/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1659676]

[Anonymous No.1659687]

>implying that all atheists are scientifically literate

[Anonymous No.1659694]

>implying that all theists are biblically literate

[Anonymous No.1659700]

>implying that all agnostics intellectually illiterate

[Anonymous No.1659704]

>implying that all agnostics are intellectually illiterate

[Anonymous No.1659706]

>>1659700

>implying mosts agnostics are intelligent or the idea is even generally considered to be intelligent.

[Anonymous No.1659710]

ITT people that don't know the real meaning of a-gnostic

[Anonymous No.1659726]

>>1659710

Being agnostic means you do "not know". To say it is a part of your belief is to merely imply that you are "unsure". An agnostic atheist merely leans towards a particular side but acknowledges he does not know. This is faulty because religion is blatantly a creation of human creativity.

[Anonymous No.1659744]

Hey christfags,

Guess which one will be picking up welfare checks in the near future?

[Anonymous No.1659772]

Well, my father is a theist (ugh) but when I asked him why the sky is blue whenI was a kid he gave me the scientific explanation.

So yeah, you suck OP.

[Anonymous No.1659786]

>implying such a small pic can has so many implications

[Anonymous No.1659792]

>>1659726
It means that you are not taking a position. To say that you are an agnostic atheist is a contradiction, because "atheism" is taking the "no god" position.

[Anonymous No.1659796]

Agnostic= willing to admit that you don't have definite answers. Whats wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.1659797]

No, it's "no reason to belive in god", not "no god". When will you people learn this stuff?

[Anonymous No.1659800]

>>1659796

Have you ever met an atheist that proclaimed absolute certainty about the non existence of god?

I bet you didn't, and even if you did, it's a REALLY rare sight.

[Anonymous No.1659803]

>>1659797
The problem is that some people have studied Greek. Maybe if you kill everyone who has studied Greek, you can make up your own definitions of words. Until then "a-theos" means "no god", and "a-the-ism" means the doctrine of "no god".

[Anonymous No.1659804]

Enough with the science v religion threads. We've heard it all before. Take it to /b/.

captcha: ocaring sysematic

[Anonymous No.1659807]

>>1659796

No it's not retard. "Agnostic" isn't a valid response to the question of a god. It's a binary issue. Either you actively believe, and are a theist, or you don't actively believe, in which case you are an atheist by definition. The only people who label themselves as agnostics are retards who don't actually know what the word entails, or faggot retards who only take that allignment so they don't actually have to give thought to the question, and claim intellectual superiority over both ligitimate groups.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.1659810]

>>1659803

0/10

[Anonymous No.1659811]

>>1659800
You don't have to claim certainty to be an atheist, just like you don't have to claim certainty to be a theist. You just have to take a position on the existence or non existence of God or gods. If you don't take a position you are an agnostic.

[Anonymous No.1659814]

>>1659810
lrn2Greek, moron

[Anonymous No.1659822]

>>1659811

See

>>1659807

"agnostic" IE "lolidunno" isn't a valid answer to "Do you believe there is a god."

[Anonymous No.1659826]

>>1659807
goddamn fucking moron.
greek 101 for 4chan losers:

atheism: no-god-ism
agnosticism: loldonno-ism
theism: god-ism

[Anonymous No.1659829]

>>1659822
Yes it is. The post you referenced is the post of a moron.

[Anonymous No.1659834]

>>1659811

Just because I'm not buying doesn't mean I'm selling.

Most atheists will say that there is MOST PROBABLY no god because of intellectual honesty.

I mean hell, there could be a god, even though it's a little ridiculous, I just think that the ones mentiond by human myths are the least likely to exist.

[Anonymous No.1659840]

I wish there was still a bartender thread... I need a drink.

[Anonymous No.1659847]

>>1659826

Fuck you're stupid. Pick up a goddamn dictionary some time.

The Greek gnostos pretains to what can be KNOWN. Theos pretains to what is believed. Theist, belief.
Atheist, disbelief.
Gnostic, known.
Agnostic, unknown.

THESE WORDS DO NOT ALL ADDRESS THE SAME POINT. TWO RELATE TO KNOWLEDGE WHILE THE OTHER TWO RELATE TO BELIEF. THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGABLE.

