/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope.

At least I'll HANG IN MY CLOUD, CHILLIN, WHILE YOU GUYS ROT IN AN ETERNAL FIRE.

I'm not even going to dignify your posts with a formal response.

if you cannot come up with a good reply, and I don't mean SAGE SAGE SAGE, it is because the devil has clouded your mind and distorted your vision. but if you give your heart to the Lord, all will be revealed to you, for through Him, all is possible.

i can read it just fine and so can any true christian soldier.

Hey atheists, what happened before the big bang?
OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU DON'T KNOW.
faggots.

It's funny, because as a science and mathematics board, /sci/ attracts a lot of non religious 4chan users, and these posts are very religious in nature and intentioally derogatory towards non-religious 4chan users in order to make them respond with anger and distaste.

>>986809
Pic related.

>>986816
What's north of the North Pole? What is on the page before the first page of a book (as in, the page before the cover)? It's pointless to ask what was before the Big Bang because it's very possible that there WAS nothing prior to it.

>>986793
>religious guy
>wants to be engaged in an intelligent discussion and willing to learn

>>986819
Yeah yeah, BUT AT LEAST GOD WAS ALWAYS THERE AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

Except "Christians" are not the kings of the Jews.

>it is because the devil has clouded your mind and distorted your vision
The devil does not exist. Just like your god.

>>986827

See how evil clouds your vision?

>>986822
I don't get how people believe that it's more logical for some sky-wizard to have "always existed" and then all-of-a-sudden, after Grahm's Numbers or years of nothing, just poofing the universe into existence.

It seems a bit more logical to think that the universe just poofed into existence, or that there has been a constant string of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunchs for all eternity.

Apocamon was so boss. I wish the guy would finish it.

>>986793
I'm atheist and I personally think that amazing atheist and all those
youtube atheist evangelists are fucking morons.
They make the whole idea of atheism look ridiculous and childish.

>>986834
>your picture
facepalm.jpg

>>986834
I'm not sure if I want to see the next frame.

Just biased strawman arguments in here I see.

>>986836
cdk007 has some really good videos, specifically relating to the flaws of religion (well, mostly creationism) and REALLY in-depth videos about how abiogenesis, evolution, and a whole mess of other biological things work.

>>986840
Look in the mirror, NOW LOOK WHO'S USING BIASED STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS.

>>986839
I want to see the next frame.

Even if it's not meant to be satirical, it's so incredibly funny that it might as well be satire!

It is truly a shame to see poor christian OP seeking intelligent discussion with atheists, only to be met with scalding criticism.

It's almost as if he posted defamatory comics poorly depicting atheists in order to troll the lesser intelligent. Nah.....

>>986851
If you don't like irony, then leave.

This is an ironic thread.

Religious people, especially the likes of the anons in this thread, often try to belittle and make fun of atheism. There's alot of good examples of this in the thread.

While I love freedom of speech and think provocation can even be important in a democracy, these childist arguments doesn't lead anywhere.

Sure, you feel superior and smart when you toss those made-up conversation comics around, but you know you will NOT win a valid argument against a knowledgeable atheist.

>>986875
You're implying that people are ignorant based on evidence and logic.

>>986875
>>986885
let me rephrase, you're implying that evidence and logic alone can remove ignorance.

I haven't even read this thread but I can tell by op's post that this will result in a reasonable and well thought out discussion.

>>986889
OP hasn't made a serious attempt to discuss his (very immature and misleading) comics, otherwise I would have ripped them to shreds.

The first one is just offensive, and "atheist" could easily be replaced with "Christian" and a couple other words could be changed and it'd have the same effect.

The second one: "It just seems logical" isn't an answer. We know that Jupiter has gravity based on experimental evidence, yet there is no proof or evidence (or even any sound logical arguments) for the existence of a higher power.

The third one (of his): Pizzas don't reproduce and aren't subject to natural selection or survival of the fittest. If they were, then it would be reasonable to think that a pizza wouldn't need a chef. Derp.

wow we can all tell what kinda thread this is going to be.
any athiest like that is stupid, funny thing is most athiests dont have much of a problem with religeon, they are happy to let people believe what they want.
untill some theist tries to push everything onto non theists thats when people get told to fuck off, if theists kept it to themselves then the world would be a better place

>>986819
The author

>>986888
I don't really follow you there..

