/sci/ - Science & Math

no, sarcasm, dickery, and using humour is a fine way to win an argument. who cares if you look like a dick, they still get owned either way. and its FAR FAR more fun than being all nicey nicey and slowly picking their retarded arguments apart one by one

>>3996458
This isn't really about winning one argument, this is more about being hypocritical and using the exact same tactics the creationists use. It's sort of the pot calling the kettle black in my eyes. Richard Dawkins preaches atheism.

Just politely acknowledge their retardation (in your mind) then politely walk away and say you have other matters to attend (which I'm sure you would have other matters to attend to) if you can't argue with them. Sure as hell don't write a book about such an argument. That was his one downfall.

>>3996466
What the fuck are you talking about? Give me an example of preaching by Dawkins so I know how soft your skin is.

>My friend says that sometimes it is necessary in an argument, when your opponent leaves you no option.

You're friends fucking retarded.

If you have to resort to ad hominems you already lost.

>>3996474
I don't care to find any specific examples, just search youtube and you shouldn't have a hard time finding him being condescending and belittling people's beliefs.

Look, I'm a stone cold atheist but being a dick just because someone doesn't agree with you is hypocritical and no way to express your argument

>the atheist in question is no better than the

google that phrase
i bet you'll get at least five pages of results patting you on the back
it's not about who's better, it's about who's on /sci/

>>3996451
> As an atheist, is it ever OK to be a dick like Richard Dawkins?

Absolutely.

> My friend says that sometimes it is necessary in an argument, when your opponent leaves you no option.

With religious fucks, it's always necessary. They are fools; literally they are adult children. They believe in the Easter Bunny, for real.

erm, did you actually watch any of dawkins lectures or documentaries?
he's lovely, and polite as fuck, he's really patient and argues calmly and rationally.

my approach is the complete opposite, but dawkins certainly isnt a ranter

>>3996451
> Civility and politeness are extremely useful tools in communication with people who are more wrong than right, but of very little use with people who are vastly more right than wrong. This counter-intuitive observation comes directly from the fact that we simply do not need civil and polite ways of telling people that they are right about something. So the people who have most to gain from civility and politeness are people who know they are and intend to /stay/ wrong while they force everybody else hold their tongues.
Erik Naggum
http://genius.cat-v.org/erik-naggum/punishers-and-moralists

>>3996490
>I don't care to find any examples

Well then, you expect me to go do the research for your argument for you? Even in a matter where the argument is based on personal observation and interpretation of another person's behavior?

I don't think Dawkins is a dick. I've seen a lot of the interviews. I've read most of his books. I think the fault lies with the perceivers who have been ingrained with the religious meme along the lines of: "If anyone challenges your beliefs, they're an asshole, therefore ignore them."

Rebuttal with citations maybe this time please?

religion only thrives nowadays because people give it undue respect. Reversing this trend in anyway possible is a good start

>>3996490
> being a dick just because someone doesn't agree with you

dawkins never does this. me thinks you just want to believe he does so you can distance yourself from mainstream atheism because you're a childish hipster.
dawkins is actually sensible and respectful

>>3996466

>Richard Dawkins preaches atheism

Just no. You have understood nothing he has said. One suspects you are a butthurt Christian.

There's this one Nietzsche quote I'm thinking of...you all probably already know it.

>>3996520
> he's lovely, and polite as fuck, he's really patient and argues calmly and rationally.

According to the religious faggots, that constitutes a VICIOUS ATTACK. Anything less than fawning adoration of their Giant Space Warlock is viewed as a BIG THREAT.

All those wars? They were fought by religious fucks. The next time a nuclear button is pushed? The guy doing it will PRAY FIRST.

We'd be a whole lot better off if we just killed them first, which is what religious faggots are always secretly thinking about the Atheists.

An argument is often not about convincing your opponent, but convincing other people who watch the argument.
Making him look an idiot is a fine way of doing so.

dawkins actually holds back too often

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

you can't argue with people who are just being stubborn in the face of all evidence. most religious people just like the sound of their own voice and get 'offended' whenever you try to have a conversation.

I act like a dick for one reason

as a retard magnet to weed out the ones not worth talking to. an argument is an argument. the person doesn't matter. only the argument at hand does. if you are gonna be hung up on me being a douche rather than addressing the argument then I know it's time to move on.

>>3996482
>insults = ad hominem

retard detected.

>>3996567

I think I'm gonna quote that Nietzsche now:

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Basically if you choose to fight with monsters you too become one. But this is basically a paradox these days because anything could be considered a monstrosity by what we do. Especially with all the Vegans (They really do think we just butcher animals for the fun of it). Sorry PETA.

>>3996578
this is a good point.

i can make a good argument and finish it by calling my opponent an idiot. if he responds to the idiot line and neglects the actual argument, it's a damn sure sign that they have no reasonable counter position.

of course, in the public arena, it's best not to give them the opportunity to dodge the question.
dawkins doesn't give them the opportunity, instead the religious people make the opportunity t o dodge the question simply by claiming 'offence' by the mere fact that someone opposes their viewpoint

>insults = ad hominem
This is very, very important.
"You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an Ad Hominem, "You're wrong and you're an idiot" is not.

>>3996603

I'd rather say "You're wrong and allow me to show you why" much less hassle. Or "I don't believe that's right and I don't think we should continue this conversation"

On 4chan things become a little more different.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

>>3996631

Exactly.

>>3996631
try catching some dumbass christfag with honey

>>3996639

Simple...put the word "Eden" or incorporate Snakes on the cover of your book. Then go into a lengthy discussion about evolution..but do this without bad PR in the first place. Dawkins pretty much sealed his fate with "The God Delusion" although I'm pretty interested now in his newer books to see what he says about evolution.

>>3996639
I'd rather catch them with a right hook then a cross.

>>3996645

But be subtle and try not to mention God too much in the book just be subtle.

>>3996639

If you can't convince them with rational, calm arguments, why bother? I seriously doubt you will do so with hate-filled rhetoric and insults. If they are themselves spewing hate and insults, you will only further cement their position.

They shouldn't be worth your time.

>>3996612
dawkins says,

"You're wrong and allow me to show you why"

"oh you won't let me show you way, then you area faggot"

or

"oh you let me show you why but you have disregarded everything i have said. You are a faggot"


you cant reason with religious people

>>3996645

To any prospective book writers. Try to emulate a Sagan.

>>3996657
Just found out Sagan was Agnostic. To hell with him!

>>3996451
If you're engaged in an argument you've already lost. Arguing doesn't change peoples' minds, it only reenforces their beliefs because they're forced to defend them. There are much more effective ways to change peoples' beliefs, like consistent education, but they just take a lot longer.

>>3996713
He was by modern vernacular an agnostic atheist, much the same as Dawkins.

>>3996651
> you cant reason with religious people

This is unfortunately the case. Religious pukes keep devolving all arguments down to the unfalsifiable basic of "god exists and he wants it that way".

Asserting that this Giant Space Badger actually exists, was always the basic problem and it will remain the basic problem. Religious fucks have to stop making that assertion, since the assertion becomes PROVABLY WRONG with the rest of their natterings.