It's like someone asking you your favorite car brand, and you reply by saying "I like cars." It doesn't address the question, and it makes you look like a retard.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1659851]

>>1659829
No it's not.
if someone asks you "Do you believe in god?" and you answer "yes," then you're a theist. If you answer anything OTHER than "Yes," including "I don't know" then you're /not/ a theist: you're an a-theist.
Believing in a god doesn't have anything to do with "i don't know." Most atheists don't know if there's a god either. Saying "I don't know" makes you an agnostic, but if you say "I don't know, and i also don't go to church because i'm not yet 100% conviced." then you're an agnostic-atheist, which is very common.

[Anonymous No.1659853]

>>1659851

Finally. Someone who actually understands this shit. It's not fucking complicated, I don't know why so many people have such difficulty with this.

[Anonymous No.1659857]

>>1659851

Deism doesn't count as theism?

[Anonymous No.1659859]

>>1659807

Your post is inconclusive and misleading. Go shoot yourself. Only the naive will label things simply as black and white. If that is your belief then you are no better than a religious fag. A real scientist has to always keep their mind open to other possibilities, until all other possibilities have been expended you dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.1659861]

>>1659851
Jennie, you are a fucking moron. Saying "I don't know if there is a God" is not being an atheist. An atheist is someone who takes the position that there is no God or gods. See the Greek or see a dictionary.

An agnostic can mean someone who believes it's impossible to know, but it also means someone who takes no position on whether or not God exists. Again, see a dictionary.

1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : ONE WHO IS NOT COMMITTED TO BELIEVING IN EITHER THE EXISTENCE OR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD OR A GOD

2
: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

[Anonymous No.1659863]

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic\ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly\-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

[Anonymous No.1659866]

>>1659853
You don't understand this shit because you are a fucking moron who is incapable of learning.

[Anonymous No.1659868]

>>1659861

The point is you cannot not take a position. You are born. You haven't the faintest knowledge of any sort of god figure. Someone tells you there's a god. IN THAT SPLIT SECOND IN WHICH YOU HEAR OF THE IDEA OF A GOD YOU MAKE A SNAP DECISION IN YOUR HEAD. Either you believe what they're saying, and you at that point fall under the category of a theist, or you don't believe them, in which case you're an atheist. YOU CAN'T NOT HAVE AN OPINION OF BELIEF UNLESS YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE CLAIM.

Either you actively believe, and are a theist, or ANYTHING ELSE in which case you're an atheist. It is BINARY.

[Anonymous No.1659872]

>>1659868
Are you incapable of learning?
If you take the position that God exists, you are a theist.
If you take the position that God does not exist, you are an atheist.
If you do not take one of the two positions you are an agnostic.

It isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous No.1659874]

/thread

[Anonymous No.1659877]

>>1659874
agnostic theist and agnostic atheists are contradictory terms.
gnostic theist and gnostic atheist are redundant terms.
take your bullshitery elsewhere.
/thread

[Anonymous No.1659882]

>>1659872

Fuck this. You're hopeless.

[Anonymous No.1659887]

AGNOSTICS VS ATHIEST

shit just got for real

[Anonymous No.1659893]

>>1659882
I'm not going to let you get away with blatant rhetorical manipulation. Everyone knows that atheism implies the doctrine of "no god". By claiming a more lax definition of atheism and then advocating atheism you are attempting to make an implication that you then don't have to defend. I call you on your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1659894]

>>1659863
This is EXACTLY like the issue that happens with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? Most non-Christians would say yes. Witnesses say yes. However, many Protestants and other Christians claim that Witnesses are not Christian, but a cult.

So, what are they? Dictionaries aren't of use because some dictionaries (like Webster) used to be prejudiced against Witnesses, labeling them as a cult, while others worded the definition so as to include Witnesses with other Christians.

Similarly but conversely (if that makes sense), almost all atheists believe that atheism includes those that merely lack a belief. Most self-labeled "agnostics" deny this.

Even dictionaries aren't entirely sure, and the ones that claim that atheism does not include the lack of a belief are generally ones that were founded by strong Christians, like Webster. Princeton's online word dictionary, for example, has one definition (atheism) include the lack of a belief, yet the other (atheist) NOT include the lack of a belief.