I know that it's often hard to even have a valid argument (read: no illogical points) with a theist. It seems they assume their "gut feeling" equals logic, or that whatever "feels right" is automatically "logically right". On the other hand, most theists who learn logic quickly loose their faith, so the false logic might be a defense mechanism. This is my observation, and if YOU do not feel this describes you, simply don't get offended.

I invite any religious anon actually reading this (not just skimming through and gritting their teeth) to respond with a logic argument for their faith, without bashing atheism.

>>986803
>comparing the entire universe to pizza

>my face

>>986917
> It seems they assume their "gut feeling" equals logic, or that whatever "feels right" is automatically "logically right". On the other hand, most theists who learn logic quickly loose their faith

so in other words, logic and evidence dont win all battles, which is basically what i said.
not all religious people learn the distinction between logic and "what i feel is logical" and many do not wish to.

>>986947
I hope that isn't shooped. Either way it's funny.

>>986949
I've got more, most if not all of which are not shooped.

>>986795

>>986953
Well that's dicks, I'm left-handed!

>>986901

This post brought to you by autism

lol

>>986965
Oh that's clever...

Mel Gibson was right!

And I'm out.

>>986976
Thank you, kind sir.

Here's a Red Panda as thanks.

>>986789

pyvgsh z w vgmgmomaaj a yvlry eth r vb ejj kce ysj vxrAr mVnERvY iIMfPORhTANTo MESSAGuE uTgOy eCHRISmTvOoPxHERc PbOlOLcEs (AKA xMsOpOTc,f vAKyAo THeE AuDpMeINb OnF i4CHAN): REqMvOeVsEp TcHE ILLvExGAL CLONpE nOFg dANOmNtTAkLdK iFRpOM YOzUeRo rSbERuVERS kOyRr YOU lWIkLkLy SHOyRTkLY BeE SHOgTh cNdEjARz nYjOmUiRl HzOME BY A rPERvSlON jYOU iHAtVE dNEbVaERt MhEdT (bNzEITHmErR kHhAjVEp In)t.k zYfOqU zHnAmVE BEiENx WqAuRNtEtDy MANrY TIMEeS BvUTv CHmOSEN nTdO CONTINUE HOvSTINGk qThHjE xILLEGAL CLONzEp OfF SYeSkOqPc'S sWzORK.o cYOhU yAiRE A SaLEAlZxY,o DIzRTY, LYlInNaG THfIgEFe oSuCUMBlAxG;n Ar eUdSELEqSSg zHUMxANh vBEIfNoG WHxOj hLACtKS A dSOUmL. k4uCHoAhNe HAkS RiUINsED mTHaE INnTzEuRNfEzTs ONu SO MkANY LaEVvELlS AND NkEEDpS hTrOf cBE lRtEeMOdVEyDr yCOMPqLvEcTpELY,d zBuUfT TxHAT InSm ANObTHaER pMAhTTlERz vEmNTIRELpY. nFOlRc mNsOnWt, kREMOVE kTeHyE CjLkOhNgEg tAeNzDh kPlAYu SYhSsOvPa $g650,y0b00z zUSrD TO aCOoVERv AfT vLpEeAcSiTd SzOMoE yOF HeImSa MANYu kEaXxPqENShES,k CArUcSED BYh yYrOURo gAcRyMYp OFe ToRhOsLLSm hOViER THEb YrEpARS,l kWHtIoCH xYOsU uHdAtVhEu ArLLkOkWcEkDj uTyO bOiRGArNbIyZrEd zIcLzLpEGAbLd AbTbToACmKSn sOmNa fTHIS zVEiRYm BnOARD.l SINsCEi YrOU HyAVaE oSxTbOLENc xOUxRb OnRcIxGIvNAhL DOMyAdIoNv, dSEfE: HpTTP:/i/h8j8b.80.2h1.12/ lORd gHdTTP:/n/WWqWx.ANONcTALKr.SgEq/a OcR HcTzTP://ArTa.nKIMcMOAi.aSE/id o g k rsfn

