sceince kicks religions ass, discuss

File: 232 KB, 1269x745, epic win against christfags.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:33:37 2010 No.1838307 [Reply] [Original]

sceince kicks religions ass, discuss

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:36:37 2010 No.1838318 inb4 agnosticism "I'm better than both of you" pretension

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:54:37 2010 No.1838380 >>1838318 Agnostics are just pussies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:56:37 2010 No.1838389 Why can't agnostics make up their minds?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:56:37 2010 No.1838387 >>1838380 Nah we just don't like dealing with the shit people come up with to fight about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 20:58:37 2010 No.1838396 >>1838387 Exactly, you are a pussy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:00:37 2010 No.1838407 >>1838396 It's better then being arrogant. Anyway, this is 4chan, this could keep going on forever, if not with you, with someone else. I will leave this thread to die now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:01:37 2010 No.1838411 >>1838407 Running away like a little pussy. You an agnostic through and through!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:03:37 2010 No.1838422 >>1838407 Well, the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both. Jackass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:04:37 2010 No.1838427 File: 85 KB, 350x514, internet-tough-guy-magazine.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1838411 Not your previous partner but whatever - you macho macho man! I had to say hi. Also gripping about agnostics, really?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:05:37 2010 No.1838432 Atheist here. Made the transition from agnosticism to atheism about a week ago. Feels good, man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:07:37 2010 No.1838446 >>1838427 Hi again same-agnostic-pussy-fag!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:07:37 2010 No.1838449 >>1838432 Alright - I'm an agnofag - what benefits do I get if I join the atheifags? (also I hope you're not the tough guy - I would be overcome with adoration of his well chiseled physique and loose my lady like composure)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:09:37 2010 No.1838465 >>1838449 Well I don't know about you, but I no longer think "how did we get here". I don't give any kind of god any kind of consideration.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:09:37 2010 No.1838463 >>1838449 You will have the satisfaction of holding a metaphysical position that hasn't been ravaged and completed shown up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:09:37 2010 No.1838460 one you can almost quantify. the other can almost be quantified too. draw.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:10:37 2010 No.1838468 >>1838449 Also, you get to hang out with the elites, as opposed to the unpopular high school students.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:10:37 2010 No.1838470 File: 15 KB, 400x413, internet-dickwad-theory.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1838446 No, that guy really did leave. Why would I lie about something like that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:14:37 2010 No.1838484 File: 16 KB, 640x480, 1283239565184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh hi, don't mind me, just leaving this here.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:15:37 2010 No.1838490

> You will have the satisfaction of holding a metaphysical position that hasn't been ravaged and completed shown up.
I already feel that way. In fact I have problems committing to the absolutist stance. See below.

>Well I don't know about you, but I no longer think "how did we get here". I don't give any kind of god any kind of consideration.

No I don't think that holds much value either. It is more the element of proof - I feel hesitant to say that some "god-like being" may not exist when I have no proof that it is not the case. I think we arose by natural means.

>Also, you get to hang out with the elites, as opposed to the unpopular high school students.

Says the man on 4chan - I'll chalk that up to witty banter and not a serious argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:17:37 2010 No.1838504 >>1838490 I submit that you're already an atheist, because you're non-religious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:20:37 2010 No.1838520 File: 7 KB, 225x225, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1838484 Thinking changing a prefix is capturing the denotations of word usage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:22:37 2010 No.1838527 >>1838504 That isn't what agnostic means. "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable"

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:24:37 2010 No.1838541

>>1838527

That may be the case, but why are you willing to give equal consideration to gods, and not the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

You need to learn to inductive logic. If someone asserts that something exists, the burden of proof is on them. Skepticism requires no evidence until the believers have come up with their own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:25:37 2010 No.1838546 File: 145 KB, 600x700, 1284106314029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1838527 But do you believe in a god? If not, that makes you an agnostic atheist.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:30:37 2010 No.1838573

>>1838541
>>1838546

I'm sorry that thing I quoted was from Robert Carroll - author of "The Skeptics Dictionary", so it has some justifications I could get into.

Should I now debate you about what I call myself or should I debate you about the validity of my stance?

first reply decides

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:30:37 2010 No.1838571 >>1838546 I think the anti-theists use philosophy and logic (ie problem of evil) to back them up their claims. There's no real atheist equivalent to religious belief

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:31:37 2010 No.1838580 >>1838573 Validity, let's go. Why give 'equal time' to religion and not other types of bullshit?

