[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 256x242, 1276815677070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1596551 No.1596551 [Reply] [Original]

God is love.
Love exists.
Ipso factum, God exists.

Theists 1
Atheists 0

>> No.1596564

what is love?

>> No.1596568

>>1596564
something you will never know

>> No.1596572

>>1596564
BABY DON'T HURT ME.

>> No.1596577

>>1596572

Fuck! beat me to it.

> assumption woutiong

>> No.1596578

NO MOAR?

>> No.1596588

Faggot is OP.
OP exists.
Derpus herpus, OP is a faggot.

>> No.1596592
File: 77 KB, 750x600, religiousCorrelatesLowIQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1596592

>> No.1596725

>>1596551
Valid but your first premise is wrong, therefore not sound.

>> No.1596734
File: 21 KB, 556x184, science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1596734

>> No.1596735

Prove that god is love first bro.

>> No.1596757

>>1596734
KILL THEM NOW

>> No.1596765

"God is love." Wrong. A book based on pure speculation and filled with flaws says this, but also says facts pointing towards God also being hate.

"Love exists." There is most certainly a definition for it.

Theists: 0
Atheists: 0
Agnostics: A recurring 1.

>> No.1596774

>>1596765
>implying "agnostic" is a valid position on religion.

>> No.1596780

>>1596774

>Implying you can give a reason why it isn't.

>> No.1596792

>>1596780
>implying implications
gnostic-agnostic are terms addresing knowledge, not belief.

>> No.1596798

>>1596792

That doesn't make them any less of a valid position. The position for agnosticism is the "I don't know" position.

>> No.1596813

>>1596798
question: do you believe in god?
answer: "i don't know"

makes sense?

>> No.1596827

>>1596551
it's "ipso facto", not "ipso factum", fag

lrn2latin

>> No.1596828

>>1596813
>Implying agnosticism is agnosticism regarding the existence of one's own belief rather than regarding the existence of God
>Implying "I don't know" as a reply to "Do you believe in God?" is a statement about God and not about the speaker's belief.

English motherfucker.

>> No.1596870

>>1596792
That actually makes a lot of sense. Never though about that earlier. We shouldn't really need the terms gnostic or agnostic because no one can be 100% sure. If they do say that they have special knowledge they should be ridiculed or ignored since such behaviour can have damaging implications.
We shouldn't need to specify how much knowledge we have regarding a deity or power, since it should be implied that we don't know. Such knowledge does not exist.

>> No.1596908

>>1596551
Sex is love

>> No.1596933

>>1596551
Logical fallacy: begging the question. You took the premise as the conclusion. You have yet to assert a valid first premise. Back to square one with you.

Also, even if we assumed your first premise valid, your conclusion is incorrect due to affirming the consequent. It's not ipso facto.

Also I'm less replying to the OP than the rest of /sci/. I honestly just like calling out logical fallacies when I see them.

>> No.1596942

>>1596933
You're mistaken here. If we grant his premises, the conclusion follows.

Premise 1: For all x, if x=love then x=god
Premise 2: There is an x such that x=love

Therefore, there is an x such that x=god

It ain't affirming the consequent, unless you make an argument such as the following:
If there's god, then there's love.
There's love.
Therefore, there's god.

>> No.1596944

>>1596942
Also, don't say a premise is "valid" when talking about logic. In logic, validity is a property inferences have or fail to have. They have it just in case the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion.

>> No.1596949

>>1596942
Actually you're incorrect. He's ascribing properties of one concept to another concept. His form is If P then Q, Q therefore P. That's a fallacy.

>> No.1596958

>>1596949
The first premise seems to establish identify between love and god.
The second asserts love exists.

What are you talking about??

>> No.1596960

>>1596958
Identity*

>> No.1596965

>>1596958

God is love.

But love is not necessarily God.

Therefore, love existing does not necessarily imply God existing.

>> No.1596973

>>1596965
Not so if he's establishing identity....

>> No.1597006

Without God there can be no true morality. The world without God is a world of moral relativism.

Evil exists.
Therefore absolute morals exist.
Therefore God.

John 1:3 - Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

>> No.1597030

Atheists: So narrow minded that they don't even realise they've become an organised religion.