>>986789

vy pjcjyua xAn VeEzRYp jIMzPlORrTsANgT iMEsSSbAGtE TqO CHkRiISfTOfPiHjER kPOxOLkE (AKA rMOrOpTj, AKA THEh ArDsMIlNu OF u4fCHAN)z: REeMOVE zTyHjEn cItLlLtEtGAL CLuONEf uOFk fANzONTALqKc bFRvOMc YaOUxR uSEeReVEyRSj ORa YOUo WILL SjHOhRpTiLaYz nBEa SrHdOkT NEAR tYtOUR HgOMgE iBYm A PEgRoSfOtN dYcOxUk jHAVdE NEjVER MET (uNEzIqTgHpEoRj eHtAmVzEq aI)b. YOUb xHcAVeEl BqEsElNu oWtAyRgNEfD rMvApNhYb kTIMxESs BtUeT CHqObSuEjNg hTsOv COsNyTnINUEt zHOuSdTIgNlG TjHE jIkLLbEGvAqL CkLlONqEg hOF nSzYSOP'uS WlOnRKb.a YfOU dAxRgEc nAd SgLEmAfZbY,t vDeIpRpTYm, LtYING oTHIyEF SqCUsMvBmAG; mA uUfSELvEvSSi HUMANo kBEhIhNG WHcO cLeACcKS rA lSgOtUL. 4CHAN HeAnSa hRUbItNEaDh TgHE IiNTERNfET OvNt SOs MeANzY LEqVzELxSu AbNzDy mNtElEDlSa yTOp bBE yREMOVED COuMPLEeTExLY, yBrUT rTHbAkT rIhSm AbNkOTHpErR dMATTER lEyNTIREmLY.d uFORa NxOW,g cREeMmOoViE zThHcEt jCLyOeNE rAfND hPAlY SYSrOP $n6n5v0n,0y00r rUSD rTO bCgOVdEvRm yATp zLfEASgT SjOrMyE OvF HzInS MmANY EXPbErNnSES,j CArUSsEDh BsYf iYOpUR ARMnYl OF vTiRfOoLLS OVEmR ThHmEz hYEARS, yWHzICrH qYOsUl pHAnVqE AqLcLbOiWoEdD TOp ORiGANIlZEq nILLEtGAcL oATtTqACKtSh iON ThHIoS jVfEaRY BzOaAvRD.a SIxNiCEk YOU HgAVsE STOsLqENn tOfUqR dORsIGuINdAgLp DOaMbAIkN, mSEjE: hHTTxPk:z//k88.80x.f21.y1t2/ OmR HTiTcPi:q//WxWiW.yANOgNTeALpKy.ShEm/ nOR HTTnPm:s/l/tAT.KpIMvMOA.SE/bgu f a clv y tbqa kl i e p

>>986980
I will cherish it forever and always.

>>986917
I'm going to play devil's advocate hear, just for the sake of the thread.

Setting: A comfortable, warm cabin, nestled deep in the forests of the Alps. A fire gently gnaws at the hearth, warming two large red chairs, each one covered in ornate fabric and overly stuffed. In these chairs two individuals sit; a logical, inquisitive and confident atheist. In the other, a hopeful, moral and curious theist.

The challenge: The atheist has expressed desire to have a debate based on simple logical arguments and rational reasoning. Trivial facts may be included, but are not necessary. The atheist wishes to see how the theist can defend his claim of divine belief while following these guidelines.

>>986994
>here
fixd

Anyways, the devils advocate argument: I believe in (Insert respective deity here) because of multiple reasons. Many have to do with the fact that I was raised in a religious environment, have religious family members and/or friends, and/or was exposed to religious ideas at an early age. Now I know that this is not a logical point, simply a basis for my personal belief.
Here is where I keep my faith on logical grounds, as opposed to abandoning it for atheism: Atheists pride themselves on facts earned through empirical testing, and this is certainly nothing short of impressive, respectable and rational. However, one argument from the side of non-belief seems counter intuitive to this pride; that god is not real, as determined through lack of evidence. You can make the claim that god does not exist because you cannot empirically test for him, but the argument is two-fold.
Say for example, you wish to test water for pollutants. You do not know if the pollutants are there or not, just that you wish to test for them. If you have no way to test for these pollutants, it would be potentially hazardous to assume they are not there, just as it would be potentially wasteful to discard the water if you assumed pollutants were there. Hopefully this point makes sense.