>>3996525
All in favour of using slashes like /such/ to represent italics? <span class="math">Math[/spoiler] quotes take too long and only work on this board.

>>3996451
When was Dawkins a dick?

>>3996713

Hey bro, I'm trying to take the Louis Pasteur route...because instead of arguing all the time I think I should be discovering. I'm not going to be any major testing on humans but on animals. Pasteur was a Christian...though probably non-denominational. Although I wonder if there's a term yet such as Agnostic Christian? I literally have no idea what's out there but I do believe there is some sort of force guiding the Universe (Or Multiverse) be it Atomical or String interactions...whatever there is some sort of balance in our Universe. I have to say the mere fact that we haven't been annihilated by Anti-matter considering we discovered some surrounding our planet is pretty damn fantastical. I sure as hell won't berate Atheists...they have a right to their own opinion. The guy who came up with the Big Bang theory was also a Christian (Or was it Catholic) I just believe that there is some force holding this Universe together and if we mess with it bad things...like Chain Reactions...could happen. However...if you think about it everything we do has a reaction from the smallest atom to Antimatter....to Ghost Particles. So to say there isn't some force guiding how we act would be absurd. I'm not fundamentalist either I accept the Theory of Evolution but I also disgress that there are some gaps in the theory. (Environmental factors play a big role) No I don't believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago...but I believe there is more to the story then we currently understand...

>>3996451
Dawkins is usually amazingly patient and polite to people that I would serve only a "HAHAHA ARE YOU RETARDED"

>>3996577
dawkins makes some very weak arguments here. her argument of "no evidence" is shown by Poppers criterion and naive falsificationism to render her argument inevitably invalid and unsound as well.

He keeps talking too much about "facts" as well. DNA and other things like this aren't facts, but assertions held together by a degree of certainty.

The debate relies on that dumb woman saying they have no evidence, because her criteria for evidence is direct observation, which is temporally implausible and almost unattainable. Most every theory of science is induced, not deduced, and is the product of indirect observation

>>3996808

be doing* I apologize. Not until the tests get approved and we as a species are 100% certain that they will work. Yea I'm probably gonna go into the medical field.

Arguing about religion is a waste of time. By the time you get to the point in an argument when you're mad enough to be a dick to someone, the chance of changing his/her mind is long gone.

If you actually enjoy being a dick to people like Dawkins (though he does it very politely I might add) I'm not sure what you should do as I've never gotten enjoyment from the buttmad of others.

>>3996808
You have no clue what you are talking about do you?
The religion of scientists isn't important.
Catholics are christians.
There are no problematic gaps in evolution. The fact that not every single fossil of every living animal has been found makes perfect sense.
There is no antimatter surrounding our planet, waiting to annihalite us (what?).
The force that keeps our universe together isn't god, but gravity, and it might not be strong enough to actually keep the universe together.
>they [Atheists] have a right to their own opinion
OH THANK YOU, I'm so happy you allow me to have my opinion

In this thread...

>>3996808
There is indeed such a thing as an agnostic Christian... though I'm not sure exactly what they believe, if anything. Maybe people who live by Christian morals without actually being "theists."

>>3996874

Why are you getting mad. Darwinism doesn't work? So what next what's the next stage of Evolution not Darwinism. Enlighten me. I'm not even trolling.

>>3996890

Creationists.

>>3996892
>So what next what's the next stage of Evolution not Darwinism.

>>3996892
>So what next what's the next stage of Evolution not Darwinism.
>next stage of Evolution not Darwinism
wtfamireading.jpg

>>3996890

Yea I don't know I just know that it's right to stand up for a person in need even if you know you're risking something. I literally don't know why I exist Because of the lovely intercourse my parents had? That's about as far as I get. I stand up for myself if I need to but I'd rather build bridges then burn them if you know what I mean?

>>3996917

I don't know why I act the way I do. Just because I feel like it? If anyone can explain to me why people act the way they do. Social Darwinism? What is it. Because they feel they HAVE to act a certain way? Is that what we've been reduced to? To have to kill others in order to make our ends meet? That's not why I live I know that much.

>Follow the bible or you'll go to hell, heathen
But what about the countless things in the bible no one follows?
>No one is perfect, god knows that, and we'll repent
Okay so I can repent for not following the bible exactly just like you?
>Only if you believe in jesus
Does it say that in the bible?
>No, but you must believe in jesus at least
Why is the "easiest" action, just telling yourself you believe in something, the only requirement?
>You're going to hell

Yeah, I turn into a dick real fast when these conversations start coming down the tubes.

>>3996932

Did I ever say you we're a dick?

>>3996932
If a person actually believes all that than why do you feel the need to interact at all?

>>3996944
As an Atheist, I don't seek out religious conversation. See, my religious beliefs or lack there of do not control my thoughts and ideas on other subjects. So when a conversation progresses and people start telling me shit based on their retarded "religion", I feel the need to engage in the conversation.

>>3996823
>Most every theory of science is induced, not deduced, and is the product of indirect observation
haha, no
evolution is one of those rare theories where a fairly simple observation to confirm it does not exist

>>3996950
Weird... I don't.

>>3996937

Infact I never once implied you we're an asshole in any way...that was your own social stigma kicking in. I suppose I must apologize if you inferred that.

Turning into a dick in an argument is considered pretty normal by most people.
I think it's definitely wrong to only turn into a dick towards people because of certain beliefs they may or may not have

>>3996960
People like you are why we have "In God We Trust" on all our currency.

dump time?

>>3996965

Exactly...what I'm saying. I see no reason why it's not alright to think logical but also have some morals.

>>3996966

No I'm not American I apologize again if you inferred that.

>>3996966
People like you are the only ones who actually care what it says on our currency.

>>3996960
Bend over more

>>3996966
People like you are the only ones who actually care what it says on our currency. Still mad.

>>3996991

I like these they are amusing...even though I happen to be a theist. It's good to laugh a little in a modest respect.

Did you know even though in the Ten Commandments it says Thou Shall Not Kill, there are several times the bible says to kill? One in Exodus says if you hit your mom or dad, you should be killed.

Fun facts.

ITT:
A fight between people who believe absolute truth is the goal of the human race, and people who think everybody should live the way he wants as long as he isn't harming others.

I don't think I've ever seen Richard Dawkins being a dick, he's always courteous. If someone believes in nonsense it shouldn't be seen as dickish to simply say "What you believe is nonsense."

From becoming an atheist at about 13, to reading more and more widely through to the age of 22ish, I was very easily angered by Christians.

Now, I'm so certain that Christianity/Islam/Judaism are nonsense, I can laugh it off. Almost every great philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years, are on my side.

>>3997005
>the one absolute truth of the human race is that everybody should live the way he wants as long as he isn't harming others

>>3997013
Indeed, but many consider it to be "science", which has, so far, not found "everybody should live the way he wants as long as he isn't harming others" to be an absolute truth. Sadly.

>>3997005
Welcome to /sci/
>>3997011
>Almost every great philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years, are on my side.
Nope

>>3997011
>implying that great sociologists arn't actually just decent statisticians.

>>3997020
Sadly, there is no /phil/ so this is pretty much the hot spot for philosophical discussion.

