHT THE EARTH WAS FLAT, TOO! CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

>>3537124
>No such thing.
You're ignorant on the matter, then. Let's take a look at a less emotionally charged example.
Let's say I'm religious, and that I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, because I am told it's in the bible. You tell me that's not the case, and show me evidence to the contrary. I see your evidence and believe if might be true, but I'm leery about leaving my Ptolemaic solar system.
Eventually, I come to accept that all these epicycles are silly, and believe that the Sun, instead, is the center of the Universe.
I still believe in god, but I accept scientific evidence.

>>3537175

All Hawking says is that there's no NEED for a first cause, based on current scientific understanding.

>But god isn't supposed to be physical.

Define physical. Again, only you and the religious here are the ones making bold blanket statements on the nature of reality.

>>3537162
>Summing up every conflict in the middle east with religion and nothing else.

Nigga you just went full retard. You think that shit in Libya has anything to do with religion? Syria? Yemen?
Shit, even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is barely about religion anymore and is more about Israeli landgrabbing and military occupation. It's as much ethnic and cultural as religious.
Shit, there are Israeli Muslims.

Every conflict on earth has a complex variety of causes. Blaming everything in the middle east on "religion" is just fucking educated. Go pick up a political science textbook instead of getting your watered down opinions from tv news like a tool.

>>3537175

>No, you didn't. You describes how it comes into play for some people who just stick with it out of habit. Not me. If you want to pretend I'm some closed minded zealot that's all fine and good, but in truth I'm not.

Is that true? Let's see:

>No, I said it's unknowable. Because it is.
>Hawking might have the physical aspect of it right, sure. But god isn't supposed to be physical. Same thing with souls.
>I claim it's all up in the air.

This constitutes carefully worded denial of scientific findings. You're in the same corner as the creationists, you're just loathe to admit it.

>>3537180

And yet Intelligent Design is still trying to push its big fat cock into the classroom.

Despite the matter that evolution is a demonstrable FACT, many refuse to accept it.

Some people accept reality, some deny it. We're obviously ALL referring to those who deny it willfully.

>>3537186
Physical as in, made of matter in this universe that we can detect and see with our own eyes and manipulate.

I'm not making any statement about the nature of reality. Just pointing out that what we see might not be all there is.

>>3537148
>>3537148

>POLITICS. THEY VOTE. GOD DAMN.

We already know democracy doesn't work, what difference does it make.

Here in the UK with little religion our political system is no better than yours.

The Alternative Vote referendum. Any retard with half a brain can tell you its better than our current system. General public voted no.

Public are retards and always will be. Deal with it.

>>3537152
>But blaming Islam? That's just stupid. In the middle ages the middle east was one of the most advanced societies on earth.
Until Islam killed their scientific superiority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU

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

This man almost singlehandedly killed all of science in the Islamic world for 900 years and counting.

>>3537190
>This constitutes carefully worded denial of scientific findings. You're in the same corner as the creationists, you're just loathe to admit it.
What am I denying exactly? I never said anything Hawking said was wrong. Just that it doesn't mean god doesn't exist. Especially since we don't even know what god is supposed to be, and if he does exist then he's supposedly outside our ability to comprehend. Which is true.

>>3537208
>if he does exist then he's supposedly outside our ability to comprehend
So, you're a deist?

>>3537175
If I understand you correctly, you say that we can't really know whether religion is right because we can't really disprove it.
It may sound fine to you, but you see, there is infinite amount of unfalsifiable shit anyone can come up with. Yet you don't believe in that, you believe in religion, doesn't matter what. You are saying that one unfalsifiable claim is better/more believable than another for, actually, no reason. That is a flawed logic. That is a result of religion messing with your mind. Now I don't need to explain why flawed logic is a bad thing, do I?

>>3537200
Well, we're going to keep trying, because it's the least evil system that we know.

>>3537208

>What am I denying exactly? I never said anything Hawking said was wrong.

You said it's unknowable. It isn't.

>Just that it doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

It means that any god purported to be the creator of the universe isn't real. No god can fit that criteron now that it is known to be a natural phenomenon, just like the god of thunder cannot exist because we know thunder is natural

>Especially since we don't even know what god is supposed to be, and if he does exist then he's supposedly outside our ability to comprehend. Which is true.

How do you know that's true? What prevents the existence of a comprehensible god?

>>3537208

>god
>he

Your faith is showing.

Hawking is saying there doesn't require a first cause, or more specifically an intelligence behind the creation. There may well be, but it sure as shit isn't the Christian god.

Seriously, you can't use the deist argument when arguing for monotheism.