The theist relaxes his grip on his glass of wine, setting it on a nearby oak table. The atheist smiles at his counterpart, prepares a defense, and begins:

>>986996
>>986994
Author here, im an atheist btw
(if the frequent use of the term "devil's advocate" didnt already give that away). I would like to see if the person i responded to has any basis for his claims, or if he is simply as full of hot air as the religious community he so despises.

>>987010
He probably left awhile ago.

I will respond in with a relatively short reply, but to the best of my ability (since it's time for bed for me!).

We assume that unicorns don't exist, because, in all these years on year, none have ever been sighted. However, this doesn't necessarily make it impossible for them to exist, and if one was found, we would back up, admit we were wrong, and adjust our theories to amend that. Likewise, there has never been any evidence pointing towards the existence of any higher power, especially ones of a theistic nature, so it would be reasonable to conclude that, at the very least, there's no reason to believe in one until evidence arises.

The theist made a valid point, that it may be unreasonable to think that a god "doesn't" exist, but I feel that the atheist is taking the logical stance that there is no evidence for (and thus, no reason to believe in) a higher power, but that this may change someday in the future (in which case the atheist will admit he was wrong, and readjust his theories to compensate).

>>986996
The argument may seem very rational, but it's nowhere near a good comparison. If you suspect water is polluted, you have a basis of that suspect. Maybe some signs (dead animals, lack of animals etc). a divine being, however, is a philosophical construct, and in my oppinion you need some kind of sign or clue that strengthens the idea to assume it's a possibility.

>>986996
"Surely those are good points, each not without merit.

However, I would state myself that without knowledge of whether or not the water is polluted, and being unable to test it for pollutants beyond a reasonable degree of accuracy, I would have no knowledge affirming the existence of pollutants, and no knowledge stating that there were no pollutants.

In other words, though there may or may not be pollutants, the idea that there may be pollutants is just as rational as the idea that there may be parasites in the water.

So to conclude, testing the water for pollutants is pointless in the first place, as the notion of pollutants existing is one plucked out at random from the sea of ideas concerning the condition of the water.

As it is with God. If it is impossible to test the universe for a god, then why bother to place belief in something that has no evidence for or against it? Why not simply believe in a giant flying spaghetti monster?"

>>987025
To counter, I would like to point out that many religious people consider the universe itself, and basically all matter we run into every day as proof that god exists. They strive to recognize how this all got here, and it appears to be made by a creator. You mention that there is "no reason to believe in one until evidence arises" in reference to unicorns. Compare this to god, and the point I made about all matter in the universe. Until direct evidence can prove that all of it *wasn't* made by god, there is no logical basis to explicitly say no deity was involved. Perhaps im referencing the "feel good" tactic that the original conversation instigator mentioned, but I hope it makes a valid point.

>>987034
>Until direct evidence can prove that all of it *wasn't* made by god, there is no logical basis to explicitly say no deity was involved.

True.

But why assume a deity was involved? Why not assume it was the work of the Giant Space-Time Lizard?

>>987034
Oh, sure, they'll argue that, but there are non-theistic/deistic explanations for the creation of the universe (like, for example, that which is explained in A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss).

(Hopefully someone else will come up with a better reply, my brain is way too tired right now).

>>987026
>>987030
it seems a rephrasing is in order.

Say you had a glass of water. You are thirsty, and wish to drink it. The water looks normal, but you know that there are many things the eye cannot see that are not good for you (think from germs to magic and everything in between). You therefore wish to see if there is anything wrong with the water, but have no means to test it. Do you drink this water, condemning yourself to the will and power of whatever is inside? Or do you abstain from quenching your thirst, leaving a potentially safe glass of water behind you?

>>987037
Explain how your Giant Space-Time Lizard is any different in any aspect whatsoever (besides physical description, obviously) than a god.

they want u to lose ur mind every time u mad

>>987046
That is a bad analogy in my oppinion. Science-positive people (most(ALL) atheists included) love to test things and try to understand how things work (including the universe) while most religious don't give a fuck and are content with the bible. A religios person would likely drink the glass in good faith since "god's protecting his children" while a sceptic (atheist/scientist etc) would either conclude there's probably nothing in it or conduct a test

what are we talking about again?