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:32:37 2010 No.1838583

>>1838422

Wait. You feel superior to both theists and agnostics, right? Take that little cartoon and switch those words around and you can make anybody the butt of the joke.

If someone honestly examines their beliefs and finds themselves to be agnostic, why make an unnecessary decision one way or the other? Calling someone a pussy for being an agnostic is like calling someone a pussy for saying they don't know if aliens have visited Earth.

I do feel superior to you by the way, but it isn't because you don't believe in God. You "edgy" atheists are the biggest faggots in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:33:37 2010 No.1838588 File: 16 KB, 640x480, agnostic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1838546 sup?

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:35:37 2010 No.1838600
File: 148 KB, 624x352, dont want to live on this planet anymore.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1838583

If we're the biggest faggots in the universe, how come it's never atheists going around calling people 'arrogant' because they disagree?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:35:37 2010 No.1838601 >>1838546 You don't even get anti-theism right. Go back to fucking grade school. Latin 101 for /sci/pukes: theism god ism atheism no-god ism agnosticism loldonno ism

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:39:37 2010 No.1838623

>>1838580
Thanks good sir for your rapid reply - it was the more interesting of the two I must say.

I think that metaphysical claims can not be justified on empirical grounds - since I am at heart a pragmatic empiricist - then I can not claim knowledge on things I can not test. This is similar in spirit to Wittengenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I can voice disagreement with others claiming knowledge however - which is the problem I have with both the philosophical stances of atheists and theists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:39:37 2010 No.1838626 So, has the agnostic decided whether he's theist or atheist yet? Also; why he gives consideration to religion and not santa claus?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:41:37 2010 No.1838637 >>1838626 Sorry it took time to gather my thoughts. My next reply will be much more improved in terms of time.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:41:37 2010 No.1838635

>>1838600

>I do feel superior to you by the way, but it isn't because you don't believe in God. You "edgy" atheists are the biggest faggots in the universe.

Your reading comprehension is low. I don't think you're arrogant because you don't believe in God, I think you're arrogant because everything you people say or do reminds me of that fat stupid Amazing Atheist unfunny fuck.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:42:37 2010 No.1838642

>>1838623

Well that's the thing. Atheists don't 'know', they just say that religion has the burden of proof. If that's not met, they're not going to believe it.

It's basically just taking god away from the privileged seat he's had and sticking him with the new agers, ufo sightings and pseudoscience. We'll reject all those things until we see the evidence.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:48:37 2010 No.1838660

>>1838642

Samefag as this here. Just wanted to clarify.

If god has any meaning for us at all he can interact with the empirical universe. That means he should be detectable.

Presumably he'd want to reveal himself, to gain converts, yet he has not done so.

As to whether I should just have no opinion on that which I can't prove - I think that I can dismiss claims that cannot be tested. If they devise a test I will change my position.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:49:37 2010 No.1838670

>>1838642
Hmmm....
An interesting construction - so you reserve inclusion until evidence presents itself.. . .

I appreciate the fact of removing the privileged stance from religion - but I'm hesitant to clamber up the one you replace it with.

As is, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this - you've merely replaced the implicit assumption of a god with the implicit rejection of a god.

This serves your primary claim well but doesn't work for me as it is the metaphysical claim of privilege which bothers me in the first place.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:51:37 2010 No.1838679

There's a possibility that god exists, but everything theists say about 'im is bullshit. I wonder: is it easier to create everything in one go and keep controlling it all forever, or just set something smaller up at the start so that it all unfolds the way you want it to? Hint hint nudge nudge create everything in the universe over billions of years, evolution, abiogenesis hint nudge

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:51:37 2010 No.1838683 >>1838642 That would be an agnostic-atheist position. But some people in /sci/ don't like that classification because some faggy agnostics can't deal with being called atheists in any way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:52:37 2010 No.1838685 God is not real. agnostics are pussies. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:52:37 2010 No.1838688 >>1838685 God is real. Agnostics are pussies. Atheists are delusional.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:53:37 2010 No.1838702
File: 17 KB, 373x330, 1282485782930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

DEAR AGNOSTIC PERSON.

sry caps, only so you would notice.