Everyone can stop bothering with this thread. Johnny is either a troll or an apologetic moron who simply spouts "you're mean!" when the going gets tough.

Sage for not science.

>>3537210
>>3537208
No really. If god is outside our ability to comprehend, then that means you're a deist, right?

>>3537211
>It may sound fine to you, but you see, there is infinite amount of unfalsifiable shit anyone can come up with. Yet you don't believe in that, you believe in religion, doesn't matter what. You are saying that one unfalsifiable claim is better/more believable than another for, actually, no reason. That is a flawed logic. That is a result of religion messing with your mind. Now I don't need to explain why flawed logic is a bad thing, do I?

That's actually not what I believe at all. Nice random assumption though.
I read a lot about religion. Taosim, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, ect ect. I like comparing and contrasting them, it's like some weird hobby I have. I guess if god exists then I don't think he's anything like the common picture of a guy with a beard sitting in the clouds.
I don't know what he is.
I'm a Christian though because I know the most about it and think Jesus was a pretty cool guy. I don't pretend I have some absolute claim on truth.
In the Bhagavad Gita it says that there are many ways to god, and that the truth is universal. It isn't stopped by creed or dogma.
I like that. Don't know if it's true or not but like I said, I'll find out when I die.

I keep stressing this. I'm not making any claims to truth.
I don't look at god as a scientific hypothesis.

>>3537234
>I don't look at god as a scientific hypothesis.
Then you don't practice science. Or at least, you don't practice science in this one blindspot.

>>3537233
I don't know what I am, honestly.
I think if god does exist then he loves us and he wants us to be good to other people.
That's about it.

If he does have some immediate effect on the universe, I don't think it's something you can put in a microscope.

>>3537240
>I think if god does exist then he loves us and he wants us to be good to other people.

Why? Why can't there be an evil creator god?

>>3537234
Then state clearly what you believe in. If you are Christian, you must believe in God in one form or another, else you are not Christian. I'm not talking about bearded man.
I say again, every religion demands that you take something for granted. That's bad.->Religion is bad.

>>3537239
Or maybe I just acknowledge that it's one of those unknowable things we'll probably argue over forever?
I've said this over and over again, I'll find out when I die. Until then it's up in the air and probably always will be.

>>3537233
I don't pretend to know what god is or what he does. I think if he does have some effect on the universe it's probably not something we can put in a microscope or poke with a needle.

>>3537222
>You said it's unknowable. It isn't.
>mfw
>It means that any god purported to be the creator of the universe isn't real. No god can fit that criteron now that it is known to be a natural phenomenon, just like the god of thunder cannot exist because we know thunder is natural
"Looking for the sky by looking at the ground".
Seeing the watch doesn't mean the watchmaker doesn't exist.
That's a shitty analogy but you get the point.
>How do you know that's true? What prevents the existence of a comprehensible god?
I don't know what's true. Have you even been reading the things I type?

Try explaining wave particle duality to fundamentalists, then try explaining virtual participles, then try explaining the standard model and quantum field theory.

There is absolutely no arguing with these people, they have been brought up with their ideals and will not be able to understand anything outside their fundamentalist ideas....

Why is there no strong right movement against the teaching of quantum mechanics, like there is against evolution? It's because these ideas are too advanced for them to even comprehend, unlike evolution which is simple enough for the right wing lowly educated person to combat.

They want the world to be simple, but the truth it is clearly not...

>>3537248
You take it for granted an asteroid is not going to smack into earth tomorrow.
How unscientific!
Bad analogy, I know.
Still, religious faith isn't anymore bad then assuming we won't all die. It's hope at the center of it. And we all hope for something.
I have faith in god. Faith does not mean out and out certainty, I went over this.

>>3537241
Gnostic Christians thought the god that created the universe was. That's why it is imperfect, because that god is crazy. The true god is something else entirely.
But I'm not a gnostic christian.

Thing is, hate is a very base, human, emotion. It's a sign of attachment to fleeting, insignificant, things. If god exists and sees into the hearts of everyone, I doubt he can feel anything but understanding, or at least pity.

>>3537240
You see, I may not seem like it, but I am not some gigantic douche evil guy without any morality. I don't kill, steal, rape etc. But I don't do that out of fear of retaliation, from police, people or God. I don't do that because that would harm humanity as a whole, in one way or another. And I don't want that.

>>3537266
>You see, I may not seem like it, but I am not some gigantic douche evil guy without any morality. I don't kill, steal, rape etc. But I don't do that out of fear of retaliation, from police, people or God. I don't do that because that would harm humanity as a whole, in one way or another. And I don't want that.