>> No.1597033

>>1597030
Atheists are the most open-minded people around: Willing to go wherever the evidence points. The evidence indicates you're a troll.

>> No.1597036

>>1597033

U have a high reading on the MAD-o-meter

>> No.1597070

>>1597030

Please point me to the nearest atheist church.

I could go for some tasty baby BBQ.

>> No.1597089

>>1596828
I ask you, "Do you believe in god?"
You say, "I don't know if god exists."

You haven't answered the question, moran.

I don't know if a god exists either, but because all arguments and evidence presented thus far have not been compelling, I don't believe. I am an atheist.

Agnosticism is not a position of belief. It's a statement of knowledge.

So you don't know if a god exists or not, do you believe the evidence brought forth by theists?

>> No.1597093

>>1597089
HELLO I'M AN AGNOSTIC. I DON'T KNOW MAN. EITHER HE EXISTS OR HE DOESN'T SO REALLY, IT'S LIKE 50% AMIRITE?

>> No.1597094

>>1597089

I disagree. I think agnosticism can be a position of belief.

Or rather, there is no way anyone can ever know, and I have no opinion either way about whether a God does exist or not.

>> No.1597097

>>1597089

Someone here likes his Atheist Experience.

>> No.1597103

>>1597093
Either you find the arguments made in favour of the god hypothesis compelling or you don't.

If you do, you're a theist.

If you don't, you're an atheist.

It's pretty simple.

>> No.1597100

Well, if organised religion for believers is about gathering in a place to worship the gods, then organised religion for nonbelievers would gathering in a place to not worship the gods. So, atheists do not worship god in railway stations, in sportarenas, on the street, in a cinema or as family watching TV in the living room, thus making it a organised religion.

>> No.1597106

>>1597100

And the "organized" part is where exactly?

When was the last time someone "organized" to not believe in god while waiting for a bus?

>> No.1597113

>>1597103

No. Finding the arguments compelling or not has literally no impact on your belief on the subject.

Quantum Mechanics gives evidence that subatomic particles can appear in multiple places at once. I do not believe this is what is really going on though. It's just a model.

Just as God is a model for a universe, and seeing as literally nobody has convinced me either way, I have no clue whether a God does or doesn't exist. 50% it does, 50% doesn't.

>> No.1597118

>>1597113

False dichotomy.

There is virtually an infinite number of potential and actual hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

>> No.1597119

>>1597118
>Implying god does or doesn't exist is a false dichotomy.

>> No.1597123

>>1597119

>implying there is only one concept of god available

>> No.1597128

>>1597113
The reason you don't believe that subatomic particles can appear in multiple places at once, is because you don't find the model to be compelling enough evidence.

Ta-da! That wasn't too hard now was it?

Tell me something; if you don't believe that knowledge and ignorane inform our beliefs, then what exactly is it that does? The belief fairy?

>> No.1597133

god is love
love is blind
Ipso factum, ray charles is god

>> No.1597134

>>1597113
pwnd by
>>1597128

>> No.1597135

>>1597133
lol

>> No.1597299
File: 41 KB, 403x405, 1271819753273.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1597299

>>1597106
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68493266/1

http://www.atheists.org/ A website for Atheists
There's even a "No God Blog" http://atheists.org/blog/ Shouldn't it be a "No Deity Blog?" It seems as if they're going right after the Christian God. But I digress

http://www.unitedstatesatheists.com/ says
>United States Atheists promotes atheism as both a fact about the world and as a way of life. We operated the first Atheist Community Center to be established in the United States. Our mission includes ministering to the needs of non-theists, promoting atheism as a positive belief system, supporting the separation of state and church, defending the civil rights of atheists, and combating the authoritarian agenda of the religious right and other extremists. We provide a safe, supportive place for atheists to share their views with like-minded folks. If you live in Portland, Oregon or plan to visit, join us for our meetings every Tuesday night.
I'm all for the separation of church and state myself, but this sounds as much as a church as any other place

>> No.1597430

>>1597299
So it all comes down to one group just wanting to be bigger and badder than the others

>> No.1597442

>>1597299
Wishful thinking. Until they actually erect a church and have Sunday services where they talk about belief in something that can't be proven empirically that is. This looks like a community center to me. Is Salvation Army a chuch? it's run by religious people but no, it's not a church. Alcoholics Anonymous? Boys and Girls Club? YMCA/WMCA? No. All religiously funded and yet not churches.