'Do you directly express a belief in a deity of any kind?'

yes = Theist.
No = Atheist.

saying 'i dont know' is effectively saying no, making you an atheist.

Your beilf on what can/can't be proven is INDIPENDANT of this, it belongs in an enitrrely different argument.

'Do you like chocolate cake?'

and you've come in here arguing you prefer banana - this is a childish way of avoiding the argument. This is an argument about chocolate cake (the existence of god) not about anything else. You opinion does not being in this argument, it belongs in another argument 'Can god's existence be proven?' - If you want to debate that question your have a a valid opinion. But, in this question

'Do you directly express a belief in god?'

there are only TWO possible answers;

Yes: theist
No: atheist

anything else and you are avoiding the question, lying to yourself and practicing doublethink.

A PREDICTION:

The agnostic in question will;
A) avoid this post and pretend it dosn't exist
B) Attack me (calling me a fag or idiot) without addressing my points
C) say i'm wrong but fail to show why.
or D) say i'm wrong, attempt to show why, and use some idiotic logical fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:53:37 2010 No.1838698 The process of becoming an atheist is one of disillusionment

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:53:37 2010 No.1838695 >>1838683 There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist. If you're an atheist have have taken the position that God doesn't exist. You cannot be an agnostic.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:53:37 2010 No.1838697

>>1838660
But unprovable claims are the crux of the problem.

Consider: the "deist" god who constructed the universe and left it to run along the rules he set down. He doesn't interact with it just in the same way a deadbeat dad doesn't interact with their kids.

Since the world would be functionally equivalent either if the absentee god did or did not exist I can't find a way to choose between them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:54:37 2010 No.1838706 >>1838695 Atheism and theism is belief, while gnosticism is knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:54:37 2010 No.1838711 >>1838697 Who is an example of a deist who believes in no interaction between God and the world. The founding fathers who were deists did believe in God having an influence in the affairs of men.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:54:37 2010 No.1838704

>>1838670

Well I'm not really one for metaphysics. I don't think anything outside the natural world exists.

I implicitly reject things that are without evidence because this is skepticism. There are many assertions which are clearly bunk but cannot be disproved. If one gives all of them consideration you have to worry about the magical goblins under the bed etc, simply because you cannot disprove them.

Basically, as some claims are impossible to disprove regardless of their truth value, it's best to be skeptical until evidence in their favor comes about.

I was pursuaded to atheism from agnosticism by reading the skeptic's dictionary, in fact. That's a great tool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:55:37 2010 No.1838716 >>1838706 No you cannot. Agnosticism is refraining from taking a position. Theism and atheism are both positions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:55:37 2010 No.1838721 >>1838698 >>1838688 >>1838685 Jesus - I go away to write a comment and the board went full retard. Lurk moar folks - the adults are having a talk now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:56:37 2010 No.1838725 >>1838702 Someone who doesn't believe in a deity is not an atheist. That is a non-theist. To be an atheist, one has to believe that no deity exists. Thus a believer in godlessness, or atheos. Hence atheism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:57:37 2010 No.1838731 >>1838706 Atheism isn't a belief, you dipshit. It's skepticism. It does not take belief to dismiss claims of fairies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:57:37 2010 No.1838732 File: 40 KB, 766x450, 1283474937989.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:57:37 2010 No.1838733 >>1838721 Wow, you must be, like, the oldest one here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:57:37 2010 No.1838737 >>1838695 No, atheist doesn't mean that you silly shit stain. Atheism is a disbelieve in a god which =/= believing that a god doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:58:37 2010 No.1838739 >>1838702 I don't subscribe to your world view where binary opposites are how people determine things - I'm rather fine with saying "I don't know". In fact I think we might be better off if more folks said " I don't know."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:58:37 2010 No.1838744 >>1838731 HAHAHAHA Atheism is the opposite of skepticism. Atheism is the position that there is no God or gods. Agnosticism is skepticism, dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 21:59:37 2010 No.1838749 >>1838737 Atheism means you believe in the non-existence of God. You can either learn Greek or invest in a dictionary. Either one will produce the same result.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:00:37 2010 No.1838753

>>1838725
>> Someone who doesn't believe in a deity is not an atheist. That is a non-theist. To be an atheist, one has to believe that no deity exists. Thus a believer in godlessness, or atheos. Hence atheism.