That's great. I didn't say you were evil. I don't try to be a good person out of fear of retaliation either.
In Hinduism the greatest act of worship is a good deed done with no thought to the consequences. Likewise, in the bible Christ tells people to give to charity in secret, and to pray in secret, and to not be boastful or proud about it. Because to do that means you are acting for want of reward, not out of love of god and humanity.
But why are you telling me this exactly?

>>3537265
You are contradicting yourself.
I do not take that I won't be killed by asteroid tomorrow as granted. But the fact that probability of it is so small allows me to disregard it. That's not taking it for granted.

And again, faith, religious faith actually means believing something without any real proof. That is a bad thing.

you should kind of be contempt that this people exists it would be hard to get a high paying job with your precious degree otherwise.

>>3537276
I'm telling you that religion is not needed. It only messes with the mind. That's why it's so hard for you to understand this.

>>3537286
>And again, faith, religious faith actually means believing something without any real proof. That is a bad thing.
How many god damn times do I have to go over this? No it doesn't. It doesn't mean blind acceptance, if anything the word implies an understanding of your LACK of knowledge. It's derived from the latin for "trust". That's what it is. Trust, hope, desire. Not knowledge, not 100% certainty, not belied.
As for bad..if it drives people to better themselves and the lives of others, then it's not. And like it or not most religious people don't cut off peoples heads and spend all day hating on gay people and nothing else.

>>3537276
>>3537265

You're not a Christian. Thinking Jesus was a pretty cool guy doesn't count.

>>3537296
Maybe not for you. Personally? I used to be an atheist. All I got out of it was a crushing sense of despair and futility. Half assed nihlism, basically.

I have a lot of reasons for having faith in god, but my complete lack of interest in anything before hand is a pretty big one. You might not need god in your life. But I'm way more pessimistic and cynical then you, obviously.
If you disagree that's fine but you have to acknowledge that people see the world differently. What might be meaningless to you is meaningful to someone else.

>>3537297
If it doesn't mean blind acceptance then why do you believe in god? There's no reason. If you believe in something for no reason...well, I already said that.

>>3537298
>Doesn't notice the shitload of symbolism and allegory in the creation myth
>Laughingpopes.jpeg

The original sin of mankind was turning away from god to begin with, not eating an actual fruit in an actual garden.

>>3537298
yo, congrats for having a child's understanding of christian theology

>>3537307
You see world differently precisely because of religion.
Think of it as a drug. It offers quick and simple solutions that actually are meaningless, but it still feels good. When you take it away, you start to feel bad.

>>3537298

you have no authority to declare who is or is not christian. In my understanding christian is a person who believes Christ is (son of) God, but I would still try to avoid categorising people so quickly and simply, or (as you do) based on ignorance of what the word means.

also

>implying you believe in conjectures made by scientists about first moments of creation when no theory yet exists to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics

>>3537314

>yo, congrats for having a child's understanding of christian theology

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -Albert Einstein

>>3537311
>believe
>faith
NIGGA DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO WORDS AGAIN!?!!?

Anyway, I can't stress this enough. I don't know if god exists or not. I don't pretend to. I don't make any claims based on that.
But part of me looks at the world, with all it's horror and beauty and thinks "maybe there is something else at work here..maybe".
That's what I believe in. The maybe.

That's not blind acceptance. If it was I wouldn't be saying I don't know if god exists or not.

>>3537335
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF SUPERNATURAL ENTITIES EXIST OR NOT YOU ARE'NT RELIGIOUS.
If you still favor one of imaginary beings to another, you are just fucking illogical. That is bad.

>>3537298
hey did you know that the concept of original sin is a metaphor invented to explain why people naturally tend to be immoral

having that be caused by eating an apple is just a matter of convenience used to win arguments with overly pious people who would have you think they're holy

the mechanations of christianity basically amount to having the humility to acknowledge one's moral weakness and then annihilate that weakness through a weekly act of radical self-absolution. christianity is basically a religion of blood worship that has managed to mostly remain symbolic since its inception

>>3537344
quit living in your head

belief systems aint black and white

>>3537344
>IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF SUPERNATURAL ENTITIES EXIST OR NOT YOU ARE'NT RELIGIOUS.
Mother Theresa didn't know..neither did Saint John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_night_of_the_soul#Spiritual_term_in_the_Christian_tradition

>If you still favor one of imaginary beings to another, you are just fucking illogical. That is bad.
As I said before, if god does exist I think he's something far greater and out of this world then I can begin to imagine.
I'm a Christian not because I think it describes the nature of god perfectly, but because it helps me understand myself a little better, as hard as that is to explain. It's enriched my life, hence I follow it.
Don't pretend it has any monopoly on truth, though. That would just be arrogant.