Language is ever-changing, and, like with Jehovah's Witnesses, some people are stead-fast opposed to changing a definition to suit a particular usage, while others strongly encourage it. Although, little-known fact, "strong" and "weak" or "explicit" and "implicit" atheism are not new terms, being supported by various people for at least 50 but more likely over 100 years.

I support treating both definitions as acceptable, and letting context sort out which one is being used.

[Anonymous No.1659900]

>>1659872
No no no.

If you believe that a god exists, you're a theist.

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

There is no "not sure" unless you haven't even heard of the idea of a "god" before.

Actually, that's not true. Almost everyone is "not sure," making them agnostic, but everyone also has a slight inclination towards one side or the other (like "agnostic atheists").

[Anonymous No.1659902]

>>1659807

"I don't know" is actually a very valid answer.

Can you prove to me that god exists? Can you prove that he does not?

No.

Hence, I don't fucking know if a god, or gods exist. Get over yourself toddler.

captcha: respecting cooton

[Anonymous No.1659904]

>>1659894
I don't see the parallel. Christians who say Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians are just assholes. I say this as a Christian. There are a lot of Christians who want to be super-exclusive in one way or another. It shouldn't change the definition of the word.

1Chris·tian
noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1659906]

>>1659872
you don't need to take the position that god doesn't exist to be an atheist. You only need to NOT take the position that god does exist.

[Anonymous No.1659910]

>>1659900
>If you don't, you're an atheist.
How many times do you have to be proven that this is not the standard use of language. There is no use of -ism in a philosophical setting that means ANYTHING other than a belief or doctrine. Atheism is the belief or doctrine that pertains to atheos, "no god".

A lack of a belief cannot be an ism.

[Anonymous No.1659911]

>>1659902

What you know or can prove doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what you believe. That's the issue. You can say you don't know, which of course you don't, because a claim of absolute knowledge is foolish, but that doesn't speak to what you believe.

The question "Do you believe in a god?" addresses exactly what it sounds like, belief. Now either you do or you don't. It's not possible to fence sit when it comes to a matter of belief.

[Anonymous No.1659912]

>>1659906
This is incorrect. See above. An -ism implies a position, doctrine, or belief.

[Anonymous No.1659916]

>>1659904
You don't seem to understand. The definition of Christian, as defined by some older dictionaries, was worded in a way that excluded Witnesses. Many people still have a similar belief. That doesn't make them wrong or us right, necessarily, because that's kind of the point of language. It constantly changes, taking up many or no definitions at a particular place and time.

And, just because a Christian thinks that Witnesses aren't Christian doesn't make them an asshole. They might just have a varied definition of what Christianity is.

[Anonymous No.1659918]

>>1659911
Yes you can. You can not believe that God exists, and also not believe that God doesn't exist. That would make you an agnostic.

Agnosticism means you don't take a position either way on the existence of God or gods.

[Anonymous No.1659919]

>>1659910
If you're going to be that pedantic, then I'm going to point out that atheos, to ancient Greeks, was not about "no gods," it was about not believing in THEIR gods.

In that sense, anyone that doesn't believe in Christianity is, to a Christian, an atheist.

I can play the word-bending game just like you.

[Anonymous No.1659921]

“Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.'

[Anonymous No.1659924]

>>1659918
But it's black-and-white. If you believe, personally, that there is a god, then you are a THEIST. If you DON'T have that belief, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground.

Are you dead or alive? You cannot be neither dead nor alive. There is no other options. Period.

[Anonymous No.1659926]

>>1659916
Christian should mean someone who follows Christ. If you also are a fan of basketball, and decide that "Christian" is going to mean anyone who follows Christ and loves basketball, I call that being an asshole. That has nothing to do with the word. A lot of people do the equivalent. They have a whole string of beliefs -- that aren't even mentioned in the bible -- that they require a person to believe to be considered a Christian. I don't find that a reasonable use of words.

[Anonymous No.1659929]

>>1659924
But atheism doesn't mean the lack of theism. It means a doctrine or belief in the lack of God or gods. So your formulation is wrong. That is not what people think of when they hear the word atheist, and it is not what its etymology suggests.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1659933]

>>1659912
Not if it has the letter "a" infront of it. Theism is the position. Atheism is just a word we use to describe someone who isn't a theist. Another way to say it is non-theism.
There are plenty of words with "ism" that don't have anything to do with doctrines.

