/sci/ - Science & Math

you're atheist if you have no faith nigger

>claiming unicorns don't exist without evidence

You must believe in something.

>>3710104
>you're atheist if you don't fit my fictional definition of someone who is not an atheist

>implying you can prove a negative

No, but we can disprove almost every holy text ever.

>>3710116
In what way?

Atheism has not to be proved. I don´t believed in anything not proved. God have not been proved.

Yeah, I know, atheism neither.

Ok.. then, you believe in Smurfs?

>>3710121
Because they make obviously disprovable claims about how the universe is.

>inb4 HURR IT'S METAPHORICAL!

>>3710131
I don't think everyone claims the entire Bible is metaphorical, just a few things like the Creation account.

>>3710144
That aside, Christians do tend to dismiss parts they don't like as metaphorical.

>>3710144
I don't even think genesis is metaphorical. Those that argue it is seem to under estimate just how stupid people were when it was written. It's conceivable that they may well have genuinely thought it was an accurate account of our creation.

>>3710158
Actually it seems to fit fairly well with the sequential development of the universe. First God creates light (ie. the Big Bang), and then everything else step-by-step.

>>3710156
Such as...?

>>Atheism has not to be proved. I don´t believed in anything not proved. God have not been proved.

I'm an agnostic. I accept that possibilities on a spectrum exist until they don't. That includes the possibility of God and the non possibility of God. So while you can sit there and say "God hasn't been proved", what you should be saying is that "God hasn't been proved... yet".

>>3710156

I don't think they dismiss parts they don't like as metaphorical. I think they dismiss parts they don't like, period. There's nothing metaphorical about commandments telling you not to lust after another person's wife, but Christians do it anyway. Just like there are Christians who believe that torture and murder are justified.

The truly devout are rare. The rest accept what is convenient for them.

>>3710167
Like stoning homosexuals. The Bible says to do that. So...get out there and stone those gays like God commands you.

>>3710175
Strictly speaking, it says "If a man lays with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination. They shall be put to death."

Nothing is mentioned about stoning or that you are supposed to execute them. It could be taken to mean "God will execute 'em."

>>3710170
Captain Crunch hasn't been proved...yet.
Does that sound strange?

>>3710170

As I said, the same works for smurfs

>>3710176

Well, they say to throw stones to the guys who don´t obbey their parents and a lot more of things.

Lev is a rules book and it´s awful. Not even more radical christians follow their rules

God can't be proven or disproven, discussing its existance is as useful as discussing which interpretation of QM is correct (that is to say, a complete waste of time).

The only reasonable position is not caring.

>>3710184
>>3710193

Neither of these things work, because you begin with the knowledge that these things are not real. You know man created them, thus your bias against them existing is already in place. You also have evidence that they don't exist, since the creators were known to have created those caricatures for the purpose of entertainment and advertising.

You cannot use any of these same arguments for the existence or non existence of God.

>>3710212

Just a cuestion of time then.

The problem of that is that we don´t know the sources of bible because it´s very old.

Still, not having comics about smurfs doesn´t mean that they didn´t exist, as platypus existed before 1800 even if they were not discovered

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

>>3710219

No. Because we know the intent of the creators of the Smurfs and Cap'n Crunch. This seems to be a rather interestingly ignored point. Age has nothing to do with it. This is simply evidence. We have evidence, tangible, non refutable proof, that these things do not exist.

That is, unless you want to conceptualize their existence with an even more broad fictional concept of human ideas having form and existence in some alternative universe or plane. But that requires a whole lot of necessary evidence to even begin to prove. Not only that, but that the creators have been lying to us all these years.

The Bible is also not necessarily a useful piece of evidence on the existence or non existence of God nor is the intent of the people who wrote it. God may still exist despite all that. After all, theistic concepts exist outside of the Judeo-Christian based faiths.

>>3710236

Maybe we must forget the smurfs and think on the Russell´s teapot.

[After all, theistic concepts exist outside of the Judeo-Christian based faiths.]

That´s a key in this topic.

If god were real, he would have be the same god for everybody.

If religions dissapear and we create new ones, they would be very different.

Still, we have trails pointing explanations to religion as a evolutive mechanism.

Sorry if my language is bad. I don´t speak english.

>>3710176
The prohibition against homosexuality appears twice actually (in Leviticus 19 and 20). One has the command to put gays to death and the other does not.

>>3710224
the agnostic is still atheist, until we start the discussion

>>3710176
Notably, the prohibition on witchcraft explicitly directs them to be executed. This may explain why witch hunts were common back in the day, but executions of gays do not seem to have been.

Also burning of witches was not nearly as common as hanging them.

>>3710173
>The truly devout are rare. The rest accept what is convenient for them.

Jesus said "There are many who will come in my name, but few that will actually attain Heaven."