>>3537357
They are. As explained previously they are bad for humanity.

did someone say 'shades of grey? I'm pretty sure I heard someone say 'shades of grey'...

>>3537358
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_night_of_the_soul#Spiritual_term_in_the_Christian_tradition
Did you even read that yourself? It has nothing to do with what I said.

About second part -
>Think of it as a drug. It offers quick and simple solutions that actually are meaningless, but it still feels good. When you take it away, you start to feel bad.

>>3537375
It has a lot to do with what you said.
You said people who doubt(IOW "don't know") can't be religious. I just gave you an article that laid out pretty concisely that not only can you be religious and still have doubts, it's considered a significant part of Christian theology.
>Think of it as a drug. It offers quick and simple solutions that actually are meaningless, but it still feels good. When you take it away, you start to feel bad
Maybe. But I was never really on the drug before I became like this.
Being an atheist just sucked because EVERYTHING was meaningless. To me anyway.

>>3537358
you follow everything the Bible says? Thats what I like about Christians, they just pick and choose the stuff in the Bible that they like and pretend the rest doesnt exist

>>3537369
its ironic that you dont recognize that you've blindly accepted arbitrary definitions based on someone else's intuition of morality

keep shitting of christians, though, even though you're just as stupid as they are

>>3537383
>Being an atheist just sucked because EVERYTHING was meaningless.
if you cant meaning in things without religion, then you are weak

>>3537391
>thinking this is a bad thing

>>3537383
Not that kind of doubt. Besides, it offers only 1 way out - to embrace your beliefs again. If you don't, then you simply abandoned religion, and it would be stupid to call the period of education/enlightment a "dark night".

/sci/

Seriously

When are you guys going to learn to not respond to obvious trolls?

>>3537391

just because you don't (try) to understand it doesn't mean that others don't too.

>>3537394

I prefer idea of an universal moral system inspired by a loving creator God to a subjective morality centered about what benefits me personally at expense of everyone else, thank you very much.

btw, I'm a catholicfag, I just like that picture.

>>3537399
if you find meaning in an inherently random and uncaring universe that will eventually erase all traces of humanity, you're deluding yourself, at least a little bit.

I'm not saying that it isn't strong to be an atheist or weak to be religious, I'm just saying that any "meaning" you find is a delusion manufactured to make you feel better. given even our tiny knowledge of the universe, logically any human life is completely meaningless.

>>3537402

Looks like someone's going to Hell.

>>3537413
Yep, laughing at idiots on omegle or discussing how you can cum in 5d object is much better.

>>3537413

when the resident militant atheists give up on their crusade to exterminate all opinions opposed to theirs, mabe. I.e. never.

>>3537391
The bible itself was created by picking and choosing. True fact, that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

>>3537399
>if you cant meaning in things without religion, then you are weak
We're all weak. I'm just honest about it.
Life IS objectively meaningless. Go to a nursing home. See all those sick dying people? That's all you have to look forward.
To say humanity is moving towards anything but oblivion is a delusion in and of itself. To think anything you do has any purpose or significance is also. You have none. You live for a shallow sense of self satisfaction before the infinite void. And yet you'll tell me that is not the case, that you have a reason to give a shit.
No you don't. You have no reason to care about anything. You only do because you like it. Because it's "fun".

PHEW!
As you can see, I was quite an annoying little bitch to be around a year ago. But truth be told we all find refuge in something, whatever it is. To say you have no place of refuge from the above is just lying to yourself.
I see no problem with weakness. We're all weak. God helped me come to terms with that, and just as an added bonus he helped me stop being a nihilistic little bitch.
At the end of the day that's all that matters.

>>3537419

An awful alternative does not inherently make something good.

>>3537421

>militant atheists

>>3537407
"The dark night of the soul" is a feeling of god being absent(not existing).
The idea is you have two ways to deal with this. Either give up faith, or keep up hope and move forward with the assumption that it will work out alright for you.

The point is everybody questions, not that questioning is wrong.

The general American public doesn't know about
-MotoGP
-Aryton Senna
-Williams-Honda
-Moscow Unlim Drag Racing League

Of course they are border line retarded. The problem is that other nationalities have a curiousity to learn more and to do better. America is a joke and will be in int decline until it hits rock bottom like a meth junkie.

The engineering/bio med/tech future is in East Asia from Beijing to Kyoto U. Japan's "K" is faster than the other top 5 super comps combine. @ Trillions of tera flops.

>>3537422
Pills.
>>3537424
But it makes it relatively much less shitty.