[Anonymous No.1659939]

>>1659919
It's not a game. That would be an acceptable use of the word athism, especially to a polytheist. Someone who believes in the Greek panthenon is using the word correctly to call a Christian an atheist, as he believes (presumably) in only one God, and rejects the pantheon. Atheism is the rejection of some God or gods.

[Anonymous No.1659942]

>>1659924

There's nothing to prove there is or ISN'T a god. Thats the agnostic position. It's keeping an open mind. simple as that.

[Anonymous No.1659945]

>>1659933
No, that's not true.

It's not a-(the-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of God.
It's (a-the)-ism -- the doctrine of no God.

Just like it's not a-(gnostic-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of knowledge.
It's (a-gnostic)-ism -- the doctrine of no knowledge.

Just like it's not a-(narch-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of a ruler.
It's (a-narch)-ism -- the doctrine of no ruler.

Just like it's not a-(cosm-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of the universe.
It's (a-cosm)-ism -- the doctrine of no universe.

Just like it's not anthropo-(morph-ism) -- a human doctrine of form.
It's (anthropo-morph)-ism -- a doctrine of the human form.

[Anonymous No.1659947]

>>1659942

Damn. Even more conflation. Just because you hold a belief in one direction or another does not preclude you from ever changing that belief. And furthermore, having an open mind doesn't mean you can't hold beliefs. To claim as such, is simply foolish.

[Anonymous No.1659948]

>>1659942
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

[Anonymous No.1659951]

>>1659948
With a line of scientists waiting to come in.

[Anonymous No.1659956]

>>1659951
Ready the molten lead!!!!

[Anonymous No.1659960]

>There's nothing to prove there is or ISN'T a god.

This really depends on what you mean by god. The deistic idea of a god as a "prime mover", one who created the fundamental constants of the universe and then let it run its course, cannot be effectively proven or disproven.

However, the idea of a theistic god, that is to say, a personal one with humanlike attributes who watches over every aspect of your life, intervenes on your behalf, changing the laws of physics just for you when you pray, and punishes your breaches of suspiciously human-oriented moral code with divine wrath and an unobservable, incalculable eternity of suffering has amuch more rational explanation: it was created wholly by bronze-age desert tribesman, evolved by a process of cultural, memetic "natural selection" out of previous successful religions also created by men to become the nearly unstoppable juggernaut of dogmatic, irrational brain hijacking it is.

[Anonymous No.1659961]

>>1659942
If "keeping an open mind" means you need to consider bullshit believable, then fuck that.

My mind is not open for business!

[Anonymous No.1659965]

Einstein was an agnostic.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1659967]

>>1659945
Fuck you. Why the fuck do you get to tell me what my beliefs are? Talk to any self-proclaimed atheist, only a handful of them will say:
"I believe there are no gods"
as opposed to
"I don't hold a belief in a god"
A person can either hold a belief, or not hold that belief. Believing in the opposite of that belief is a subset of not holding that belief.
If people who don't hold belief in a god aren't atheist, then what are they?
(hint: they aren't agnostic, because gnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.)

Lastly, point to a fucking rulebook which says that "ALL ISMS ARE DOCTRINES!" If that's true then what's Autism? The doctrine that being a retard is okay? What about people who are Aautistic? Are those people who believe that autism is wrong? Or are they simply people who aren't autistic?

[Turkeyburgers No.1659969]

Let me help all of the teen angst "Agnostics" out with a quick refresher on how Science works.

1- Ask a question?
2-Do background research
3-Construct a hypothesis
4-Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
5-Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6-Report your results

Without the Scientific Method you are Agnostic on the idea of Santa Claus, you are agnostic on the idea of Leprechauns.

Do you REALLY want people to know you cannot formulate an opinion on Santa Claus?

REALLY?

[Anonymous No.1659985]

>>1659967
I didn't say all -isms are doctrines, I said all -isms in a philosophical context are doctrines.

If you don't hold a position on the existence or non-existence of God, you are not an atheist. I'm not telling you what your beliefs are. I am telling you what words mean. And I suggest you listen, bitch.