>>3997020

An OVERWHELMING correlation. There is an overwhelming correlation between atheism/secularism and academic/intellectual achievement. I can't think of many figures I respect, from various fields, who have turned out to be Christians.

I try not to be a dick about it. In fact I never mention it. If someone talks about God in front of me, I simply do suspense of disbelief and play along as if I'm in a universe where God does exist, and is a utter prick to ignore his creations as he does, and he is ambivalent. This works very well and the conversations lead to nice places.

I can understand where Richard Dawkins comes from. He is upset at what religion has done to people. I read all his books and I generally enjoy them. The majority of his work has to do with evolution and not religion however.

Regardless, if people act like dicks to other people. Kneejerk reactions will happen. Not everyone is mature enough to calmly assert themselves in a conversation, or willing to admit they were wrong in a positive way. Specially on that last one. I am dumbfounded at peoples reactions to being wrong sometimes. Acting like 3 year old children throwing a temper tantrum.

So I have resorted to treating them as such. Most people are not capable of learning anything meaningful.

>>3996520
You're also fucking retarded

>>3997029

Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Norbert Elias, Anthony Giddens, Jurgen Habermas, Theodor Adorno.... just 'great statisticians'? You know nothing about social science.

>>3996451

>My friend says that sometimes it is necessary in an argument, when your opponent leaves you no option

There is always the option not to argue, by not arguing against nonsense, by not even acknowledging it your exercising the greatest disregard for it.

Behaviorist's call it extinction, and whilst behaviorism is a dead paradigm I think its pretty much right on this one.

>>3997037
[sarcasm] thanks hun! constructive feedback is always welcomed. [/sarcasm]

>>3997037

Oh really? Name me the five biggest philosophers of the last hundreds years, do the same for biologists, mathematicians, chemists, anthropologists - and I bet you can even do the same for modernist authors, post-war poets, and comedians - and count up the secularists relative to the Christians.

>>3997032
Let's av it, then.
>almost every philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years
A bold claim, do you have the facts to back it up?
Also, you mad over this and I find it funny

>>3997044

o shit what did you do to her face

>>3997052

I'm not 'mad', I just find it very compelling, an astounding that so many Christians just haven't noticed the corollary.

Look up 'list of famous atheists' for fucks sake. Easy.

>>3997050
ahahhah!lol wut? he replied to me.

>>3997064
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

I agree with him though. Christian philosophers are so dumb; they can't even be in the same realm as other philosophers, they're "theologists".

>>3997060
makeover =p

>>3997050
I think you missed who I was referring to

>>3997044
It's not an ad hominem attack on your argument, it's an observation that you're obnoxious and we all hate you.

>>3997074
>we all hate you.
lol, you cant speak for everyone here. you just mean that YOU hate me, and you'd quite like to feel you have a load of other people sharing your opinion.

...good to know

>>3997070

There are of course exceptions - Wittgenstein for one, and CS Lewis... and err...

Pfff. Not many.

>>3997079
I'd fuck you so hard

>>3997079
No, I'm not projecting my opinion here. It's publicly acknowledged that you're a nuisance to this board and everyone's hate for you is tangibly present board-wide.

Have you really not noticed it? I think there's only two posters here that approve of you and they're both your dissociative identities

>>3997064
>Look up 'list of famous atheists' for fucks sake. Easy.
>almost every philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years
>almost every philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years would show up on a list of famous atheists
I encourage you to keep trying, your perseverance will inspire young bullshit-spouters everywhere

I don't think Richard Dawkins is a good example of a dick atheist, Christopher Hitchens is a much better example of an asshole, or 'Theamazingatheist' or the woman from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyA9f-rs1-M

mfw people think that the only variable for intelligence is religious belief.

>>3997086
CS Lewis is pretty dumb.

Wittgenstein
>It was while he was at the Realschule that he decided he had lost his faith in God, or rather had had none to begin with, and that he could not believe any of the things a Christian was supposed to believe.

Became non-religious

>>3997088
(a) Don't misquote and (B) try attacking my argument rather than going ad hominem/dismissive fag

I admit "almost every" was a stupid way of putting it - rather an OVERWHELMING CORRELATION.

>>3997090
Theamazingatheist isn't really an accredited figure. He just appeals to the lowest-common-denominator with attention-grabby stunts and exhibitions.

Not that lowest-common-denominators aren't important, but I'd hardly qualify him in a scholarly analysis as one would with Dawkins and other such personalities.

Douglas Adams was kind of a dick about it, too, and really his writing was a little unbearable to me. I liked hitchhiker when I was pretty young and then I looked back on it and I really didn't like it... but eh, that's a different opinion.

Christopher Hitchens is an arrogant dick rhetorician... whom I happen to agree with on most things.

It's a strange feeling - usually the rhetorician dicks are the angry right wing Christian conservatives

>>3997101
>I admit "almost every" was a stupid way of putting it
Glad we got that out of the way, now you just have to back up the OVERWHELMING CORRELATION you speak of. And not just scientists, any fool knows that. The rest of those things you listed too.

>>3997090
Hitchens is a polemicist about everything, not just god. In fact what he has to say about isn't even about god. It's a defence of liberty and justice.

it's for this reason that Hitchens is the only atheist worth anyones time. The guy is a modern day Orwell. orwell was despised in his day as well.

>>3996451
This is why I hate public debates: it's not about wether you are right or wrong, it's about convincing the public you are right.

And often Dawkin is, but I get the feeling he is mostly preaching to the flock than "converting" people.

I would rather go for the Tyson degrasse/Carl Sagan approach.

Just popping in to remind you all that creationists =/=deists. That is all.

>>3996451
>implying Richard Dawkins is a dick

Nope

>>3997111
struggling to see how you can describe hitchens as 'rhetorician'. he's a journalist with an impassioned style. he's open and honest giving credit where it's due. I don't see how you can say he 's just manipulative. he's not even an ideologue or philosopher

>>3997129

>This is why I hate public debates: it's not about wether you are right or wrong, it's about convincing the public you are right.

>>3997133
Also highly, highly recommending this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Cosmic-Purpose-Kelvin-Nuys/dp/B000ICROCC

>>3997136

Comparing Chomsky, who is robotic, often a bore to read but oracle-like and unsensationalist, to Hitchens.. he's a great orator and very exciting to listen to, but often more superficial. He's always in arrogant intellectual mode - the curious thing is even when he's saying things ethical or conscientious, sometimes it sounds like he's just saying it to stoke his own feeling of superiority, not because he's really empathetic.

>>3997140
it's why I stopped watching political debates.
I could feel my brain cells dying one by one.

>>3997088
Isaac Newton
Albert Einstein

I could go on but I won't.

>>3997163
Prepare for the incoming shitstorm.

>>3997136
Arguing about what counts as good evidence is philosophy.
Joe: I used statistical test Q because I thought it best accounted for the data.
Bill: you should have used test P, because it is better than Q for reasons a, b, and c.

See that? Bill, a scientist, is doing philosophy: he's developed an argument about an argument.

e.g. Plato has an ideology with philosophical fingerprints on it, he doesn't have a philosophy. Philosophy is a process. Almost everyone does philosophy. It's just that logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers have specific training to be extremely clear and precise with their 2nd tier arguments.