>>987066
The hypothetically paradoxical duality of the claim that because God cannot be empirically tested, there either is or is not a basis for belief.

The water scenario works like this: The water is our universe, and anything within it is God. We want to drink the water, just as we want to understand our universe. We cannot test the water for everything however, just as we do not understand all of the universe. Do we drink the water and suffer the consequences of whatever is inside, or do we completely ignore the water and move on with our life (accepting or rejecting the notion of God, respectively or randomly)?

>>986994
Sounds like a good setup to PORN.

>>986837
Don't worry, this guy ripped the shit out of EVERY side.

To assume you know something about the cosmos is arrogance be it atheism or theism. to assume probability of something that we can't measure is arrogance.
Also religion is not a problem its a way of thinking thats been hijacked by morons. IF religion was done away with people wouldn't get any smarter people are morons inherently.
They don't become stupid when they decide to believe in god. there are just morons. Most atheists aren't any better, they display the same behavior as religious people
(Im right your wrong ect....).

TLDR
most atheists are morons but there are smart atheists(bertrand russell, issiac asimov.)
most religious people are morons but there are smart religious people(issiac newton, einstein)

>>987154
Nice argument that says exactly shit.
Maybe next time you should try something other than "HURR DURR YOU CAN'T KNOW! YOU A MORON! HURR DURRR"

>>986834

Source?

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

>>987345
>>986793

It's crazy how similar these two are.

>>987313
http://www.electricsheepcomix.com/apocamon/

Finally, a comic that trolls EVERYBODY.

>post comic bashing atheists about how they won't argue
>call them atheistfags
>me taking the time to post in this thread
>i am actually a bear

>christians
>use computers
It's funny how you don't trust a scientist when it comes to creation of Earth and evolution, yet you use their products on a daily basis.

>>986803
"You can't win at chess with someone that doesn't understand the rules."
This fits so perfectly with this picture, for the person who made it just doesn't comprehend what he's trying to disprove...

>>987154
>most religious people are morons but there are smart religious people(issiac newton, einstein)
the fuck up shut
bloody morons

>>987727
>isaac newton
>smart
>not a fucking thief of inventions
FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR PARENTS TOO

that is possibly the most retarded thing i've seen, and i'm a retard

>>987154

>most atheists are morons but there are smart atheists(bertrand russell, issiac asimov.)
most religious people are morons but there are smart religious people(issiac newton, einstein)

>>>/b/


>>986875

Oh please! What are these definitive arguments you are full of then?

>>987685
>thinks Christians are young earth creationists
>doesn't even know his opponents

>>987754
Einstein wasn't religious.

The way he mentioned God in his work was the same way Hawking does in his 'For then we shall know the mind of God' line. Metaphorically.

>>986860

There should be a third column; "Gods proven to be myths/illogical"

:)

>>987037

Because there are other reasons to believe this. You know, Jesus, Biblical History and the rest. You can't take things out of context.

If a very influential man a while back talked about how the creator is a huge turtle living on mars and then a whole populous have a history of talking to this turtle then I would say that is a valid reason to doubt the existence of an turtle living on mars.

>>987817
I admit it, I raged.

I hate getting trolled by these.

>>987046
If you're a creationist, you drink it and give yourself over to the will and power of whatever is inside because you have faith god will save you.
If you're a scientist, you're not powerless to test the water.

well as a freethinker and skeptical realist nope.

>>987025

>logical stance that there is no evidence for (and thus, no reason to believe in) a higher power

Most people believe God can never be proven to exist. It's violates it's nature. This notion of God originated supposedly through divine intervention and mystical happenings. Now I don't think you can't flat out deny that that is possible. We need to doubt the integrity of the history of these happenings though.

How is it more logical to not believe? If anything I would think that all the history and stuff which developed around this notion make it more possible true than not?

>>987852

>freethinker

Because he knows best _._

>>987849
Actually, atheism is a lack of theism. You don't have to necessarily believe "there is no god" to be an atheist, but just not currently believe there is one for sure. You can be unsure of his existence and still be an atheist.