[Anonymous No.1659988]

>>1659969
First off were not talking about the fantasy stories of a fat pedophile giving free toys to children in one night.
We are talking about the very creation of the universe itself. not a ego-centric religion, not some stories made a thousand years ago. But the lack of information we have now, on the cause of 'BEING'.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1659991]

>>1659985
The prefix a- means "without" So it means "with out the doctrine that god exists."

It's like cascading folders. There's (theism) and then there's a-(theism)

[Anonymous No.1659993]

>>1659965
he was also a jew

[Anonymous No.1660000]

>>1659969
You are deeply confused. What does the scientific method have to do with anything. I am not agnostic on ether santa or leprechauns. I know who st nickolous was, and I know the progression of events that added to the mythology of surrounding him. I have very clear beliefs related to all things related to santa.

Neither am I agnostic about leprechauns. I believe they are subjects of Irish folklore that were invented as part of medieval adventure stories.

[Anonymous No.1660002]

>>1659991
FFS, see
>>1659945
it's always (a-XXX)-ism

[Turkeyburgers No.1660003]

>>1659988

So what you are saying is that you are Atheist to the idea of Santa Claus
but
you believe that a fat man flies around in the sky granting wishes like a genie as long as people close their eyes, hold their hands and chant the correct magical words?

Cool Story Bro.
Maybe you should be posting on /x/ ?

[Anonymous No.1660004]

>>1659993
He was also a socialist.

[Anonymous No.1660030]

>>166000

Way to misinterpret and manipulate, that post.

I never read any mystical being granting wishes to people. Pretty much we don't know the answers for are existence and neither does a dumb ass like you.

[Anonymous No.1660033]

>>1660003
Since when is God fat? I think you're thinking of Buddha.

[Anonymous No.1660034]

>>1659965
einstein was a theist

[Turkeyburgers No.1660045]

Are you Agnostic about Zeus?
Are you Agnostic about Apollo?
Are you Agnostic about Thor?
Are you agnostic about Quetzalcoatl
Are you agnostic about Lucifer (Not to be confused with Satan).
Are you agnostic about Hades?
Are you agnostic about Atlas?
Are you agnostic about Adonis?
Are you agnostic about Cocomama

Are you agnostic about betraying Shiva? Kali Ma, Shakti Deh!


Since you cannot be absolutely sure one way or the other on the existence of ALL the God/Gods/Goddess/Goddess you are Agnostic about ALL Gods.

Cool Story Bro.

[Anonymous No.1660054]

>>1659706
>>1659704
>>1659694
>>1659687
>>1659676
A picture implies more than a thousand words.

[Anonymous No.1660055]

>>1660045
Agnosticism doesn't mean you're not completely sure. Agnosticism means you're not taking a position. Nearly everyone these days takes the position that Apollo, Zeus, and Thor were not literal beings, despite not know for sure. By taking a position, they are not agnostic.

[Anonymous No.1660056]

>>1660045
your definiton of god is too messed up for that to have any validity

[Anonymous No.1660064]

>>1660055
Bullshit.

Agnostic, yes, means not knowing for sure, but taking a stance does not make you NOT agnostic.

[Anonymous No.1660065]

>>1660045
Anyone who is monotheistic (which is the vast percentage of people) is non-agnostic about all gods, as they believe that no god exists except the creator God.

[Anonymous No.1660066]

>>1660064
Agnostic means not taking a position. Look it the fuck up, moron.

[Anonymous No.1660067]

>>1660045
>>1660045

LOL at all the butthurt agnostic teenagers having to actually think and start using their brain. Best post in this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.1660073]

>>1660064
see
>>1659861

[Anonymous No.1660078]

>>1660067
>butthurt teenager

[Anonymous No.1660080]

>>1660064
Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.1660081]

>>1660065

So WHICH one of the Gods on the list is the correct one to choose?

Should I just randomly pick one of the God's listed as the "Creator God" ?

[Anonymous No.1660089]

>>1660080
No.

I am an agnostic atheist. To go a step further, an agnostic strong-atheist. I believe that there are no gods, but recognize that it is impossible to know for sure.

[Anonymous No.1660091]

>>1660081
None of those is a creator God. A creator God is one like the Theos described by the Greek philosophers, not a member of a mythological pantheon.

[Anonymous No.1660095]

>>1660089
Then you are not agnostic.