>>3537416
Exactly. Any attempt to refute your post on the part of an atheist would use the same illogical, emotional language that a christian would use to justify their beliefs. Atheists like the one you were responding to are the worst kind of hypocrites. They tell themselves they're courageous for seeing the world as it truly is, but then they build up all these little delusions in their heads to justify their continued existence instead of just enjoying their pointless life.

>>3537435
>Implying anti-depressants make anything worthwhile
>Laughingmentalpatients.jpeg

Yeah! Let's all just drug ourselves so we can ignore what a massive waste of time life is!

>>3537421

So basically you're saying we shouldn't try to educate people who think the world is 6000 years old and the Earth can stop rotating because a Prophet says so?

I like the analogies used, but they should have spent A LOT more time going into the spontaneous creation/disappearance of elementary particles. I know we have observations/data to support this, but to say it can happen irrespective of time and space is something else. It should have been presented more coherently with experimental data or observations shown clearly. Not bad for 40 minutes but, with the "boldness" of his conclusion, if you can't do it right don't do it at all.

On another note, I'll just be here doing the only rational thing, working towards the immortality of my consciousness through engineering, while you atheist scientists martyr your existence.

>>3537440
Nah wait! I have better alternative! Lets believe that magic unicorns would fix all shit!
But seriously, if you doubt, there's only 2 ways out. You either accept rational view of reality, or keep living in delusion. Thats how it is. Your choice.

>>3537448

I have chosen the rational view - there is a loving, caring God that has preserved mankind all the way through the ages in spite of our self-destructive tendencies.

Feel free to retain your naive delusions that you are master of the universe and know how it works.

also,
>247 replies omitted, click 'reply' to view
way to go, /sci/entists, shouldn't you be busy figuring out theory of everything or something?

>Johnny !qpBl.gJsqo

>>3537448
>But seriously, if you doubt, there's only 2 ways out. You either accept rational view of reality, or keep living in delusion. Thats how it is. Your choice.
Stop being happy, stop being a good person, stop giving a fuck about anything. Because at the end of the day you have no reason whatsoever to do any of this. None. Nothing but your own meaningless emotions.

When every culture on earth throughout history speaks of flying pink unicorns,then I will acknowledge that flying pink unicorns might have some significance on either a literal or symbolic level.
Until then it's just some ol' bullshit you made up to prove a point. Because it is.

Face it, "rationally" we all suffer in a shit world then die meaninglessly.
If you're fine with that, great. Personally though? I'd rather at least look for hope in something.
And like I said over and over again, I'll worry about being certain when I die. Until then I'll acknowledge the possibility and be okay with it for what it is.

>>3537466

dude, you shouldn't be telling him that. What if he takes you seriously? Do you think he'll more readily accept there's something greater than him in the world, or just turn into a (bigger) asshole?

>>3537466
You are wrong on many levels.
Continue being a part of a system that hinders progress.

>>3537464

>I have chosen the rational view...

Perhaps first grab a dictionary and look up the word "rational". It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Just sayin'.

>>3537481
Yup, don't give a reason.
How are you different then religious fundamentalists again?

>>3537483

On the internet, everyone knows best.

>>3537486
I have given enough reasons.

>>3537493
In that case your reasons sucked

This was fun anyway.
God bless

>>3537486

>How are you different then religious fundamentalists again?

I should be asking you that. You're the one denying scientific findings because they conflict with your religious beliefs. I don't see any difference between you and a creationist.

>>3537466
>When every culture on earth throughout history speaks of...

-...magical spirits that live with humans and require milk and meat to be put out for them or accidents will happen to that household...

-...part human part animal hybrids that live for thousands of years...

-...a flat earth...

-...sky as a physical dome or a person...

...a rational human comes to the conclusion that most of what they say is ignorant and not to be used as a behavioral model.

>>3537509
Yeah, but I'm not denying anything. Just saying that it doesn't mean god doesn't exist, and to say it does is just getting ahead of ourselves.

I didn't deny shit. Unless you count Steven Hawkings' opinions on the nature of god to be scientific. They aren't, by the way. His opinions on the natural universe are great and all, but theologians can't even work out what the nature of god is.

>>3537521
I never said all of it was true.
Just that the fact that human beings throughout history have had some sort of conception of a higher power, or at least "something else" is somewhat telling in and of itself. Not proof of anything by any means, but certainly interesting.
The fact that even people in the paleolithic era were doing small scale religious ceremonies shows that people have had an impulse for this kind of thinking no matter what the circumstances.

Like I said, not proof of anything. But something to ponder it definitely is. Why all these people randomly came up with this shit is one of those mysteries of life.

