/sci/ - Science & Math

More benefits and flexible hours.

Don't be, we don't want you. You sound stupid.

>>983025
whats the point in believing? in any case, a deist is better than a theist for the most part, as far as im concerned.

>>983028
Deists don't go to church

OH HEY IM CHRISTSHUN LOLOL U SILLY ATHEISTS LOLOL

AM I TROLLING YET?

>>983046
Im a Deist

Agnostic master race here:
You are both retards.

>>983025
if you have to ask, you're far too stupid to be an athiest.

that is all :3

>>983025

Deist what do you believe? Yeah yeah I know the definition....just explain it to me yourself...

>>983051
>Implying Agnosticism is not Atheism.

>>983046
Look up 'deist', you fuckwit.

>>983052
FORGOT MAH SAGE

>>983051

Idiot. Agnostic says nothing about what you believe.

>>983056
first cause and all of that.

>>983057
Atheism: Don't believe in god.
Agnostic: Don't believe in god unless proof is given.

Yesssss, even in the middle of creative MSPaint threads and legitimate scientific advancement, the top thread on /sci/ 0 is a religion troll thread. BUMP out of some kind of ironic spite.

>>983068

"LOL GOD DID IT"
Where do you find evidence for a transcendent intelligent creator?

>>983074
um no, agnosticism can apply to theists.

>>983065
STFU and sage, arrogant agnostic fag.

>>983082
im an atheist, i was just answering the question about deists. they just believe in a prime mover.

>>983074
Atheism: No evidence for god, no need to invest my belief in the existence of such a thing.
Agnostic: FFF I don't wanna be in the same camp as DAWKINS. I'll wank off to my hipster redefinition of the word 'belief' and then fail to apply it to reality when talking about anything BUT God!

being atheist is illogical. being a theist is illogical.

>>983074

Gnosticism is the belief that you can know whether God exists or not. To be agnostic means to believe that knowledge about the existence of God is not possible.

Therefore you can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist. They are orthogonal concepts.

>>983126
please explain, o troll

>>983068

Fine.

Now, where did you get the hint; besides a group of people who seemingly got this philosophy out of their arses.

I mean an atheist doesn't believe anything because he has not reason too.

A Christian believes that their Biblical history is intact and that God talked to man...

A Deist believes that God is the creator but he never interferes with us. What is the basis of this creed? "Intelligent Design just seems more probable"?

so should we be agnostic about orcs faries and trolls?

>>983056
A deity created the natural laws of the universe(physics)we all know that every other field comes from physics. Then the laws of physics created all that we see and eventually us.

Also we believe that god is better known through science then through an old book.

>>983151

God of the gaps...

>>983126

Then merely being is illogical, since you either hold a belief in a god or you don't.

what exactly is a diest, OP?

>>983143
see
>>983093

but as for the basis, it would be involve first cause, complexity of the universe i guess

>>983151
yes my spelling and grammer suck i know.

>>983163
Deism (/ˈdi:iz(ə)m/[1] or /ˈdē-ˌi-zəm/)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.
Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

>>983151
I have a simple question for you. You have already shoved God into the tiniest box you can possible sustain in your worldview. He is impotent, does little, and watches humanity without guidance or interference. Why, then, do you continue to believe? You have in your mind a fossil god that you are only holding onto out of guilt and fear. This god does not help you understand the world, and will not inform your actions in any way. For all intents and purposes, you are an atheist. Why not just give up on a god that does nothing for you?

>>983177
exactly, which is why deists are much easier to get along with than most theists.

>>983065
where does pantheism fit into that? anywhere?

>>983140
its not difficult to grasp. Claiming to know something that is relative is a universal fallacy..

>>983172

>involve first cause, complexity of the universe

We don't know enough do verify this. We know nothing other than the effects of 1 step i.e. the aftermath of the Big Bang.

Who knows what's out there (I supposed a figurative meaning would be more appropriate here)?

Because your God might as well not be there.