It's just atheist-run but not a church.

>> No.1597469

>>1597128
I find your explanations to be amazing. I would've been maybe a bit harsher, and I think that's something I should work on. I probably would've just said

"Agnosticism is a knowledge option, not a belief option. Go read a fucking book" or something.

>> No.1597489
File: 95 KB, 630x443, kelly corn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1597489

someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post that comic about some guy that says "fact" in three blocks and "fool: I still believe in Darwin's theory" in the end.
I need it for trolling proposes.

>> No.1597498

>>1597442
Basically what you're saying is that "it's not like church unless they call it a church!"

Besides that, I was answering this
>And the "organized" part is where exactly?

Besides that, all of these things linked speak about and to directly to Atheists and either talking about or spreading their interests.
It sounds like a goddamn TD Jakes memo!

>> No.1597500

>>1597489
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Posting this because that image made me want to puke. Seriously, the people in favor of ethanol have never done math.

>> No.1597528

>>1597498
>Basically what you're saying is that "it's not like church unless they call it a church!"
Yes, that is absolutely 100% correct. In order to be a church, you must fit the legal definition of a church.

Layman's definitions:
1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
c. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

Ecclesiastical also means of or relating to the Christian church. So by the way, church applies to Christians. The most minute of minutia is applied to "other religions". They each have their own word for church.

Legally:
A distinct legal existence
A recognized creed and form of worship
A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
A formal code of doctrine and discipline
A distinct religious history
A membership not associated with any other church or denomination
An organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies
A literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services

And it must have these for the IRS to classify it as a church.

>> No.1597535

>>1597528
Oh shit son. I never expected to see an impressive semantic argument.

>> No.1597543

>>1597535
I believe that communication is very important. To me, it's not conductive to good communication when people can't even agree on the meanings of their words. I turn to the accepted definitions of things rather than what some people tend to or want to think. It worries me when I see anyone getting definitions wrong because the potential is to use that misinformation to build blocks of ideas on that shaky foundation.

>> No.1597597
File: 290 KB, 512x384, BULL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1597597

>>1597528
I'm not saying it IS A CHURCH
I'm saying it's LIKE A CHURCH.
An orange and a grapefruit look similar, but one is not the other.

You're quoting the dictionary at me to get off on a technicality.
These people organize, greet, meet and talk to each other in buildings. The only difference here is their beliefs
This is like saying that if two people are spraypainting a wall colored black, the guy who who's using primary colors can say that he's different (And in some cases superior)

But if that's not enough for you
http://eventful.com/kirkland/events/atheist-church-truth-fellowship-/E0-001-029877845-7
Here's one that calls itself a church, is that good enough for you?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
These guys even have Reverends and Ministers!
>As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.
Is this not apart of what you said is a requirement of a church?

>> No.1597632

>>1597597
I'm sorry but cherry picking isn't helping your weak arguments. Saying that some Atheists consider themselves a church therefore all of them do is like saying some Anonymous are /b/tards from 4chan therefore all of them are. It's not an organized group. Small packets of people claiming to have the same label may be organized, but it does not impart its properties unto the whole.

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This is a Composition Fallacy.

Oh and for the record, technicalities aren't exactly cheap shots. If you label someone as something incorrectly, then you're just wrong. You fit into the F part of a truth table.

>> No.1597703

>>1597632
At what point did I suggest that ALL ATHEISTS HAVE ORGANIZED CHURCHES
Am I not making myself clear? Or perhaps you're not reading it correctly?

Not even all Christians, or whatever belief system someone has goes to an organized goup meeting.

All I'm proving is that YES there are organized atheists movements, and I believe I've already provided that evidence.

>> No.1597735

>>1597703
Okay you have fun with that. Let me know when you realize that says about as much for the group as saying some Anonymous are internet hackers. Cherry. Picking.

>> No.1598197

>>1597735
See, you're just being stupid (or a troll) now
I'm saying some are, not all
You're assuming that I'm saying since some are, they all are.