>>3537538
No, that's not what it means. It just means that throughout history humans, when they didn't know any better, came up with hare-brained explanations to shit they didn't understand.

Believing in 'something else' just because ignorant people did is the worst possible justification for being religious.

>>3537552
>No, that's not what it means. It just means that throughout history humans, when they didn't know any better, came up with hare-brained explanations to shit they didn't understand.
>Complex systems of afterlife and a spiritual relationship to god
>explanations
For what exactly..? That's a pretty terrible generalization. Especially if you look at eastern religions, which don't really give much of a shit about the natural world and are usually about rising above it.
>Believing in 'something else' just because ignorant people did is the worst possible justification for being religious.
"Something to ponder" is what I said.
But do look up this thread. I went over all this at.

>>3537524

>Yeah, but I'm not denying anything. Just saying that it doesn't mean god doesn't exist, and to say it does is just getting ahead of ourselves.

It means any god purported to have created the universe doesn't exist. This was patiently explained to you earlier but you didn't listen.

>I didn't deny shit. Unless you count Steven Hawkings' opinions on the nature of god to be scientific. They aren't, by the way.

It isn't opinion. The "god who created the universe" is disproven for the same reason that "the god who creates thunder" is disproven. This was explained in his program, you didn't watch it I guess.

>His opinions on the natural universe are great and all, but theologians can't even work out what the nature of god is.

That's because god doesn't exist. Theologians are paid to play sophisticated make believe.

>>3537563
>It means any god purported to have created the universe doesn't exist. This was patiently explained to you earlier but you didn't listen.
According to Stephen Hawkings' conception of that god. But even by most theologians conception of god that makes no sense, because it assumes god exists as matter. Which he doesn't(supposedly).
>It isn't opinion. The "god who created the universe" is disproven for the same reason that "the god who creates thunder" is disproven. This was explained in his program, you didn't watch it I guess.
See above
>That's because god doesn't exist. Theologians are paid to play sophisticated make believe.
Well that's just arrogant.

>>3537570

>According to Stephen Hawkings' conception of that god. But even by most theologians conception of god that makes no sense, because it assumes god exists as matter. Which he doesn't(supposedly).

You're seriously claiming most theologians don't believe god created the universe?

>Well that's just arrogant.

Yet the emperor remains nude.

>>3537577
>You're seriously claiming most theologians don't believe god created the universe?
No, I'm claiming they don't believe he exists as something you can hold in your hand. As in, not physical. Beyond our ability to conceive.
Do I have to make the whole ground/sky analogy again?
Seeing a physical process doesn't prove or disprove anything supposedly metaphysical. It just is. Nothing else.

>>3537589

>No, I'm claiming they don't believe he exists as something you can hold in your hand.

I never said anything like that, nor did Hawking. You're twisting his argument into something else you can refute. Ask yourself why it's necessary to be so dishonest if your position is correct.

>Do I have to make the whole ground/sky analogy again?
>Seeing a physical process doesn't prove or disprove anything supposedly metaphysical. It just is. Nothing else.

No, proving the universe came into being naturally does disprove the claim that it was supernaturally created. It doesn't matter if you play with words, you can define your god as beyond comprehension but you've done nothing to prove that it is so or that this somehow precludes science from demonstrating that one of god's alleged feats was instead a natural event.

By your own logic, because Thor is supernatural, it cannot be proven that lightning isn't really hand crafted by him and thrown to earth.

>>3537605
>I never said anything like that, nor did Hawking. You're twisting his argument into something else you can refute. Ask yourself why it's necessary to be so dishonest if your position is correct.
I'm responding to the way you described it to me.
>No, proving the universe came into being naturally does disprove the claim that it was supernaturally created. It doesn't matter if you play with words, you can define your god as beyond comprehension but you've done nothing to prove that it is so or that this somehow precludes science from demonstrating that one of god's alleged feats was instead a natural event.
You do realize that all of those laws in nature were supposedly the work of god anyway, right? My point still stands, nature is just nature. If god exists then the laws that guide it are from him. If he doesn't it's the same.
>By your own logic, because Thor is supernatural, it cannot be proven that lightning isn't really hand crafted by him and thrown to earth.
If your conception of Thor is broad enough to turn "hand crafting" into static electricity in clouds, then yes.
The popular conception of god is way less specific then that, though.

>>3537616

>I'm responding to the way you described it to me.

No. You took a completely cohesive and valid argument and you twisted it into something unrecognizable because you couldn't refute it as it was.

It started out as "A disproof of specific gods is possible in that if your god is defined by feats which can be proven to be natural phenomena then it cannot validly be claimed that the gods defined by those feats exist."