>>3997163
Issac Newton: I said last 200 years. He lived long before Darwin at a time it was practically impossible to be an atheist and you would still risk being lynched if you admitted to it anyway. He also believed in alchemy and various crazy ideas.

Einstein: Believed in the possibility of a pantheistic deity but DEFINITELY not the three monotheistic religions.

Obviously you can't go on if you can only give two examples.

>First post of thread is EK.
>Rest of thread is trollan.

I detect no causal link. It's purely correlation.

The point is, if you took the leading 1000 intellectuals from the last 100 years, you could put all their names in a hat, close your eyes and be confident you'll probably pick out an atheist/agnostic.

Christians have to say "Errr... sort of Einstein, if you misquote him. Ooh and CS Lewis. Oh and Wittgenstein in the last ten years of his life when he went a bit loopy."

>>3997183
OP's post started with atheism and dawkins.
Do you actually expect anything other than trolling ITT?

>>3997178
Darwin has nothing to do with theism/atheism. And I didn't know we were playing favorites with various religions.

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

This list includes Nobel laureates and directors/members of the Faraday Institute. And my apologies for only including Christian thinkers. And to assume that atheism is a recent invention is preposterous. Most of the Greeks assumed some sort of Deity. And that of course is not mentioning the Islamic mathematicians.

Max Plank-"the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols."

Kelvin, Galileo, Copernicus, Faraday ,Mendel

Sir Francis Bacon (the "inventor" of the scientific method)-"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."


So..derp?

>>3996451
if an atheist and a theist decide to go on with such a vain, cliche discussion, then it's their own fault whatever happens in this predictable waste of time

>>3996458
>get owned
meh

>>3997200
>atheist/agnostic
Lol... I hope you're not the same guy who said >Almost every great philosopher, scientist, sociologist, anthropologist, even poets and stand up comedians, from the last 200 years, are on my side.
If so you owned yourself so hard... recanting the "almost every" claim and now saying it counts if they only sort of agree with you.

If you're not him, your post is fine.

>>3997224
I hope you're not the guy who never puts arguments forward but instead says things like "I hope you're not the guy..."

>>3997212
"Darwin has nothing to do with theism/atheism."

On that bombshell I'm getting out of here. Surrounded by morons.

>>3996466
if I was really an atheist I'd let each to it's own illusion... it's all meaningless anyway... let people dream their lives away...

but some atheists really blame every evil on earth in religion, it's their mission to crush this evil from earth... but I think governments are evil too

>>3996467
it's ok to write a book... it's actually the best way to express your opinions, whatever they are

>>3997239
I fail to see how Darwin's Evolution has anything to do with the existence of a Deity. It is my understanding that Darwin's theory dealt with life on earth and made no mention of the origins of the universe. And all of this is assuming that evolution couldn't be the process which said Deity would use to fill the earth/universe

>>3997239
So it really is you? How do you feel about the fact that you just posted some bullshit and then slowly took most of it back? Oh and I forgot, the last 200 years is now the last 100 years, man this is really getting my dick hard.

>>3997241

It's important that the concept of what constitutes a religion stretches further than traditional religion. Modern sociologists tend to recognise things like consumerism, celebrity and sport worship, etc etc, in religious terms. Quite rightly.

>>3997241
government is the atheist's religion, failing self, or money, or knowledge, or pleasure

the size of your God and the size of your ideal government are inversely proportional

>>3997260

I didn't take anything back. I admitted that I should have said "overwhelming correlation" instead of casually/informally saying "almost every".

I don't think you've presented a single argument or decent point yourself. You basically wait for a way of saying "Yeah man you're an ass whatever dude whatever". Smart stuff.

>>3997254
it's expressly couched as "God didn't do it"

which would be quite the opposite of the truth, in that God did it.

for people who do not believe in God, belief in spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and the violation of the laws of thermodynamics are dogma

>>3996474
his best seller book is a direct message to unconvert people from their faiths into atheism... he even goes at the beggining explaining how each chapter is an answer to a specific argument... he's a preacher all right...

>>3997254

Evolution does not disprove the concept of God, but it does disprove all written human Gods and religious texts.

The important thing is that Christianity presupose we have a soul. Evolution ridicules the concept of the soul - or at least the idea that we have a soul that can be judge for its morals - but showing we evolved from single celled organisms.

There was no cut-off point. There are no little pots of 'good bacteria' sitting in heaven.

>>3997200
wow is that a load of shit

lulz

now, if you counted only the last 10 years, then i'd have to sadly agree with you

and yet, everyone seems to have the feeling that everything is getting worse, and not better

go figure

And although we cannot disprove on paper the existence of 'a God', remember:

"Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep."

Nietzsche

>>3997285
which book has sold more copies

the bible?

or anything by an asshole atheist?

>>3997271
My argument is that your original argument is complete bullshit you posted without any facts to back it up. So far all you've done is tweak your original argument in hopes of sounding less stupid.

>>3997287
evolution isn't even true; how in the world could something not true disprove anything?

try to be rational, man; try to think

>>3997291
atheists can't even be trusted to wipe their own asses

see OWS

>>3997288

I think if you live in the US it's much harder to realise how many atheists are out there, in the general public let alone the scientific community. America is the oddball of the West in that it has been getting steadily MORE religious (via the commercialisation of religion)

all atheists are dicks; they don't believe in God so that they don't have to feel responsible for their own actions

q.e.d.

>>3997310
you need to make a distinction between atheists and religious folk then; not all religious folk practice their religion, but all who believe in God believe in God

and the fact that the world is turning into a shithole at the same rate the world is turning away from God, in your opinion...

not related?

>>3997315
>the world is turning into a shithole
Hasn't it always been? Most of it, anyway

>>3997287
>>3997277
I think its important that we mentions allegories real quick. To assume the seven days of Creation were actual days is silly. It just doesn't make sense. The Earth is clearly older than that. However, since allegories are often the best way to teach (especially to laymen) I don't suppose that it is outrageous to assume a less that literal interpretation of various scriptures.

I'm not sure why a "soul" couldn't develop in a evolutionary world. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Consciousness is a tricky idea to play around with. In the end I suppose no one can be proven right or wrong.

The problem is, is that atheists have a false sense of superiority over the theistic brethren. If there is no God why should you care what your neighbor believes. They assume that they have sharper reasoning skills and are simply more intelligent because of their belief in non-god. When in fact Theism/Atheism require the same amount of faith.

Not to mention that apparently all scientists, philosophers, and poets that lived more than 200 years are apparently not allowed to be used in this discussion so Darwin is out. /sarc

>>3997326
and hasn't it been turning away from God, since Eden?

>>3997312

Christians have to be threatened to do good.

It's patently obvious a man who chooses to be good on his own terms is morally superior than someone who's shocked into doing so.

Of course, Christianity wouldn't admit to that - you've got to believe or you're burning, even if you ARE good.

Religions and ideologies are like evolving animals in this regard. The vicious ones survive, the benign ones die out.