[Anonymous No.1660110]

seriously?

[Anonymous No.1660111]

Sup, I'm a gnostic non-deistic agnostic and a azeusist.

[TurkeyBurgers No.1660113]

>>1660091
>>1660091

YOU BETRAYED SHIVA!

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1660116]

>>1660002
in those examples, look at each of the words and substitute "a" for "without"

Anarchism => Without government
acosmism => without universe
atheism => without god = doesn't believe in god.
Anti-theism => against gost = believes there are no gods.

This isn't that hard...seriously...

[TurkeyBurgers No.1660129]

Are you Agnostic to the Seventh Day Adventists God?
Are you Agnostic to the Southern Baptists God?
Are you Agnostic to the Mormon God?
Are you Agnostic to the Episcopalian God?
Are you Agnostic to the Jehovah Witnesses God?
Are you agnostic to the Church of later Day Saints God?
Are you agnostic to the Lutheran God?
Are you agnostic to the Catholic God?
Are you agnostic to the Presbyterian God?
Are you agnostic to the Christian Science God?
Are you agnostic to the Mennonite God?
Are you agnostic to the Quakers God?

Because ALL of these religions have rules DIRECTLY relating to ones ability to enter into an afterlife. ALL of these different branches believe in a God with a different set of rules, a God with a different set of laws.

To categorize them as all being Christian" simply means that they all believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. They ALL worship a different God. Different in VERY definable terms. VERY definable laws, rules and regulations that these Gods require of their followers.

So WHICH one of THESE "Creator God's" is the correct answer?

[Anonymous No.1660131]

>>1660110
>I don't understand the words I'm using and just want to be friends with everyone to increase my chance of procreating.

[Anonymous No.1660135]

[Anonymous No.1660145]

>>1660131

u mad bro? :)

[Anonymous No.1660170]

>>1660116
yes, a means "no" or "without". What's your problem?

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1660172]

>>1660170
without =/= against

[Anonymous No.1660173]

>>1660129
Those all describe the same God. I'm not agnostic regarding that God. They all describe the transcendent God that created the universe, which I happen to believe in also.

[Anonymous No.1660174]

>>1660172
I never said otherwise

[Anonymous No.1660180]

>>1660173
>>1660173

Different Gods.

Christian Science God says that you cannot have Blood Transfusions. That is the rule of the Christian Science God.

The Catholic God has a rule set stating you must eat the body and drink the blood of himself. This is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GOD! The Catholic God also states that you cannot use contraception.

The Jehovah Witnesses God says that you Cannot Salute the American Flag, Celebrate Birthdays nor Christmas. THIS IS A DIFFERENT GOD WITH A DIFFERENT RULE SET!

So Agnostics WHICH one of these God's is the CORRECT God?

[Anonymous No.1660187]

>>1660180
>Christian Science God says that you cannot have Blood Transfusions. That is the rule of the Christian Science God.
Now you're just trolling. Two people have different ideas about the nature of God, but both agree that God exists, that doesn't somehow mean there are two Gods.

[Anonymous No.1660192]

>>1660180
Besides which, none of these things are even about the nature of God. It is the Pope who says not to use contraception, and the christian science elders who say no blood transfusions. These aren't even differences in the understanding of God.

[Anonymous No.1660198]

>>1660187
>>1660192

So how is this any different than saying that ZEUS is the "Creator God" ?

Same God just different rules that the people made up about lightning bolts.

[Anonymous No.1660199]

>>1660180
An agnostic would does not know if God exists or not. He probably wouldn't know further properties of God either. But he might conclude, perhaps from trying it, "if God exists, then he doesn't answer prayers." So he will have formed a provisional idea about the nature of God if he exists. He would then disagree with some of the people you mentioned that if God existed he would answer prayers, but he would be undecided as to whether God existed in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1660200]

my father gave a combination of scientific and theistic answers/

[Anonymous No.1660202]

>>1660198
Because that is not what is described by Zeus. Zeus is not described as creating the universe. Zeus is described as being created in time. Zeus is not described as transcendent but existing in space in time and having a definite origin. It's a totally KIND of thing being described than an uncreate transcendent entity that created the universe, which is believed in by all monotheists.

[Anonymous No.1660223]

LOL at Christfags

[Anonymous No.1660253]

So srsly, guys, does Jennie hate God because she's fat and ugly?