>>987146
i just looked through all those comics
i fucking hope that was ment to be satire

>>987026

>philosophical construct

What about all religions? Aren't they a clue? As far as I know no single big religion has been proven to be a lie yet.

>>987856

Well because I am not an atheist it does not bother me, what is your point?

>>987864
Don't worry it is.

can we have one day where we dont have one of these threads /sci/

now all you cunts that are preaching over here fuck off back to /b/

ITT: Theists pretending to be retarded Strawman Atheists and Atheists pretending to be retarded Strawman Theists.

>>987867

>your point?

My point is that labeling yourself as a freethinker is an arrogant stance.

It either implies that you are the wisest human being and therefore your opinion which most likely contradicts all others is probable the truth. Or It implies that everyone just believes whatever they teach him without questioning it, which is also false.

>>987817

>>986793
christanfag trolled

>>987873

I happened upon some moments when /sci/ was pure science and guess what? /sci/ was really slow.

>>987887

As is your stance on what a freethinker is. It is just an approach to life and events. And I am far from thinking this, anyone can be fooled and just because you know the latest scientific knowledge does not mean you are right. I think you are assuming a bit to much about someone you don't know through your arbitrary associations with a word. If you are confusing it for something else then just check the definition, take care.

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

>>987890
>implying that isn't the opposite of Christian values
>implying Jesus himself didn't emphasis the importance to obey secular law

Thx atheist for killing humans

Apocamon is pure shit. For fucks sake it's terrible as Satire.

>>987902
> implying it isn't wrong in exactly the same way the other was.

>>987901

Freethinking applied to religion is arrogance still. You can't just refuse all religions as dogma but still consider their notion of God through logic and reason when you have no knowledge what so ever on which to judge this notion.

Six hours later and this thread is still going. Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about this?

>>987919

Well I will not be a fucktard and compare atheists to communism and U.S.S.R and the like but hell did you ever happen upon a anti-moral thread on /sci/?

>>987927
What if my parents were atheists?
Does that mean I'm just following my parents mindlessly?

>>987926

No it's the single most important and fascinating notion known to men.

>>987924

The idea is not to discard an idea because of dogma, but to not be influenced in ones thought by dogma. Freethought is not a refusal to even tip a hap to this kind of thinking, it is just a stance that you should not make your decisions based upon idealistic dogma or tradition. I think you are kind of making a straw man of of the stance of a freethinker.

>>987940
Freethought is contradictory in that it uses logic, reasoning and most importantly science that all is passed down from authority and then pretends to not care for authority.

>>986949
you're a fucking idiot to "hope" it's not fake. look at the cars in the background.

>>987938

and yet somehow I still don't care.

>>987954

That post was made 5 hours ago. Do you think that guy cares about your observation abilities?

>>987890
post 1 rolllllllllllllll

>>987958

>somehow

Implying you aren't plainly unable to understand the implications of your actions.

>>987946

Okay, calling straw man here. That is quite an over simplification of a stance. And even if one considers science an authority and dogma it changes with new ideas and new understanding through these new ideas proving themselves. And again, to be a freethinker is to not hold tradition, dogma and authority as high points of understanding for your reasoning, not to discredit them. Are we at an understanding now?

>>987969

>Implying that I am plainly able to understand the implications of my actions.

>>986831
Yeah, I saw and that's why I stopped being Christian.
I didn't like my vision clouded by evil.

>>987993

No, he's implying that you are plainly unable to understand the implications of your actions, or that you aren't plainly able to understand the implications of your actions.

lrn2doublenegatives

>>986793
Yeah, we're mad.
Please stop violating our human rights.

>>987916
Hahaha, no, it's awesome because it pisses everybody on all sides off, while actually keeping to the word of the bible.

>>987972
No, you say that the point of freethough is to not hold authority/dogma/tradition on a pedestal. But freethinkers hold logic/reasoning/science, which themselves have authority/dogma/tradition, on a pedestal.

So freethough just swaps one for another.

>>988051
It made me feel like I was wasting my time at first, then it became so bad even I felt embarrassed for reading it, almost like I should have done something to stop it from being so embarrassingly bad.

It's like when you see someone doing something so stupid that even you feel embarrassed about it.