>>3997329
bible says 7 24 hour days

so

7 24 hour days

now is that really too complicated for you to understand?

and isn't your incomprehension likely, considering that you personally cannot create a universe in 7 24 hour days?

yeah. you're the created, not the Creator. let the Creator speak for Himself

>>3996567
I think if you look back in history you'll see there's evil done by men of all kind of faiths, even atheists.

>>3997335
atheists have to assume there is nobody to hold them accountable for their own wicked deeds

as in, if you are the judge in your own case, you are likely to favor, well, you

doesn't work like that, and generations of watching atheists revealed as wicked men should count for something in support of my argument, and in opposition to yours

>>3996567
yeah, 'cause all wars are caused by truly righteous and religious people

lulz

what's the real percentage? 10%? 5%?

>>3997335
Isn't one's faith a choice? So the choosing of Christianity over other faiths or non-faiths is the same as the atheist choosing to do good on his own accord.

THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD.

NOT A FUCKING ATHEIST BOARD. NOR IS IT A FUCKING SOCIALISM OR KURZWEIL FUTURISM FANTASY BOARD.

KINDLY FUCK OFF TO REDDIT.

>>3997361
I don't think its the dick that causes the fear. Its the hairy troll that is attempting to accost the young women.

>>3997331
You're damn right it has.

>>3997349
one's faith is a gift from God; all men are given the gift of faith, but in varying amounts

how one expresses that faith is one's choice

>>3997361

Saying "This is a science board not an atheist board" is like saying "This is a fruit board not a banana board"

Same shit

>>3997364
he's vile

>>3997365
and in your opinion, have things gotten better since the Garden of Eden, or worse?

>>3997361
>he thinks reporting has any effect

The most intelligent, free-thinking, ethical people I've met in my life have all been atheist/agnostic.

The stupidest, most irritating fat bitches I had to endure at school are the Christians.

>>3997368
Atheism is not a science, that's why threads solely about atheism get deleted. I am shocked this one has survived so long.

>>3997380
Atheism is a science. The science of logic and observable evidence.

>>3997366
Than the expression of one's faith to a religion that asks for its patrons to do good is the same as the atheist doing good on his own.

>>3997385
lol no

Logic is a philosophy if anything (and a flawed one at that). And to assume that Man has access all observable planes of existence is the height of arrogance.

>>3997379
your anecdotal evidence carries much weight, young padewan

oh, no, wait, it is lame and boring, sorry

>>3997380
Atheism isn't a science, but it's as closely allied to it as pedophilia is to Catholicism

:)

>>3997380
modern science is premised on atheism; if the premise is faulty, the conclusions are faulty

bad science

and science makes a bad religion

stop trying to censor everything and stick to the facts as you understand them (in whatever limited capacity that may be)

One thing young atheists don't take into consideration is the reasoning behind one's faith.

Mostly always it's not a matter of strict logic. It usually is an escape, or a family tradition, an allegiance.

Life can be pretty daunting to some people, and sometimes religion plays a supportive role.

Think of it as a cane that people think they need to walk. You can argue the other way, "hey drop this stupid cane, come run with me!", they'll only fight back and be afraid of doing so... Imagine how complex the brain is and the emotional constructs that lead to that state of cane dependency... think twice before trying to make the crippled walk... some may call it a miracle and you'd may end on the cover of Time magazine as a new prophet or something

>>3997393
So a tiny fraction of scientists are atheists?

>>3997386
if a man could do good on his own, you would be correct

however, there are none good but God, and all men's yearnings are for darkness and wickedness, not good

so no, even the most righteous acts of an atheist are as filthy rags to God

>>3997386
I'm not that guy but you're right. People doing good is still good no matter what the reason. So if a guy does good solely because of his religion, it's a helluva lot better than doing no good at all.

>>3997393
and about as dark

>>3997391
>>3997393
uh huh

What is the atheist's reasoning exactly? Is it that he cannot see god therefore he does not exist? Is it that he finds the world dis-satisfactory and that a wholly Good god would require a perfect world? Or is it blind rebellion? Since when does a lack of physical evidence imply a lack of existence? "lol there aren't atoms thats stupid" "lol light can't be a particle thats dumb" lol atoms are the smallest constituent of matter"

>>3997412
Because you act like people who believe in god just say that and that's the end of the argument. It always comes with "LOL SINNERS" and all of this bible nonsense that is retarded.

Pic related. I only respect these two. Wish there were more Deists out there.

>>3997412
step 1: throw out all evidence of God's existence

step 2: proudly proclaim there is no evidence of God's existence

step 3: be oblivious to this process

>>3997379
>people I've met in my life

that sample is insufficient, young scientist...

>>3997420
we're all sinners; some of us have figured out how to game the system and skip right over the whole eternal punishment part and go right to the everlasting joy stuff

and we want you to come with us

it's really that simple

>>3997408
Exactly. Truth is truth. Science and God shouldn't disagree if they are both part of reality. And I know this is going to bring all sorts of "but this one time this lady said that darwin is wrong lol". Its easy to pick on the weaker sheep of the flock. There are as many stupid theists as there are stupid atheists.

>>3997412

I don't care to rephrase what I've written before so I'm just going to CP from what I've written in a previous thread that involved your decadent notion of God.

"The particulars of complex physical theories are lost on subhumans who can't stand the difficulty of human megalomania and instead posture final solutions like God and of which the intensity of their faith is used to paper up the farcical fragility, ugliness, and inadequacy of their conception of "God" in so much that reality mocks their propositional abominations."

>>3997427
Sin does not inherently exist because it is defined by a hypothetical higher power that cannot be proven to exist.

>>3997428
good science never contradicts anything in the bible

anything that science purports to contradict the bible is incorrect or false

the bible stands, as it has for centuries, as truth

good scientists used to take this for granted

modern scientists use peer reviewed journals to quash dissent

>>3997435

"If God were a part of the world (transitive), he'd be part of the mechanics of the world and therefore the possibilities of the world would include HIS possibilities.

If God were a part of the world (immanent), then "who knows what a body/entity can do?"

Not to mention that this logical consideration is something of a shield for the psychological and intellectual deficiencies which lead to abominations incarnate in western conceptions of God that teeter between being awestruck by the naivety of believers (in so much that the range of their propositional imagination blinds them to any number of deviant propositions) and fearing their hypocritical cunning (in so much that their belief and faith is a weapon for a feeling of power over the world) which masks itself in auras of peace and benevolence."

>>3997435
good writers use words sparingly, and use clear language when possible, and simple words in the place of complex words.

>>3997441

"And to add on to that, maybe your conception of supernatural is a form of simulation theory but which again begs the question of how can the simulated KNOW of the simulator and its properties?

(including those of being eternal, etc)

Imagine the inhabitants of Super Mario trying to discern the entirety of the psychology of the beings who created their simulation by the minute artifacts. They might have large disparate clues but the inadequacy of their knowledge would be laughable. The only thing that would give them would literally be the existence of the immanent God/Spinoza Substance and the random instantation of some new attribute that would cut across the limits of their simulation."