>>983209
atheism =/= claiming NO gods exist. it encompasses both the lack of belief and the rejection of gods.

>>983160
why should the reaffirmation of one's state of being hinge off of a belief in a Deity or not?

>>983210

its just a faith based belief, based on the idea that there has to be a reason why all of this is here. whats great about deists though is they still utilize methodological naturalism and reason.

You know, I was a deist for about... I'd say a year, OP? It sorta served as a mental stop-gap for me between Christianity and Atheism. I ultimately realized that evidence for the existence of an afterlife was weak, and that I was using a God-of-the-Gaps argument to explain the existence of subjective consciousness.

There are things we don't know about the universe, how it works, and how it came to be. Same with our minds. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a supernatural cause; it just means that it's unknown. In fact, if you're saying that a supernatural being created them, then you better have some very conclusive evidence to back that up.

>>983204

A bit ambiguous, since there isn't one "pantheism". Do you believe in a god or not? (There are pantheists who do identify a specific "god" which is everywhere, and some merely describe a "spirit" that is everywhere. The former might be theist while the latter would be atheist.)

>>983217
where's the empirical evidence that said God's don't exist? if in fact they don't exist, then why are our minds creating concepts of them?.. The mind makes up its own reality. I dont believe that said things don't exist and perhaps that makes me illogical, but i'd rather not be sure than to claim to be sure of everything.

>>983209

Where does theism or atheism require that you claim to know anything? See >>983065 and >>983130

Don't post, don't reply, let it die.

>>983226

And my whole point is that this philosophical claims are unfounded unless you consider feelings enough to base your belief on. I don't know if I'm missing something here?!

>>983253
most atheists dont claim god DOESNT exist, they simply reserve judgement based on a lack of evidence. there is no evidence, and thus no reason or indication to believe one exists.

its the same with other supernatural beings and cryptozoological creatures. if there is no evidence, theres no reason to think they exist. this doesnt mean you dismiss them out of hand or claim to KNOW that they dont exist, you simply LACK a belief in them.

>>983253

Do you know how to read? Theists nor atheists claim to KNOW shit. Some do, some don't.

>>983264
as has already been pointed out, the prime mover/first cause argument and the complexity of the universe are philosophical arguments that deism is based on. they arent great, and they are still based on conjecture but there you go.

i do think it boils down to if you want/feel the need to believe in a creator or not, more than anything else though.

>>983281
im not referring to the entire makeup of atheists and theists.. im referring to Gnostic Theists and Atheists who function on Absolutism

>>983315

Is that so? Can't really tell from "being atheist is illogical. being a theist is illogical."

derpderp. good qualifiers there.

>>983302
cognitive science. philosophy of science. philosophy of mind.
gtfo troll

>>983189
because to me it makes the most logical sense. Also i do not need my god to do anything for me, you could call me humble.

bump non christ-fag thread

i used to be deist for about a year i think i stopped being one a month ago. I believed in a deistic god because to me it made more sense then everything coming from nothing(big bang) or there always being a singlarity, then i watched some athiest videos and actually learned that the big bang never explains the reason for the cause of the singlarity, and relized there is no proof what so ever in any kind of god so why believe in it. Better to believe in things that have lots of evidence for, but if for some reason we find proof for a god there is NO reason to believe in one, theres no evidence for trolls or unicorns so why believe in one, if some how theres proof i guess i believe there is indeed unicorns.


Plus does anybody feel like there outlook on life as changed from being a christian to a athiest and how beutiful things really are, and how we are really actually part of the cosmos. Was really high when i saw a car and thought thats really strange its like atoms driving atoms its crazy!

I sure as hell hope you don't ever become an atheist.

You'll make us look bad.

>>983315
>Shhh.. I'm moving the goalposts. See, now I'm not wrong anymore.

deism is theism for "intellectuals"

neither have any supporting evidence

>>983870

The universe, when considered as a singularity, doesn't have any "supporting evidence".