I see you have opted for the last option.

someone who does not believe in a deity IS an atheist. You can believe in your own personal flavious of deity, and not be part of an organised religion. BUT, this is STILL BEING A THEIST.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:00:37 2010 No.1838754 >>1838744 If agnosticism is skepticism So is setting up tank traps IN CASE a tiger tank materialises in front of your house. So is wearing a tinfoil hat IN CASE they're watching you're thoughts. I could go on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:03:37 2010 No.1838770 >>1838732 You need to add another panel about how John Adams was actually very religious and that the OP's quote is being misconstrued to imply atheism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:03:37 2010 No.1838771 From wiktionary atheism (plural atheisms) 1. Absence of, or rejection of, belief in existence of a god or gods. 2. The stance that a deity or deities do not exist.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:03:37 2010 No.1838772

>>1838739
and saying 'i dont know' is effectively saying 'no.'

you are an atheist. AN agnostic Atheist, but an Atheist nonetheless.

Regardless of this, you have still completely ignored the other half of my point - were i said that agnosticism was part of an entirely different question.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:05:37 2010 No.1838783

>>1838704

I can certainly understand your dismissal of all things metaphysical - it has been a tendency in my own life as well.

But somethings bother me - but maybe they shouldn't. Consider the interesting question: "why does math work?"

Google that phrase it shows that some serious people ask this question - worse off it has a metaphysical answer.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:06:37 2010 No.1838790

>>1838702
I identify myself as an Atheistic Agnostic.
For the most part, I assume there isn't a god, but overall I don't know.
There are people who act as Theistic Agnostics. They assume there IS a god, but they don't know either.
Neither of which feel the need to preach either way. They will just say why the assume one way or the other, but that is it. No converting or anything, because it just isn't worth it.

Everyone views others differently than how they view themselves.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:06:37 2010 No.1838789

>>1838753
>someone who does not believe in a deity IS an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes in the non-existence of God or gods. Someone who merely lacks the belief in God or gods is simply not a theist, which is to say, a non-theist. An atheist. Is someone who believes actively in the non-existence of God or gods. That's why it's constructed with the greek a- for "no" or "without" the greek "the" for "theos" which is God or gods, and the suffix -ism, which means a belief or doctrine concerning the forgoing, namely "no God" or "no gods".

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:08:37 2010 No.1838809

>>1838783

Mathematics can be derived from set theory. Not sure but I think set theory can be derived from logic.

And logic can be treated as a set of axioms arrived at through observation and inference.

Eventually we are going to bump up against a set of rules that just 'is', unless we go into infinite regression.

But back to agnosticism. I used to hold that position, but the thing is, I don't give other random unprovable metaphysical propositions any credibility, so why is god special?

I honestly can't see the difference between belief in god and belief in pixies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:10:37 2010 No.1838818 >>1838789 Face it, the definition has changed. Good luck finding an actual self-professed atheist who agrees with your definition.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:11:37 2010 No.1838825

>>1838772
You are right I downplayed the second part because I previously said that agnosticism was withholding claims of knowledge about metaphysical things.

God, "gods" and all the various sundry definitely fall into the category of metaphysics - so I think they fit into my philosophical stance.

Which is, furthermore and again, not saying no. If someone asked me if I would like the "special prize in their van" and I didn't know if they were child molesters or the American Sweepstakes with a check - saying "no" versus "I don't know" are clearly two different things.

blitzballer!864fRH2jyw Sat Oct 2 22:11:37 2010 No.1838826
File: 106 KB, 1280x720, omeorage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I am an atheist, more of an anti-theist really because of the negative preconceptions that religion generally offers. Primarily I decided to become more oppositional because 1) I might as well express my opinion because I will never stop christfags/allahniggers from expressing theirs.
2) Religions oppose general scientific logic, encourage arrogant assumption, and limit a person's thinking within "moral" boundaries.