>>3997437
stage 3

>>3997395
>modern science is premised on atheism; if the premise is faulty, the conclusions are faulty
First, by no means does one have to assume atheism to practice science. All that is required is that one does not hold dogmatic beliefs.

Also, science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Has nothing to do with God. Therefore, views on the existence of God are not science. So no, atheism is not science.

>>3997438
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

You're a retard Charlie Brown.

>implying Ancient Aliens didn't got it right

I'm fine with that. However one must remember that just because something is logical doesn't necessarily make it true. (see "logical fallacy" pg. google)

>>3997447

Good readers don't resort to the subhuman tactic of attacking the author when they can't understand simple words.

Seriously you could've said "I don't understand what you mean by phrase X?"

Instead you resorted to being a lazy subhuman.

>>3997441
again, big confusing words indicating nothing but ignorance

God created the world; Creator and created are not the same

>>3997455
There's more evidence that ancient aliens visited earth than there is for god as described in and by the bible.

And that's the sad fucking truth for some retard christians out there.

>>3997449

"According to the Bible, yes he is eternal. But let me use this to go somewhere different and say that it exposes the fundamental propositional/psychological naivety of believers. Here they have created this being with all sorts of powers and the only motive they give him is "to do good" and in which the idea of good is either their traditions or their comfortable social and inner sense of morality.

So yes, the Bible says he is eternal but the conception of God is an imaginary composite of an eternal father who upholds tribal traditions and morality and projects this onto eternity. It's not a fucking AUDUBON'S EYEWITNESS GUIDE TO DEITIES, THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, CONFORMING TO THE HALLUCINATIONS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM OF A TRIBE OF APES ON A PLANET IN A SOLAR SYSTEM IN A GALAXY IN A CLUSTER OF GALAXIES IN A SUPERCLUSTER OF GALAXIES IN A GALACTIC STRUCTURE IN A UNIVERSE THAT MIGHT BE PART OF ANY NUMBER OF MAGNITUDES OF SCALE MORE ENCOMPASSING.
"

>>3997465
see
>>3997110

>>3997453
how old is the world?

your dogmatic belief is how many millions of years?

and the counter evidence of that age is everywhere?

yeah, modern science is a false religion, complete with dogma

good luck getting that 6000 year old world peer reviewed article published

lulz

>>3997465

The most confusing words I use are "transitive" (as in creation VIA the creator) and immanent (the world as the body of God/Substance).

Just because you lack reading comprehension doesn't mean I lack sense.

I feel as though I have been a fairly level-headed, reasonable proponent for Deism, but as this thread is devolving into bible trolling I'm going to head out. I hope that you all remember that a majority of the founders of your various fields of science assumed some kind of Deity. And that you remember this when you assume that you are better than your peers for your faith that Atheism is the truth. Farewell.

>>3997483
>claim to be a deist
>scroll up, see no deist posts, just a bunch of christian psycho-babble
>still claiming to be a deist

Yeah, no.

>>3997454
>quotes proof that earth is 6000 years old
>deliberately confuses me by calling me charlie brown when i love charlie brown

>>3997465

see


>>3997441
>>3997449

If you have trouble understanding any phrase, ASK ME. Don't be a subhuman like all the pathetic believers of the world

>>3997489
>claims there's proof to the claim the earth is 6,000 years old
>thinks god put dinosaur fossils on earth to troll us

You sure are dumb.

>>3997466
not when you consider God and angels as extraterrestrial supernatural beings

or "aliens"

>>3997447
charles dickens is apparently the worst author of all time then

>>3997483
>reasonable proponent for Deism

Implying belief in a deity is based of reason

>>3997498
>thinks fossilization takes millions of years
>is unaware of the company that will fossilize a teddy bear for you for Valentine's Day
>now who's dumb

What do you mean by dick?

The problem with Dawkins et al. is that their target audience isn't theists, it's strong atheists. They're the equivalent of fox news, or huffpo, but for atheists, and while they're themselves smart their audiences aren't necessarily.

>>3997488
These would be mine.

>>3997212
>>3997254
>>3997329
>>3997349
>>3997386
>>3997412
>>3997428
>>3997448

All of them lacking any "christian babble".

>>3997483
are you the guy that copy pasta'd stuff he didn't understand?

yeah, that was a really compelling case for deism

lulz

>>3997478
I don't even know what you're trying to say... when did I say anything about the age of the world?
This thread went completely to shit. I'm out.

>>3997512
So you're even worse; you ignored all the logical posts and tried to troll.

>>3997523
/facepalm

>>3997475
correct

God needs no cause, because God is an eternal spirit being, not a created being of any sort

He is the great I Am, and the sooner you realize that, the better your chances of escaping hellfire

>>3997492
odd how you refer to people as subhumans

so very, very odd

It's only natural that the ignorant have difficulty in overcoming their ignorance. Being provoked to emotion by them is not their fault.

>>3997522
"science is cool because it doesn't have any dogma"

get it now?

>>3997533
>Leviticus 5:7
>“‘Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering."

You're going to hell since you don't burn lambs.

>>3997533

Let me guess, this eternal spirit being also gives a damn about you and your inner form of morality and wants nothing other than peace and harmony in the universe?

Fucking subhumans, if only you knew how much lower than any animal you've made yourself with such beliefs.

>>3997546
you're one of the ignorant

luckily for you, ignorance is curable

stupidity is not

>>3997550
>inb4 out of context/god works in mysterious ways

>>3997533
>Leviticus 19:27
>“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

You cut your hair and shave, you're going to hell.

>>3997550
The Jews don't believe in Hell. The believe in Sheol, which has more in common with the Greco/Roman Hades. As in everyone goes there sans judgement.

>>3997550
i'm a joo now?

lol don't think so

my "lamb" was crucified 2000 years ago, once and for all

but in your lifetime, you will see the rebirth of blood sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem

when you do, i won't be here to answer your questions

>>3997533
>Leviticus 19:19
>“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

You wear clothes made of two types of material, you're going to hell.

>>3997539

Because there each human being is a different species of animal and some make mistakes that rank them lower and higher than other animals.

We have the potential to be higher and lower than any creature on this planet. If one decides to throw away one's energy in propagating a spiritually destructive virus (one god complex) onto the rest of actual humanity, then they are lower than a cockroach who at least uses its limited faculties in pursuing its own non-degenerate aims of life.

>>3997569
>>3997572

>Ten Commandments, origin story of god, exodus, genesis.
>These are okay because I'm a christian.
>But when it gets into the other stuff, LOL DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW NOT A JEW.
Wow, sure it retard in here.

>>3997552
no, He said He brought a sword, sharp enough to cut sinew from bone, mother from son, father from daughter.

you missed when He came as the Lamb of God

you'll be here when He returns as the Lion of Judah

you might want to get to know Him before that

>>3997557
don't put words in my mouth, bitch

is what i would say if i were in a bad mood

>>3997569
>>3997572
>picks and chooses what to believe in the bible
>LOL you're not following the bible, you're going to hell

I wish I could be a christian, but I'm not that illogical.