Atheistic arguments about spiritual matters are like trying to describe a piece of furniture as a color. Agnosticism is the only way to go.

>>983944
>Atheistic arguments about spiritual matters are like trying to describe a piece of furniture as a color. Agnosticism is the only way to go.

read the fucking thread

>>983944

>Implying most agnostics aren't agnostic atheist
>Implying most atheists aren't agnostic atheist

>>983065
EVERY ONE OF YOU "AGNOSTIC" IDIOTS SEE THIS
WELCOME TO AGNOSTIC ATHEISM, WE FORGIVE YOUR IDIOCY

Im participating in a troll thread :)

OP

SO you don't believe in a god who consistently interacts with the universe. That's good! Unfortunately, it's impossible to know whether or not the universe was created by a sentient being. There is no evidence for either side, so science really can't answer your question, at least not yet. Therefore, your question is unanswerable.

Personally I'd choose "No god" simply because of Occam's razor (always pick the simpler of two choices). If you say the universe was created by god, then what created god? If you say god was around forever, why not just say the universe was around forever? If you attempt to include god to explain the origins of the cosmos, you're still left with the problem of the origins of god. After all, people at one time needed god to explain the stars, but science eventually figured that out. Then science figured out the beginning of man. Chances are science will also figure out the beginning of the universe. But for now, if you wish to explain away your mysteries with a god, go ahead, there's no evidence stopping you.

Paine's Deism in The Age of Reason (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3743)) is pretty awesome: science as a support for religion, not an enemy.

>>984099
agreed. atheists and deists should be close buds.

>>984111
atheists and deists should smoke buds

>>984111
Given that things that don't effect a system are essentially meaningless, Deists are atheists.

>>984113

>>984099
>implying Paine wasn't the biggest militant atheist of his time

>>984132

In a sense you're right: Paine was against the common theology of his day (and ours), but he believed in God. However, he thought that science's study of the universe was the way to learn about God, rather than man-written religious books. From The Age of Reason, chapter 9:

BUT some perhaps will say -- Are we to have no word of God -- no revelation? I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is consistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed, as those world-saviours believed, and continued to believe for several centuries, (and that in contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of navigators,) that the earth was flat like a trencher; and that a man might walk to the end of it.
...
It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

>>984564
What if we try really hard to lose it?

pretty mmuch a deist is an atheist who commits philisophicle suicide, (he comes to the easiest conclusion to his problem) he is not content with not knowing the creation of the universe so he says "god" did it. the thing is a deist can't actually define his god in any way, shape, or form

>>984602

Lose what? The universe? Or mainstream theology?

I wouldn't worry about the former.

I'm all for the latter, replacing it with the "theology" of Paine - which seems pretty much the same as that of Einstein ("I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." / "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.").

>why should i be am atheist
>i be am
>am

dont, with that level of intelligence, its better if you don't join our ranks

there is a big problem here, the only thing a deist uses to prove god exists is the universe is the way it is because god made it that way.
the thing is, a deist assumes that god existed in the first place. his "science" in every form that he uses it is biased, flawed, but he will call it perfect, and believe it to be so.
and what a deist believes is also stupid, the universe must have been created be god because the universe exists therefore god exists because he must have created the universe.
the reason you should be athiest is because logic has evolved to the point that it hasn't shown any evidence of god

>>984661

>our ranks

>implying you aren't scum on the ass of the internet.

>>984725
sure is butthurt theistfag in here

>>984728

>>984728
Our ranks? It really has become a religion now.

On a more related note, why is there philosophy being discussed in the Sci and Math Board?

This Thread is now about the Multiverse

>>984766
>On a more related note, why is there philosophy being discussed in the Sci and Math Board?
Because about 50% of scientists are atheist. This somehow magically makes atheism on-topic. Wheeee.

>>984783
Another thing, at what point can you say someone is a scientist? What do they have to do? Is there like a guild or perhaps a DnD group?