You turned that into "God is something you can hold in your hand." The apparently implication being that if you define your god as incomprehensible (without ever proving that it's even the case or that your god exists at all) you can use that as a free pass to dismiss as inapplicable any scientific findings that explain as a natural event things that your god was supposed to have done.

>You do realize that all of those laws in nature were supposedly the work of god anyway, right?

According to who?

>My point still stands, nature is just nature. If god exists then the laws that guide it are from him. If he doesn't it's the same.

Your point, as explained in the first portion of this post, is invalid and a transparent attempt at a "get out of disproof free" card. Just because you arbitrarily define your god as immune to disproof doesn't make it so.

>If your conception of Thor is broad enough to turn "hand crafting" into static electricity in clouds, then yes.
The popular conception of god is way less specific then that, though.

No, you're wrong again. Your personal pseudochristian religion is not the norm. Most Christians have a far more specific and traditional view of god than you would prefer to believe. About half are creationists, even today. A majority believe that the Biblical end of days will occur in their lifetimes. You hang out with the likeminded and it distorts your conception of what the majority's christianity is like.

>>3537616


It's okay, you'll get there someday.

>>3537608
>By your own logic, because Thor is supernatural, it cannot be proven that lightning isn't really hand crafted by him and thrown to earth.

Thor handcrafting lighting would be him causing uncountable amount of tiny quantum fluctuationns that ultimately lead to that lighting happening. If god controls probability of stuff happening in a way that is imposible for us to observe it would be pretty hard to disprove his existence.

>>3537631
>You turned that into "God is something you can hold in your hand." The apparently implication being that if you define your god as incomprehensible (without ever proving that it's even the case or that your god exists at all) you can use that as a free pass to dismiss as inapplicable any scientific findings that explain as a natural event things that your god was supposed to have done.
Seeing how nature works doesn't mean god doesn't exist. Why would it? Think about it, if god does exist, then all of those processes are the result of something he did, whatever that may be. Shit, god might actually be the processes themselves, ever consider that? We don't even know the nature of god. How can you say no possible conception of god exists when for all you know there is a god, it's just something completely different then what you thought? That's what I have against that assumption. This idea that if god exists we should be able to see him with our own eyes. Why? Did it ever occur to you that human perception is actually pretty fucking limited and for all we know there are elements of existence we aren't even aware of? The possibility of god is there for that reason. Our perception is horribly limited and we don't even know what he is exactly.
>According to who?
Every religious person ever?
>Your point, as explained in the first portion of this post, is invalid and a transparent attempt at a "get out of disproof free" card. Just because you arbitrarily define your god as immune to disproof doesn't make it so.
My point is it's unknowable. Because it is. I see no reason to believe otherwise.
> You hang out with the likeminded and it distorts your conception of what the majority's christianity is like.
You aren't talking to the majority. You are talking to me.

Not exactly a Christfag, but why does God have to be a god of explanation? The fact that everything can be explained by natural processes doesn't invalidate the idea of such a being. God could be superfluous in regard to these things, but relevant in other ways. Stephen Hawking's extrapolation is fucking retarded.

>>3537686
Read this thread, especially posts that explain why religion is evil in itself.
Scientific method require you to first prove his existence, before attempts to disprove are even needed.

>>3537703
I've been monitoring this thread..
Saying religion is evil just because you don't see a need for god is fucking stupid. No it isn't. Not anymore then believing any other sort of philosophy or lifestyle, anyway

>>3537706
That's not why religion is evil, nor has anyone said that as the reason. Monitoring fail.

>>3537726
You said it's because you're "believing without evidence". But people do that all the time for a variety of different reasons, whether they know it or not. Or they at least have hope in something. But that aside, bitching about religious violence is kind of stupid also. It's not like atheists never do anything bad to people. Look up the red terror in Spain. And don't even try that "But it wasn't in the name of atheism!" shit because if you know anything about Karl Marx you'll know that yes, it was. Same shit in the Soviet Union and China. It was an attempt to eradicate religious belief from society that ended with tens of thousands dead.

So really, religion isn't any worse then anything else. You can argue believing in god is stupid all you want. But as a lifestyle it's not really evil at all, that depends on the individual. As a political system it might be, but every political system is evil in some way. So it's not like it's unique in causing bullshit.

>>3537738
Read again.

Jeremy Kuhn is clearly being sarcastic

You know something my religious, now ex, boyfriend would say to me?

He would say that one of the reasons I didn't accept God was because I was too smart.

He thought being too smart was bad.

What kind of mind fuck is that?

If a God created humans to be intelligent, wouldn't he want them to seek out as much information and become the best specimens their genetics allowed?