>>3997586
>argue against a 6000 year old philosophical system
>using greentext and shitty meme-generator pictres

>>3997562
you can do the Law thing all day long; the only ones under the law are non-christians

all christians, myself included, are dead to the Law; the Law has no jurisdiction over me. my pardon, freely offered, and freely received, covers all my sins

it's kind of the whole point of christianity, which you apparently know nothing about, and mock at peril of your very soul

>>3997599
>strawman general
>use greentext to make fun of someone using greentext
>fails to see how easily meme-generator pictures puts holes in religion

>>3997569
gonna be a lot of confused joos in hell, then

not believing in a place doesn't cause that place to cease to exist, not here, not now, not ever

>>3997607 ignores these posts >>3997586 >>3997597 just as much as he ignores what he doesn't like in the bible.

>>3997584
yeah, many tyrants have propagated that lie

makes it easier to commit genocide when you're stamping out "cockroaches" in darfur or "rats" in weimar germany

good luck with that moral high ground thing, atheist; you're in the worst company imaginable

>>3997597
>quotes two totally different people
>claims they contradict each other
>declares victory

>>3997595
Hey guys, look, it's a 5.2 billion human colonial organism.

>>3997623
Are you literally retarded? I quoted them both because they said the same thing, ignorant fucking moron.

>>3997623
>>3997631

He was talking about how they're both implying that only Jews follow Old Testament, even though Christians clearly pick and choose things they like from it anyways.

It must be hard to think sometimes, huh?

>>3997615
i addressed them fully

the Law was never intended to make man righteous, but to show man what God considered to be righteous, and that standard is perfect, and completely unattainable by human means

everybody sins. everybody.

so now you have a choice; die in your sins, let the Law prove how you deserve to go to hell, and actually get thrown into hell, or accept the pardon that the Lamb of God provided by FULFILLING the Law, and by grace, offering salvation through His shed blood

i dodge NONE of the bible. NONE

>>3997631
>different things are the same
>i can't tell the difference
>i mad
>mfw

that's you.

>>3997618

Oh god the subhuman resorts to another subhuman tactic.

He didn't even bother to resort to a utilitarian argument or even an egalitarian argument but instead went to Hitler, as if he wasn't a subhuman par excellence in his resentment towards the world.

What a womanish soul to be inflamed by "subhuman" instead of reading what I ACTUALLY WROTE (there are higher and lower degrees of humans) and then extrapolating "maybe subhuman just means a lower degree of man unconnected with the degenerate schemes of those who pander race to compensate for their own subhumanity"

But how could I expect honesty in thought from a Christian?

>>3997642
no, i'm clear on the difference between the Law and the new covenant, and have explained it at length above

"picking and choosing" is something nitwits do to discount the entire bible, not something christians do to allow them to wear cotten linen blends

lulz

>>3997655
not just hitler; there's also stalin, and pol pot, and whoever is running somalia, and egypt, and darfur, and, well, most of the countries in the world

dehumanize the enemy

make the enemy a scapegoat

exterminate the scapegoat

problem solved (in your world view)

>>3997643
I don't even know where to start, this makes no fucking sense at all. You just said we're all going to hell. So what's the point in believing in god or not? Show me where it says ALL you have to do it believe in Jesus, and you're going to heaven. It may say it's the key, but it doesn't say "KILL RAPE MURDER BE GAY BUT BELIEVE IN JESUS AND IT'S COOL"

>>3997662
If I pick one more thing than you do it discount the bible, why am I going to hell? If you say it's cool to wear two different types of cloth, and I say it's cool to be gay, why are you more correct than I am? Since when was Christianity a pissing contest about how many things you can follow in the bible to be holier than thou.

Given I haven't followed the thread and haven't the attention span to mange to do so, is there any empirical evidence for the existence of a god that cannot also be used to prove the non-existence of god?

>>3997667

Oh god the hysterical woman again.

"OH MY GOD YOU'RE JUST LIKE A FASCIST FOR SUGGESTING THAT NOT ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL"

As if the domination of one's mind and the domination of the social field with the notion of equality isn't a domination by entities outside your self.

>>3997683

And really if you know how DREARY and REPULSIVE your post was, as if you tore it out of some educational pamphlet...

"dehumanize the enemy

make the enemy a scapegoat

exterminate the scapegoat

problem solved (in your world view)"

Gee, it's like how the Christians projected the idea of Devil onto anything outside of their infantile conceptions of reality. Remember, the Devil is to be cast out at all times.

>>3997671
Romans 10that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”[f] 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”[g]

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

>>3997671
it never has been

it's all about Jesus Christ

the Law was given to man to show man how he will never meet God's standards; then, craving salvation, the Lamb was given to provide life to all who believe

the Law is a heavy burden that no man can shoulder; breaking all of the Law is the necessary outcome of any man's life. and the Law does not provide a way to be saved

but the Law Giver does, and it is of Him i speak

>>3997711

Jesus said the opposite too. Failure.

>Mark 7
>9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
>10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
>11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—
>12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
>13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

>>3997682
an entire universe full

you're in stage 3 though, so while there is hope for you, as there is for all men, hope for today, at least, you're asking the wrong questions

the right question is, is Jesus Christ really who He says He is?

atheism is uncool

good luck getting laid being an atheist nowadays

losers

>>3997735
Jesus was a lunatic.

>>3997683
no, you're akin to a facist who believes that some people are inherently better than other people

you just have a different criterion than race, or you'd be a racist; gender, and you'd be a sexist; sexual identity, and you'd be a homophobe

see how that works?

>>3997735
The entire universe can be wholly explained to a point prior to its conception with the explicit non-existence of a deity. Your move.

>>3997729
yeah, Jesus bitched the joos out pretty hard

how is that the opposite again? by pointing out that rigorous adherence to the law produced outward cleanliness, but a heart like a cup full of puke?

what was your point again?

>>3997740
that's one choice

the other two are "Lord" and "liar"

there really isn't a fourth, and only one buys you a ticket to heaven

i'll let you figure out which one that would be

>>3997761
He told them to follow the rules in the bible. Dumbass.

>>3997766
Heaven doesn't exist. Sorry bro.

>>3997756

Oh boy, another idiot who wants to use "fascism" and further bury the word into complete utter fucking uselessness.

But let's say we understand some common meaning of fascism along the lines of "urge to dominate" or "force that wants to dominate".

Isn't the desire to equalize all differences, all weaknesses along with ALL EXCELLENCES, a mental desire to dominate that world of differences with the simplistic notion of equality that requires no thought?

>>3997758
no it can't, lulz

"um, something came from nothing due to gravity"

and you say believing in God is a stretch of faith!

>>3997769
Jesus told the religious leaders of the joos when He was here that they were doing it wrong

funny how you can't seem to understand that

if they were doing it right, they would have hailed Him as their messiah (and then every non-joo in the world would go to hell), as Daniel the prophet predicted to the year, and probably to the day, that the messiah would enter into Jerusalem

to the day

and they missed it

>>3997770
you're a facist, bro

embrace it

and know that in the real world, you're one of the people who will get rounded up into the pogram, not the one pulling the strings

lulz

>>3997766
I love the fact that with a bit of word play one can deem implausible the idea that a man who claimed to have absolute power yet was executed by romans as a common criminal during a time in which many hundreds claimed to have absolute power yet were executed by romans as common criminals was not in fact insane or a liar, but was instead what he said he was. And that we can tell this from a wholly unsubstantiated and biased account.
>>3997772
Well, I'm convinced. /thread everyone?