[Anonymous No.1660380]

>>1659803
>The problem is that some people have studied Greek. Maybe if you kill everyone who has studied Greek, you can make up your own definitions of words. Until then "a-theos" means "no god", and "a-the-ism" means the doctrine of "no god".

You lecture us to lrn2greek, when you're the one getting Greek wrong.

Here is a Greek lesson:
http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm
>theist: believes in god
>atheist: does not believe in God

Can you please read that?
It says an "a-theist" (does not) (believe in God).
But YOU claim an "a-theist" (believes in) (no God).
Because YOU'RE the one getting Greek wrong.

Jennie is using the Greek "alpha privative" correctly:
>>1659991
>The prefix a- means "without" So it means "with out the doctrine that god exists."
>It's like cascading folders. There's (theism) and then there's a-(theism)

[Anonymous No.1660386]

FUCK YEAH

/b/ IS THE GREATEST TROLL ON THE INTERNET

/sci/ is so easy to troll though, even more than /mu/ and /sp/. Trolling those weeaboos is harder than I thought though but this board is full of fucking retards lulz

[Anonymous No.1660408]

>>1660386
>Saying /b/ is the greatest
>same breath explains that /sci/ is easy pickings
Yeah, lol@/sci/retards huh, especially the ones who'll be making 4 times your yearly salary every 3 months or so. That's only, like what, all of them?

[Anonymous No.1660464]

I believe in godslaying machine, the destroyer of all almighty,
destroyer of heavens and paradises.
he ascended into heaven,
and destroyed it,
I believe the holy catholic Church,
is full of shit,
the forgiveness of sins,
is also full of shit,
and the life everlasting.
will be given by science.

[Anonymous No.1660470]

>>1660408
Oh please.

You basement dwelling neckbeard pseudoscientists aren't even intelligent enough to ignore obvious trolls.

I've attempted to troll ACTUAL science forms before. It doesn't work because they ask me time and again to explain shit scientifically.

This place is a troll wetdream. It's just so easy, I can post a single image and BAM 100 posts.

[Anonymous No.1660479]

>>1660380
That is not correct
a-the-ism. means the (belief in) (no God). The web page you so enthusiastically link is not correct.

[Anonymous No.1660490]

>You basement dwelling neckbeard pseudoscientists aren't even intelligent enough to ignore obvious trolls.

[Anonymous No.1660500]

>>1660479
Essentially, what we've been doing for the past 120 posts is

>I'm right
>No I'm right
>No I am
>I am
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME
>NO ME

Why not just say BOTH are right, since BOTH definitions are used by the common man?

[Anonymous No.1660508]

>>1660470

> I've attempted to troll ACTUAL science forms before. It doesn't work

It very much can work. You just have to talk up some "out of the mainstream" scientific theory. For example, plasma cosmology or luminous aether in a physics forum. And you claim there's a bias against said theory among scientists.

I've seen it work plenty of times.

[Anonymous No.1660512]

>>1660500
shut the fukc up pls sriously ur retard

agnsontic is cos when ur like not fazed by religiun

[Anonymous No.1660515]

>>1660508

God damn I need to wake up.

> Luminiferous aether

[Anonymous No.1660518]

[Anonymous No.1660521]

YES
THIS
IS
FUCKING
/SCI/
RELIGION
&
BUTTHURT

[Anonymous No.1660524]

yeah this troll thread is reaching supermassive black hole proportions

[Anonymous No.1660526]

>>1660508
Not in the ways you can troll here, because people on /sci/ are absolute retards. I'm pretty damn sure the smartest most contributing tripfags here clearly stated they left because it's so retarded here. You fucktards fall for the same atheist or WILL IT TAKE OFF threads every single fucking day and I love it. You guys are truly the most retarded and easy to troll board on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.1660601]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82

Hi.

[Anonymous No.1660644]

>>1660526
u mad?

[Anonymous No.1660675]

>>1660521
If you really don't like these religion threads report them all for rule violation!

We did it in another board and after some time mods started deleting the rule breaking threads.

[Anonymous No.1660939]

>>1660675
Yes, except /sci/ mods are quantum mods. Whenever one is observed, their presence seems to die off for weeks or months.