And I understand a lot about psychology, I would rant about it, but tl;dr people need to feel like they are worth living so they make up a reason, and since every major religion is validated by millions of others, there is a social justification of delusion and a conformity element as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:12:37 2010 No.1838829 >>1838772 That's not what atheist means. You're trying to say non-theist. An atheist is something else completely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:14:37 2010 No.1838851 >>1838829 Atheism as currently defined is equivalent to non-theism, moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:14:37 2010 No.1838853 >>1838809 > Not sure but I think set theory can be derived from logic. I'm sorry Kurt Godel buried it - mathematics is not founded on self-evident truths my friend. The rest of your statements should be reconsidered in that light.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:14:37 2010 No.1838857 >>1838771 Honestly, I've seen dictionaries that have both definitions. As for the greek, godless-ism isn't telling much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:16:37 2010 No.1838869 >>1838853 >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:16:37 2010 No.1838868

>>1838826
While it is infuriating to hear the stupidity, I find that it is better to let the ignorant stay ignorant. That shouldn't keep us from progressing.

Although, at the same time, it may be wise to promote secularism and scientific study in otherwise religious areas. Simply so that children unfortunate enough to be born there have the option and knowledge to get out.

But that shouldn't keep us from letting idiots stay idiotic.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:16:37 2010 No.1838867

>>1838818
Atheist evangelicals like Dawkins and Hitchens are trying to change the definition. They are trying to change it because they know very well that atheism implies a denial of God. But when asked for a basis they can claim. "It just means there's not enough for me to believe". So they can effectively claim more than they have the burden to prove. It's a rhetorical mechanism for their brand of evangelism.

You can claim all you want that atheism only means the lack of a belief. But the whole REASON these people are using the word, is because they know it implies a whole lot more than that. Believe what you want, but don't let yourself get linguistically manipulated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:17:37 2010 No.1838875 >>1838851 No it's not. That's why the term non-theist was coined. Because there wasn't an equivalent word meaning that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:18:37 2010 No.1838877 >>1838867 A cogent argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:18:37 2010 No.1838882 >>1838867 Why should you believe in your god and not all the other gods that have been proposed?

blitzballer!864fRH2jyw Sat Oct 2 22:18:37 2010 No.1838886
File: 354 KB, 769x406, Picture 31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1838829
Stop doggin' these guys about the definition of atheist. If one doesn't believe in any god/higher power mojo, then one is an atheist.
On the side, there is no "active" non-believing. Either you think the shit is true, you are skeptical, or you think it's bullshit. There are shades of grey in agnosticism, but that's their own personal issues with being indecisive and not knowing how to deal with social pressures and personal opinions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:19:38 2010 No.1838893 >>1838790 Now radical Atheists will either a) HURRR b) DURR c) DERP DURR HURR DERP or d) niggers

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:25:34 2010 No.1838922

Atheism don't "believe" (ie KNOW, WITHOUT PROOF) that any gods don't exist.

They just cannot understand WHY people CAN believe in these things WITHOUT proof.

No one can disprove the existance of fairies, sure, we can search the entire earth, no, the UNIVERSE, and don't find a SINGLE ONE (the magical one, we still may be able to find an alien antropomorphic butterfly).

But there'll still be at last one people to say "yeah ok, but they can make themselves invisible" to which we can answer "we used for the search machines who can detect all there is to detect (light frequency whatever).

BUT then they would say "hé, but the fairies can dephase (ie passing to another dimension), so you CAN'T say for SURE that they don't exist !".

That's why atheist are desperate to "convert" you, because they, indeed, KNOW that there will be forever morons to believe in any crap.

They just want to confine them in places they must be in, asylum for example.
Or gaz chambers (in my case).

Agnostics may understand the absurbity of there stance, and hence be spared ... For now.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:25:34 2010 No.1838923

>>1838869
Yes yes - I know. Russell made a good show it, but his paradoxes were irreconcilable, they actually opened up the line of questioning which led Godel to his Incompleteness theorem.

Godel's second incompleteness theorem actually addresses Peano's work.

No I should point out that I think that math is marvelously useful - but that metaphysics is at hand whenever we use it. One can not do away with ontology so easily.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:30:09 2010 No.1838953 >>1838886 I do believe you didn't read the earlier part where I talked about why I was an agnostic. Just do a find for "metaphysics" it's up the page a bit and in a couple spots.

Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:34:00 2010 No.1838978

>You can claim all you want that atheism only means the lack of a belief. But the whole REASON these people are using the word, is because they know it implies a whole lot more than that
But if they change the definition it means just that... huh?

That whole post seems to be riddled with conspiracy theories and Ad hoc explanations

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 2 22:35:45 2010 No.1838990 >>1838978 Directed at >>1838867

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math