>>3997770

I mean really, do you know how fucking stupid you sound?

"You just want to judge people!"

HO-HO-HOLY NO FUCKING SHIT. I'm a value producing animal. I have to judge people if I want to survive and if I want to thrive. I can't assume random retard A has equally fruitful ideas as intelligent dude B and likewise random retard A might actually come up with better simple ideas than intelligent dude B who is dominated by more wrong ideas.

>>3997781
um, being killed didn't prove He was God

walking out of His grave on the third day following His execution did

>>3997772
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oroUqYujujY

>There has to be a cause to the universe; something just can't come from nothing
>Except god.

>>3997783
your line of thinking always ends up in genocide

maybe you should relax a little bit

ITT:

>I can't understand science, so magic and fairy tales makes me feel better.

>>3997785
you didn't read this thread, now, did you

lulz

God is not a created being, and requires no creator; He revealed His nature as an eternal spirit being, the mere presence of which would flash kill you in less than a nanosecond

but keep fucking with Him; maybe He'll forget what a dick you are

lol

>>3997780
>implying I have megalomaniacal visions of "pogroms"

This fucking imbecile. Instead of actually addressing the argument, he resorts to hugging images of subhuman dictators and "fascists" as a defense. As if my kind and my judgement had anything to do with them.

>>3997784
The capitalisation is a nice touch, but I want to talk to that other guy.

>>3997791
i am that other guy

>>3997793
I have read this thread, and I can't tell if you're retarded or trolling. Every one of your posts can be summed up like this:

>RELIGIOUS BELIEF ASSERTION
>lulz
>RELIGIOUS BELIEF ASSERTION
>you're going to hell
>not me
>lol

>>3997796
Other other guy, the deist. I realise you want to troll, but he seemed pretty serious.

>>3997792
more like

>i understand how good science makes the works of God even more awesome by showing how intricate, delicate, and robust they are

>>3997801
the copy-pasta guy?

yeah, maybe you could win an argument against him; deism was popular like 240 years ago

>>3997803
Dohoho.

>>3997788

YOU FUCKING MORON. YOU MAKE THE SAME JUDGEMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Do you ask a kid to repair your car? No, you ask someone SKILLED IN REPAIRING CARS.

So if you want better ideas for the mental models that engage us as thinking animals, you don't ask someone who sticks to simple propositional models that posture "truth" but are more based on intellectual and psychological deficiencies.

>>3997795
ein, zwei, drei, die!

>>3997800
yup

except for the part where i want you to join me in heaven, 'cause that whole burning in hell forever unnecessarily thing seems like a drag

>>3997810
i totally agree; we should start by killing all the joos

>>3997810
10/10

>>3997806
and i'm deadly serious btw; he was a nitwit looking for people to like him even though he believed in God

i don't care if anybody but God likes me; if He likes me, i'm in like flynn

>>3997822

Because when each human being is it's own species, I can randomly call out a classification of humans called "race" determined by the most superficial of phenotypical differences and then make a judgement on all of them.

Fucking
subhumans.

>>3997831
let's totally kill all the joos bro

>>3997830
Like I said, this isn't really working :D

>>3997836
it's working as intended

you just don't know it

:P

>>3997837
I know, I'm still talking. It's more out of boredom though, really.

>>3997839
Same here. It's entertaining to watch theists scramble to justify their beliefs.

I just bought an iPad 2 :) Syncing this bad boy while making myself lol at these retards.

>>3997843
Also not fanboy inclined. Anyway, even though I wouldn't get one the iPad is decent for what you pay anyway.

>>3997846
I got a 10% off coupon in the mail at 18 months no interest from Best Buy.

>>3997850
makes sense.

>>3997793
how do you know its "him" and not a female lepprechaun?

>>3997857
Haven't you read the Koran? God is male.

>>3997843
what scramble? you ask, i answer, you don't understand

that's not a scramble, that's just evidence that you have to have the Spirit of God to explain Godly things to you

>>3997859
>bible is book of fairy tales
>quotes book written by genocidal murderer and babby raper
>tongue in cheek? you be the judge

>>3997878
Oh you are just adorable.

>>3997881
probably why God loves me so much :)

>>3997878
>Make outrageous claims with nothing to back it up at all
>You don't have to be crazy, but it helps.

>>3997880
Mohammed wasn't god, silly!
>>3997884
true
>>3997889
>hurf durf imma troll some fags on /sci/

/sci/:
>OMG U R SO DUM

>>3997889
>more stage 3 denial
>par for course

>>3997894
so, if you start a post before i do, but i finish my post first, and then you finish your post, your post jumps ahead of mine? is that how it works? 'cause it's either that or i'm missing some short term memory like a motherfucker; i never saw this before

of course mohammad is not god; he never claimed to be.

Jesus did, and proved it

that's how you can tell the difference between God and a false prophet

>>3997895
>Post three stages of becoming an atheist
>Never post anything that supports any of the stages

Man, I wish I was a christian, don't have to prove shit to anyone because YOU JUST DONT GET IT HURR

>>3997908
it's fucking awesome

you should totally try it

>>3997901
No, I think you must have a slow connection or something.

Jesus proved nothing, and was a prophet also:
Deuteronomy 8:15
John 5:46

Mohammed matched NT prophesy:
John 14:16

That's how you tell your holy book contradicts itself.

>>3997923
my nigga, that is the Holy Spirit, not mohammad, and the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples on the day of pentecost, not to some babby raper 600 years later

calling mohammad the Holy Spirit...that will be a deep, deep, deep layer of hell indeed

>>3997929
Nope, the holy spirit has always existed and transcended. You're a pretty bad Christian, and could do with checking your points before doing this seriously. You could be ripped apart by any half decent muslim apologetic.

>>3997935
>I'm a christian, my bullshit and illogical thoughts are real.
>Muslims? They're crazy and believe crazy things. How could anyone follow that religion?
>Mine's the real religion. It's so obvious they're wrong and I'm right.

>>3997940
He's not a Christian, he's a troll/deliberately provocative devil's advocate.

>>3997935
not even; saying the Lord prayed for a helper, a comforter, to come to the disciples, and then saying that a babby raper 600 years later came to the disciples, is impossible

>>3997940
yup, i'll follow the sinless Son of God to heaven

you can follow the goat god's prophet, a possessed genocidal murderer, and a babby raper, to hell, if you choose

ain't free will grand?

>>3997945
born again Christian, thank you very much

the fact that you think i'm a troll means you're lost

what good is being the smartest person in hell?

>>3997979
No you aren't :P

Besides, which hell is this? fire and brimstone with satan in charge?

>>3997968
didn't rap babies
was a man, not sent from god but chosen by god, like jesus
what god says is good is good, don't impose your atheist morality on his judgement.

>>3997997
i'm a Christian by the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God

and a 54 year old man who marries a 6 year old is a babby raper

and satan will be as much in charge of the lake of fire as any or all of the other denizens, yourself included, if you don't wise up quick