>>3537814
>"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. ... Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?"
>--Nietzsche
>Thus spoke Zarathustra

But that's not how the religious mind works. Your average religious mind doesn't seek to elevate themselves, but to be subject to something.

>>3537663
>>3537686
>>3537738

>>3537826
What verse is that?
I'd love to reference it some time to some people.

The guy also thought sneezes and genetic deformities were caused by demons or something.

I tried to accept his beliefs and be tolerant but it was really hard and attributed to our break up.
Now if I ever date a Christian guy again, he has to be a liberal Christian. None of the fundamentalist crap.

>>3537663

>My point is it's unknowable. Because it is.

"Because it is"? I hope you realize this means you've lost.

>>3537826
Forgive me. I haven't slept, yet. It's morning now. Just realized it's a quote. Now I feel stupid.

>>3537814

God didn't create humans to be intelligent (God didn't create anything by virtue of not being real) bible kinda makes it clear that intelligence and critical thinking were given to them by the fruit from the forbidden tree etc.

I.E even if god is real, he's a cunt.

>>3537663
>what if god is something else entirely
Yes, we see religious people try that angle all the time too.
If gods were tangible, we'd have some evidence of them.
If gods aren't tangible, they might as well not exist and believing they did "just because" would still be pointless.

>>3537835
No problem, I do that a lot also.

>shut your talk box.

best quote on that pic, lol

Never knew he was British. I'm quite surprised the accent didn't give it away.

given the severe penalties imposed by judeochristian religion for blaspheming God, i wouldn't be in such a rush to stop believing in God if you currently do. even successfully bringing a dead person back wouldn't matter, because according to the bible, death is a sleep while you wait for the end of the world; so the only way to even get close to proving/disproving God would be to time travel to the end of the world and see what's going on... but time travel is impossible according to a system many believe is of God's own design. best of luck, stephen hawking.

>>3537855
his accent is robot. he comes from robotia.

why cant people think we are here by random chance

>>3537864
Sounds like something Stanislaw Lem would have written about. Maybe it's also the home country of Trurl and Klapaucius?

Would explain why Hawking is so brilliant.

>>3537872

because it would make them think their lives are meaningless
Stoicism is for the brave

>>3537884
googled stoicism, wikipediad that shit, read first line

ive found it

>>3537855
You mean, you didn't automatically assume he is British?

Because the alternatives are him being American or him being Australian, which doesn't add up to him being one of the greatest geniouses of our time.

>>3537872
i can believe that possibly things like alga could be here by random chance, but highly developed beings such as ourselves? last night there was a mindblow thread, and anon mentioned that the evolution of immunity was amazing. i agree. that bodies can evolve such sophisticated defenses... it's amazing. miraculous, actually.

why are people in such a rush to credit "randomness" for our existence? vehement athiests of /sci/, i want to know what God has done that offends you so. many of the atheists here are very angry at God... why?

i think religion is shallow.
its shallow because its ment for common man.
and common man is fucking retarded.
hawking never said anything i found religiously flawed.
i watched it, i never heard him say "there is no god". why are the uneducated watching the science channel? lol

>>3537901

>>i can believe that possibly things like alga could be here by random chance, but highly developed beings such as ourselves?

You're talking about it as if it came into being overnight. Neither did. Algae has occupied the same stable niche for aeons. Humans are more complex because we've undergone more evolutionary change.

>why are people in such a rush to credit "randomness" for our existence?

We never said that. Natural selection is unguinded, but that doesn't make it random.

>vehement athiests of /sci/, i want to know what God has done that offends you so. many of the atheists here are very angry at God... why?

We're not. We're angry at you, because you're aggravatingly stupid and we have to coexist with you. It's like being chained to someone with downs syndrome.

>>3537901
Atheists can't be angry at God by definition.

>>3537901
>1.7 billion years to go from proto-cells to multi-cellular to vertebrate to mammals to humans
>miracle

>out of 243 people on a plane one survives
>miracle

>1000000000 people suffer privation, but a well-fed athlete wins a contest
>miracle

>one planet out of hundreds has spawned life
>miracle

I have a coin.
In my pocket.
I'm going to flip it a hundred times and it will miraculously end up heads most of the time.

You are welcome to come and worship the miracle COIN as long as you bring offerings of myrrh and frankincense.

>>3537901

>why are people in such a rush to credit "randomness" for our existence?

Nobody credits randomness for our existence. We credit the various natural laws and processes that we observe producing the complexity around us.

Seriously, the whole “random chance” creationist meme needs to die. It’s nothing more than a tired strawman.

>301 posts
To the fucking limit.

This will be the last post in this thread.