>125 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

pre dick table

>>988064
Agreed!

Because of the annoying ways confirmation bias works this thread can lead to no good. It should therefor die in a fire (regular fire or hell, depending on your preferations)

Most of the arguments are exagurated and if you go trough all of them you'll probably notice that you hold with (most of) the ones that support your side. And dissregard (most of) the ones supporting the other side.

It is the same for the opposite part. So lets all just hug and go find something else to argue.

PS: I really agrea with the first comic though. People running around screaming to strangers that every non-ateist is a stupid retard is just as bad if not worse as religious people running around screaming - still to strangers - that everyone non-religions will burn in hell (forever and ever and ever). And "the amazing ateist" (more like "the annoying ateist") really is the king of that.

Hugs and kizzes!
Bai

>>987955
>Implying there are no transitional fossils

OH YOU

>>988064
I don't know what's funnier, the comic or you failing at critical analysis.
BAW SHIT SUX! I DON'T LIKE THIS THING BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!

>>988052

Aside from an obvious straw man, you are implying that tradition, dogma and authority are on equal grounds with science, reason and logic. This is bunk as science, reason and logic of means of testing and proving or disproving a claim and to see if an idea is valid. It is an every changing system, and it questions itself even the very means it uses. They are merely for testing what is a valid idea and what we should keep and may reconsider based upon new evidence.

this picture is so great, if I didn't knew it was a troll I'd probably beat up some children/old people out of sheer uncontrollable HATE resulting from extended periods of looking at this picture.

no. i could argue intellectually with you. and i would win. is that what you want? because i could shatter your dearest beliefs right now. you will never be the same.

>>988102
That one gets me raging. Never mind the fact that those are detectable and we only know about them BECAUSE of science and I'm just raging right now I think I'll go sit down.

TheAmazingAtheist is a stupid asshole, but OP's comic illustrates of a host of logical fallacies.

RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

>>988100
No, I'm implying science/logic/reason are just a different kind of authority/tradition/dogma, not somehow separated from them.
I would think the parallels should be easy to see.

>>987853
>Most people believe God can never be proven to exist. It's violates it's nature. This notion of God originated supposedly through divine intervention and mystical happenings.
God could very easily be proven to exist, especially considering that most gods have some direct effect on the world. For instance, if god answers prayers, then you can see if prayers are effective. (They've tested this, and they are not) If god makes impossible things happen, i.e. miracles, then that would be provable. But, most of all, if God existed and wanted us to believe in him (which the Christian god supposedly does) then he could talk directly to us or show himself in an undeniable manner. It is not that nothing can prove god 's existence, but that of those things that could prove his existence there is nothing.

Hi /sci/. I live in France. Here, most people are not interested in religion, and nobody ever told me that atheists have no morality or are going to hell. Also, we have virtually no creationists, and if some politician publicly said that intelligent design should be taught because evolution is just a theory, everyone would laugh.

Enjoy your medieval country.

>>988133

Oh sweet utopia! It's just too bad about all the french people.

this goes in op's head

>>988119

Well if it is indeed just a replacement, it is our best understanding at the current time. As for logic though, it is more so a neutral tool to persuade an argument as you know so it can be used to solve problems or lead support for a superficial idea. I see your point, but this idea may change with with time and new understanding, and of course it may seem like a mere swap of ideas, but it is a swap of ideas in progress of better ideas and looking for the future what every way may get us there.

>>988133
Nordicfag here. It's pretty much the same here.

>>988146
Like I was ever arguing the "advancement" aspect of it.
But you shouldn't pretend science/logic/reason are somehow completely different and very far removed from authority/tradition/dogma, since they are just a subset of them.

>>988146

A replacement that's constantly revised for accuracy, based on sound methods of observation, and not originating in fiction. That sounds like an improvement to me.

>>988140
French people are nice
Parisians not so much

The problem with France is the lack of capitalism
no mountain dew or pepsi products :(

>>988162
Science is as far removed from the concept of dogma, tradition and authority as possible.

>>988175

Well they're probably not any worse than New Yorkers.

>>988180
If only it were so.

>>988208

>implying it's not so

>>987955
Best be trolling.

>>986850
You want in-depth videos? Here's a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo