/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2057556]

LOL christianity

[XuA !lXuAT5d90M No.2057563]

[Anonymous No.2057564]

just as expected

[Anonymous No.2057568]

Oh god, I saw Pat Robertson as Robert Pattinson.

[Anonymous No.2057569]

>>2057563
Nice.

[Anonymous No.2057579]

>Mother Teresa

>His Holiness The Dalai Llama

>Charles Manson

This without a doubt proves that all Theists are better people than all atheists.

[Anonymous No.2057584]

>>2057579
Wasn't Teresa the bitch that liked watching people suffer in agony, because she thought it brought them closer to her god?

[Anonymous No.2057587]

>>2057579

0/10

[Anonymous No.2057590]

>>2057584
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.2057594]

>>2057590
>>2057584

Weren't you that samefag who kept bumping his or her own thread?

[cumdumpster No.2057600]

>>2057579
if you think i am 'better' than athiests, you have a lot to learn about buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2057601]

>>2057584

and the dalai lama is a slave driver
while manson is just a loon

[Anonymous No.2057603]

>>2057594
I don't have the habit of replying to my own posts.

[Anonymous No.2057606]

>>2057600

>if you think i am 'better' than athiests, you have a lot to learn about buddhism.

If you think that I wasn't simply saying that the Dalai Llama has done more good for the world than Charles Manson, you have a lot to learn about reading.

[Anonymous No.2057609]

>>2057601

>The Dalai Llama
>A slave driver

You just went full-force extreme idiot mode.

[Anonymous No.2057614]

>>2057579

[Anonymous No.2057615]

> mfw people think Mother Theresa and the Dali Llama are good people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Z7AI1J9Z0

[Anonymous No.2057617]

If Atheism is so great then why are the worst people in history all atheists?

Theists: Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck, Norman Borlaug
Agnostics: Charles Darwin, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steve Wozniak
Atheists: Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.2057618]

>>2057615
.
Penn and Teller are fags who are completely up their own asses about everything

[Anonymous No.2057622]

>>2057617

you forgot terrorists from arabia

[Anonymous No.2057624]

>>2057617
>Carl Sagan

Troll or not; you're shit for that.

[Anonymous No.2057625]

>>2057606
>>2057609
>Doesn't know anything about the class structure of Tibet prior to Chinese take-over.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2057626]

>>2057617
>Hitler
>Atheist

[Anonymous No.2057628]

>>2057618
Penn and Teller can be funny but they are like Colbert and Stewart: they just preach to the choir.

If you agree with them you'll enjoy them. If not, you won't.

They're not going to convince anybody because most of their show's "testing" is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2057631]

>>2057628
What do they say specifically about Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa in that youtube video series anyway?

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057632]

>>2057625
>doesn't know that even with all the shit it was still better before china

[Anonymous No.2057633]

>>2057617
>>2057617
Norman Borlaug wasn't a theist. He was even on P&T.

[Anonymous No.2057634]

>>2057632
Do you live in China?

[Anonymous No.2057637]

>>2057617
Correlation and causation, just because atheists are bad people more often, doesn't mean being atheist makes you a bad person.

Also you compare them to a theist reference point (today's society is mostly based on theist values), meaning that an atheist would always be considered bad, simply because they aren't theists.

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057638]

>>2057634
I never answer personal questions

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057642]

>>2057637
>(today's society is mostly based on theist values)
No it isn't. Slaverly is an aspect of the biggest religion on the earth, and we don't have in in most advanced natons

[Anonymous No.2057643]

>>2057638
Fine, your point is moot by default.

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057644]

>>2057643
That doesn't make any sense.
I won't tell you where I currently live so I'm wrong?
Logic motherfucker, do you speak it?

[Anonymous No.2057646]

PAT ROBERTSON

ROBERT PATTERSON

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.2057649]

>>2057617
Mfw you think Stalin was athiest and not agnostic.

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057652]

>>2057649
mfw agnostic can refer to theists and atheists, and is therefore not a label itself but a qualifier

[Anonymous No.2057656]

>>2057652
Point is he wasnt athiest. He wasnt sure overall.

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2057657]

>>2057656
Did he belive in god?
No, ergo atheist.

I'm not going to be a moron and claim that not accepting the insane claims of a 2000 year old fable are what made stalin persue collectiveism and brutal opression, but if you wish to be honest he was an atheist.

[Anonymous No.2057666]

>>2057617
I think

[Anonymous No.2057686]

>>2057657
He Claimed to be athiest often enough. Said there was no god. And yet he also still would pray and hint at a belief in god.
He was raised believing in god and i think he still did throughout his life but thats just my opinion.
His oppresion wasnt anything to do with his religious beliefs anyway.

[Anonymous No.2057690]

only someone with false ego would donate with his name presented on the list
this is just propaganda, does your girl also have to donate in the media with her name on it to feel like a good person?
if so you must be american, where no one can think for themselves

[Anonymous No.2057906]

mfw I as OP return to my thread hours later and hear you retards discussing garbage and implying I'm athiest. Agnostic ftw

[Anonymous No.2057912]

>>2057906
>Agnostic for the sitting on a fence, fencepole solidly implanted up his ass and a biiiiiig smile on his face.

"Yeah, I could take a stand against stupidity, but I'm afraid of taking sides, even if the other side is clearly and demonstrably in the wrong."

[Anonymous No.2057927]

>>2057912
its not about sitting on fence because im pussy or not, its about realising you can never know for sure either way so supporting one side still ultimately comes down to faith which I think is insufficient. sure Athiesm is MORE logical but no hard facts and there never will be and because I ultimately don't care whether there is a God or not and I don't have any reason to believe either athiesm or thiesm conclusively I stay agnostic.

umad kid

[Anonymous No.2057944]

>>2057927
You can never know for sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't choices that are highly likely. You can't be agnostic, it's a paradox by design. You either believe in god, or if you're not sure, you don't.
>I ultimately don't care whether there is a God or not
It's not about whether you care, it's about what you believe.
That only way to not believe either is be mentally challenged. LOL U MAD KID>?

[Anonymous No.2057945]

>>2057927
But there is a chance that not sacrificing humans, especially children and lots of them, will doom you and the whole species to hell.

There is also a chance that Jebus will descent from heaven tomorrow and rape everyone not wearing a crucifix made of purple soap.

There's a point where a sane human being should say "Yeah, that's bullshit. Shut up."

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.2057964]

>>2057944
>its about what you believe
ye see its all still faith and I dont have any strong faith either side because neither side has any credentials other than 'lol faith' its not about you need to be smart to have a side its that you need to be blind to be down syndrome to one view.

>>2057945
wtf ye I do say christianity is bullshit like my OP post. Just coz I hate christianity I dont have to be athiest. They are retarded obviously more so than athiest but athiesm still on faith.

[Anonymous No.2057967]

>>2057944
>its about what you believe
ye see its all still faith and I dont have any strong faith either side because neither side has any credentials other than 'lol faith' its not about you need to be smart to have a side its that you need to be down syndrome to one view.

>>2057945
wtf ye I do say christianity is bullshit like my OP post. Just coz I hate christianity I dont have to be athiest. They are retarded obviously more so than athiest but athiesm still on faith.

[ergosumanima !58ee0RfRdI No.2057971]

[Anonymous No.2057975]

>>2057967
See, thats where you're misguided. Belief is not all equal. On the one hand you have to cast away your knowledge of the universe to understand, and the other (atheism) you can incorporate your knowledge of the universe with it still making sense. Thats all a lot of science is, finding an underlying theory for something that equates with our understanding of reality. Now don't tell me now this is still up for debate.

[Anonymous No.2057978]

>>2057967
>wtf ye I do say christianity is bullshit like my OP post. Just coz I hate christianity I dont have to be athiest. They are retarded obviously more so than athiest but athiesm still on faith.
so... you're... saying: "Christianity is bullshit... but they STILL might be right."

[Anonymous No.2057986]

>>2057975
You obviously don't understand belief, you do not choose what you believe based on what would happen to you if you chose that belief. Any logical being should choose belief based on what supports it. And what of any science supports that there has to be no God?

>>2057978
Im saying my logic tells me christianity is bullshit but there may still be a God (thiesm may be right)

[Anonymous No.2057989]

>>2057628
Not true, they totally changed my mind about recycling in the US.

[Anonymous No.2057990]

>>2057986
you do know that it was recently proven that there couldn't have been a god that created the universe, right?

[Anonymous No.2057992]

"My theology, briefly, is that the Universe was dictated but not signed." - Christopher Morley

[Anonymous No.2057994]

>>2057990

[Anonymous No.2057995]

Science and Religion is a fundamentally flawed argument.

Science is eternally skeptical

Religion is based on faith, to question is to lack faith.

[Anonymous No.2057997]

>>2057986
The scientific fucking method screams in the face of any god idea.
How do you not know this?

There is no valid evidence to support god and reason to believe such a thing exists.
So as far as science is concerned, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.2058000]

>>2057657
If you want to get into semantics, your definition makes him an atheist only in the same sense that all Christians are atheists.

[Anonymous No.2058005]

>>2057994
not even fucking trolling

[Anonymous No.2058006]

>>2057997
Science != Athiesm
Science does not give any support or dispute to athiesm or thiesm
it only does a good job of questioning common religions such as christianity and not thiesm as a whole. Can't you see why there will always be dumb ass religious cunts, its because you cant gain evidence for either.

[Anonymous No.2058007]

>>2057995
To an individual sure, but when you present ideas to others you need to have something to convince them that it is real.
Theists use flawed evidence, but evidence none the less to convince others; particularly those who have not developed a very analytical mind yet.

So no, it's not just about faith, not when you go to spread that idea around.

[Anonymous No.2058016]

God is Gravity, so neither donated anything to charity without God; for they wouldn't be able to: donate, stay on the earth, have money in the first place, invent a business and make profits, as well as everything else required to survive.

[Anonymous No.2058017]

>>2058006
They are "always" there because people throw their hands in the air and say "oh well, it's religion, can't shut that one down".
I wish more people had challenged my religious ideas earlier, then I would not have wasted such a large portion of my early life on it.
These ideas can be challenged scientifically, I say that the method itself challenges a god idea since there is no need to explain anything with "god did it".
Science encourages people to say "I don't know" and then go find out.
Until we find some sort of evidence that a God of some kind exists there is no reason to speculate that it does.

[ergosumanima !58ee0RfRdI No.2058022]

>>2058016
jesuit?

[Anonymous No.2058023]

>>2058022
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.2058027]

>>2058017
agnostics do not speculate that god exists
however athiests speculate god doesn't exist with no science behind this speculation except 'no reason to believe it does' but there is also no reason to believe it doesnt so easier to not care

[ergosumanima !58ee0RfRdI No.2058028]

>>2058023

[Anonymous No.2058030]

>>2058027

Depends a lot on the nature of the god people imagine, but...

Most people think of god and imagine a thing that is impossible in some way.

An impossible thing is by definition already proven not to exist.

[Anonymous No.2058032]

>>2058030
You shouldn't base your belief on most people

[Anonymous No.2058034]

>>2058032
I have no belief. It's part of my charm.

[Anonymous No.2058036]

>>2058034
*high five*
So where are the athiests I was 'discussing' with :S they all left cause they can't make any good arguments?

[Anonymous No.2058038]

>>2058027
>no reason to believe god doesnt exist
your christian upbringing is showing through

there needs to be an idea of god before one can say there is a possibility of one existing

without the prior idea of god, there would be no reason to allow for it's existence

[Anonymous No.2058047]

>>2058038
My upbringing was entirely athiest

>there needs to be an idea of god before one can say there is a possibility of one existing

what people say does not affect what actually exists, like before there was the idea of electromagnetic forces they still actually existed, right?

[Anonymous No.2058048]

>>2058036
God is always said to be conscious,
a non-conscious god is called by some other name, be it physics or causality or universe or existence.

Consciousness is always and only a suite of biological processes.

God is said not to be biological, or constrained by biological causalities.

Thus god is impossible and doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.2058054]

>>2058048
mfw he believes sciences understands consciousness

[Anonymous No.2058063]

>>2058054
"Science" is a process, not a person.

We understand consciousness fine on the gestalten level, you may however continue to pretend that because you don't understand it, nobody else can.

[Anonymous No.2058069]

>>2058047
>what people say does not affect what actually exists
did I say it did?

>like before there was the idea of electromagnetic forces they still actually existed
and electromagnetism is still powered by the gods or demons just like religions have told us. On the other hand, this is a bad, BAD example from you. If you don't understand why, you're on the wrong board.

[Anonymous No.2058089]

>>2058063
WTF is the gestalin level

>>2058069
you said
>before one can say there is a possibility of one existing
It doesnt matter whether one can say anything about some concept existing to whether that concept actually exists.

>electromagnetism is still powered by the gods or demons just like religions have told us
you are confusing common religionss (that I think are bullshit) and general thiesm

[Anonymous No.2058155]

>>2058089
no

you still haven't understood?
We can see and model how the universe has come into being and evolved into this state without a need to say "goddidit" at any point.

From that point, you can start looking at the evidence and make conclusions out of it.

From this process we can find no evidence of a god.

So we come to the point that the only evidence for a god is that some people, most of which are obviously mentally unstable, say that one exists.

But why should we believe such people, when we already have the process of evidence-conclusion and this process has come up with no evidence or conclusions supporting the existence of a god?

On the contrary, the more evidence we gather and the more conclusions that are drawn, the lesser is the possibility that a god even could exist. Finally we prove without a doubt that a god could not have existed in any form at any time.

So we can come to the conclusion that this idea of a god is just a fantasy and can be totally ignored in the future.

It really isn't that hard.

[Anonymous No.2059185]

NO. NO. BAD ATHEISTS.
you don't win shit by slamming your opponent, you win shit by telling people good shit about you. THE THIRD ONE IS BAD.

but I do approve of spreading awareness that atheists aren't evil demon machines from hell that have no souls and are totally OK with brutal murder etc etc

[Anonymous No.2059214]

>>2059185
Tell that to the politicians.
Everyone claims to hate mud slinging but it has a long track record filled with win.

[Anonymous No.2059262]

Yet another reason why republicans are retarded

[Anonymous No.2059964]

>>2059185
When the slamming is almost 100% true(aside from the few people calling religious people mentally retarded) it isn't an issue. If we were say, making up random crap to defame religion then you would have a point, but almost everything said in here(aside from the calling people retards) has been true. There is no reason for the belief in god outside the claim of religion. If you say you are agnostic you are essentially saying you are giving ridiculous fairytales from thousands of years ago equal footing which init of itself is ridiculous. I admit there always COULD be a god just like there COULD be a flying spaghetti, just like a zombie apocalypse COULD happen. Should you give all of these things equal footing with common sense as well? Where do you start to draw the line?

[Anonymous No.2060017]

>>2058155
>the lesser is the possibility that a god even could exist.

Are you mentally retarded there is no probabilities, there either is god or not and you can never know the probability of whether there is one so nothing science can do.

>From this process we can find no evidence of a god.
From this process we can find no evidence of NO god.

It seems to me you are butthurt about all the retarded religions out there and don't look at thiesm in general

[Anonymous No.2060040]

>>2060017
The fact that you find no evidence for no god doesn't matter as there is no reason to look for a god unless you are listening to the teachings of religion. Also L2burdenofproof.

[Anonymous No.2060059]

>>2059964
lol the difference between god, flying spaghetti and zombie apocalypse is that god exists outside our universe or reality or whatever you would call it, so while we can look at evidence for and against a flying spaghetti monster (look in sky) and a zombie apocalypse look at what science is doing. We can judge the chance of these happening with our reason however God outside our reality is different so only a close minded fag would take a side. You might be like it would be stupid for it to be like this outside our universe but its outside our motherfucking universe.

[Anonymous No.2060085]

>>2060059
Yes, thats right lets just place god in a place that we can't possibly find evidence for or against him. That is such a cop out it isn't even worth arguing against.

[Anonymous No.2060087]

>>2060040
The burden on proof lies on anyone who is making a claim which athiesm does. Its like making a claim 'this is not reality' you're saying that the burden of proof would be on the other to prove it is reality (which is obviously impossible to prove)

And it doesnt have to be teachings of religions just look at thiesm at its core

[Anonymous No.2060105]

>>2060087
Atheism doesn't make any claims, its a lack of belief, theism is the one making the assertion. Stop trying to turn it around, its an old trick that hasn't been a valid argument for years. And on that note, what can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

[Anonymous No.2060130]

>>2060105
>atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

its not the lack of belief in deities its the belief that there is none.

[Anonymous No.2060174]

>>2060130
If there were actual evidence of a god outside the claims of religion then you would have a point, but seeing as how there is no reason to have any belief in a deity aside from religion it is indeed a lack of belief. I suppose many atheist do indeed have a firm stance that there is NO god but the burden of proof will still always be 100% on the theist side since as I have said so many times now THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD OUTSIDE THE CLAIMS OF RELIGION WHICH ALSO HAPPEN TO HAVE NO EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF BOOKS WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

[noko No.2060239]

>>2060130
>>2060130
>>2060130
>>2060130

Incorrect. Both are categorized under atheists.

People who simply lack belief in god are atheists, and people who believe there is no god are atheists.

You see, atheism IS NOT A RELIGION.

It is NOT a cohesive belief system.


It's a VERY VERY VERY simple idea. Anyone who does not believe in god is called an "atheist". How hard is this to understand?


Theists make a claim. God exists. An atheist is simple skeptical about that claim.

"Oh really? God exists? Can you show me? Because until you prove it, I do not believe in it. Just the same as I do not believe in unicorns until someone provides evidence a unicorn actually exists"

THAT is atheism.

[Anonymous No.2060328]

>>2060239
Why would you have two completely different meanings for the word when the lack of belief in deities and the lack of belief in there being no deities can perfectly fall under agnosticism it seems just like changing the definition of your word to fit the obvious contradiction that would occur from rejecting all gods

[Anonymous No.2060331]

>>2060174
there is no reason to believe in no gods outside atheism

[Anonymous No.2060343]

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!!? I thought this thread had already died? FFS /sci/ get your shit together and stop this shit!

[Anonymous No.2060344]

>>2060130

>It's not the lack of stamp collecting; it's actively not collecting them.

[Anonymous No.2060369]

>>2060239
Using your reasoning you would also say that a theist can be someone who simply lacks the belief that there is no god.
this is obviously wrong and so is yours hence its agnostic the grey area inbetween the two extreme claims

[Anonymous No.2060418]

>>2060369
>>2060369
>>2060369
>>2060369


No... Agnostic is a statement about knowledge.

An agnostic says you cannot KNOW that god exists.
A Gnostic say you can know(and usually claim to have that knowledge)


That is completely separate from whether you are an atheist or a theist.


So you are correct in that I am an agnostic. But to be more specific, I am an Agnostic Atheist.


Really, you could quite easily do some reading online and figure this out for yourself. Google the terms "Weak atheist" and "strong atheist" or perhaps "Positive Atheist" and "negative atheist"


You can deny it all you want, it doesn't make you any less incorrect. That has been the definition of atheist for quite some time now. A few thousands years, in fact. Socrates was called an atheist because of the claim that he did not worship a god. There are many many many other examples of things like this throughout history.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060469]

>>2060130
In Latin "theism" means belief in deities and "a" means "no" or "without". Thus "atheism" equates to "without deities". The only way for one to beyond a shadow of a doubt believe there is no God one would have to show why the very definition of God is inconsistent. Some people do indeed claim the definition of God is inconsistent, but the definition of God is not set in stone and varies from person to person so that is not a universal disproof of God. On top of that, there are no real definitions of what one means by "deities" so it is literally impossible to be 100% certain deities do not exist. Therefore by your definition atheism is impossible... thus your definition is useless.

There are people who call themselves atheists and if your definition of atheism does not conform to how atheists define atheism then every statement you make about atheists is completely meaningless. Someone however who DOES conform to the definition atheists use is then able to make meaningful comments about atheists. For example, if you define communists as people who enjoy drinking blood and who hate having people with more stuff then they do and then you start talking about how communists are terrible because they love drinking blood then everything you are saying is completely meaningless. Everyone around you will assume you are talking about actual communists but your very definition of communism means you aren't referring to them. The only meaninful definition of communism is made by those who actually call themselves communists (and Carl Marx, but there is no Atheist Manifesto as it isn't a philosophy in and of itself, so let's ignore Marx).

[Anonymous No.2060473]

>>2060418
yes obviously I realise all of this, but you can be plain agnostic (neither atheist or theist) if you believe that whether god exists or not is equally likely (both completely unknown) that is not simply the lack of belief in a god, that is like half belief half doesnt but because you think it doesn't matter you don't take a side.

You could of found this out if you googled agnostic neutralist.
while an agnostic athiest believes it is more likely that there is no god an agnostic neutralist has both sides valued equally so doesnt pick either (for my case I dont choose because both require faith)

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060475]

>>2060469
(continued)
An atheist typically views God and deities in general on the same level the average person views leprechauns. Without strong evidence supporting either God or leprechauns both are viewed as false. In other words the neutral position is one of nonexistence. An object can only be said to exist once there is an evidential or theoretical basis for believing it does.

tl;dr - atheism is the lack of belief in deities

[Anonymous No.2060488]

>>2060469
yes well put but as the guy above said agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists.

However an agnostic neutralist is not simply without belief in god

[Anonymous No.2060490]

>A Gnostic say you can know(and usually claim to have that knowledge)
That's not what gnostic means, monkeyballs. Enjoy your made up definitions.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060519]

>>2060473
However, I argued that your position is not neutral. A neutral stance is one of nonexistence. There are an infinite number of POSSIBLE things that might exist and it is impractical to be 50/50 about all of them. For you to be 50/50 on the issue of God/deities you would need to have reasons to believe God/deities exist. If you do, fine; we could argue about those reasons if you want but I was simply saying that atheism is defined as the mere LACK of belief in deities and if you agree with me then then that issue is resolved.

[noko No.2060522]

>>2060490
Requesting actual definition of "gnostic".

[Anonymous No.2060528]

Think of my view as 0 on the x axis and positive y axis.
while you are negative x and positive y

[Anonymous No.2060530]

This thread started out stupid and evolved into an idiot-savant-like discussion.

It's still stupid, just really focused in its stupidity.

LET PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT. IF I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT MY DESTINY IS CONTROLLED BY A SLUMBERING GOD BENEATH THE SEAS, THAT IS MY RIGHT AS A HUMAN BEING.

FUCK.

[Anonymous No.2060539]

>>2060528
Yes. Like this. It's the complex number plane.
Agnostic is negative real axis, Gnostic is positive real axis.
Theist is positive imaginary axis, Atheist is negative imaginary axis.

[Anonymous No.2060543]

>>2060519
You don't have to have reasons for the existence of god.

If you have 0 reasons for holding no belief in a god (ur reason might be its simpler but I do not hold that) then having 0 reasons for god is still 50/50 both 0

[Anonymous No.2060547]

Okay, take that space as the space of discourse. Negate it, IE take the complement of that space. You have nontheism.

[GodofCider No.2060550]

>>2060530

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060551]

>>2060522
>>2060490
There are two definitions of the word "gnostic". One use of the word Gnosticism (note the capitalization) refers to a religion or philosophy that believes in God but believes he is actually "evil". I have also heard that some, most, or all Gnostics also believe there is a less powerful Satan figure who is actually the good guy resisting evil ol' God. The second definition of gnosticism (not lower case) is the aforementioned stance on knowledge. A "gnostic" stance would be a stance on any old issue where someone claims to KNOW something. To what degree of certainty one means by KNOW, who knows. In contrast an "agnostic" is someone "without knowledge" or one who claims to not know either way, but like I said, the implied degree of certainty is fuzzy.

[Anonymous No.2060554]

>>2060539
Yeah and what is your point? you're trying to state that complex numbers are intrinsically less worthy numbers than real numbers?

[Anonymous No.2060555]

I think Atheists are stupid as Hell.

Why?

Think of it this way, if Atheists are right, then everyone is going to the same place: Oblivion. Nothing "bad" will happen to people who believed in God.

However, if say, Christianity is right, then you burn in Hell. You will expierience pain beyond human comprehension and imagination for all of eternity. Until time itself stops you will be filled with the fury of a million thorned demon dicks.

An intelligent human being would try their best to avoid such a fate, regardless if there is any proof.

It's like entering a lotto in which the losers will be impaled on white hot metal stakes that sweat acid, but refusing to accept your lottery ticket after you sign up and paid. ATHEISTS HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING.

[Anonymous No.2060561]

Christians win

Everyone else loses

Enjoy your fail

[Anonymous No.2060562]

>you all now realize that Satan worshippers are actually atheists.

It's true; they don't believe in God or Satan at all. They are Atheists that troll Christians because they have nothing better to do.

[Anonymous No.2060572]

>>2060555
>signed up and paid
thats just it tho non christians dont want to pay because the chance of winning the lottery is too small for the cost

[Anonymous No.2060573]

> impaled on white hot metal stakes that sweat acid

Hey, that's a good death metal song name....

[Anonymous No.2060579]

>>2060562
Satan knows that there is a God; he talks to Him every damn day.

To be a Satan worshipper is to be a loser. More fail.

[Anonymous No.2060583]

>>2060572
how much do you have to pay to receive a gift???

you make no sense whatsoever

[Anonymous No.2060589]

>>2060555
>mfw I'm never impaled on white-hot metal stakes that sweat acid because I born in a Christian family and therefor Christian.

98% of all Christians are that way because of birth. If there really is a god, he wouldn't cast me into everlasting torment just because OF WHO AND WHERE I WAS BORN.

[Anonymous No.2060592]

>>2060583
You have to pay by giving up your intuition of what makes sense and what doesn't that isn't worth it for non christians for the chance that is ever so tiny

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060596]

>>2060543
So you are 50/50 on intangible monkeys watching everyone get undressed at night? Or how about teacup floating around Jupiter?

If someone had a button that would reveal both answers to the two situations above, would you be willing to take the bet either way? Would you put any money on either being true? If not you obviously aren't 50/50. That proves the impracticality of believing EVERYTHING as 50/50 until proven otherwise. The practical way of viewing propositions is via the null hypothesis, ie assuming nonexistence until evidence shows otherwise.

Now, the null hypothesis is actually a statistical device used in science. Basically it is the rule that when analyzing data one assumes there is zero correlation between variables from the start. If one didn't do that then one could prove correlation simply by saying "look, correlation is not ruled out" and then go on to build a theory from there. Scientists assume nonexistance because its practical to do so and shields us from ill-founded claims.

[Anonymous No.2060599]

>>2060583
>a gift
>not being intentionally thrown into a lake of fire JUST BECAUSE I didn't believe in his invisible ass

Oh shit, WHAT A GIFT! I can save a bus full of nuns, give 99% of my wealth to poor faggots that will just squander it and continue to be poor, never curse, never steal, all that good stuff, but if I don't "accept" the gift of a certain religion I burn in hell forever?!?!

HOLY SHIT THAT'S THE BEST GIFT IN THE WORLD!!!!

According to your bullshit religion, god is the only one that casts you into hell. He's not giving a gift, he's being a faggot. Therefore he does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2060606]

>>2060592
>refuses to believe in something higher than himself even if it means unimaginable torment and pain forever.

Yeah, you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.2060610]

Humanism is just secular Christianity, i.e. a more materialistic view of the world without deistic justification.

Both are pleasant illusions. Humanism supposes that we are all equal and that our life is worth saving. Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2060612]

>>2060596
>>2060596
No you like the guy above are confusing claims we can attain knowledge (monkeys at night/ jupiter) of and ones we cannot (god).

Thiesm in general would not contradict your precious science at all, sure christianity would but ye

[Anonymous No.2060621]

>>2060555
>implying either A) no one has free will and everything that happens is by the will of GOD. B) people have free will and are their own judge

As a nontheist, I've considered the argument of it's "safer" to believe in GOD. Here's the thing, when I die and if I am brought for final judgement, I will tell GOD that it can not judge me.

I will have already passed judgement upon myself. If I have free will, it matters not where I go or what GOD or any agent thereof does with me or to me. I *will* live eternally in satisfaction whether in hell, heaven, or on Earth. GOD can not touch my judgment.

If GOD can, I do not have free will and nothing I have ever done was anything other than what GOD has willed. Should I be punished for doing GOD's will, it is his puppet show of which I am only a puppet.

There exists no prison, man-made or divine, which can cage a free man.

[Anonymous No.2060637]

How does it make you feel to know that you are wasting time with people who won't change? Why not do something more practical like help find a cure for cancer or take a walk outside?

[Anonymous No.2060639]

>>2060555
What you don't understand is that we see tons of things to suggest that when we die the physical seat of our conscious decomposes just like everything else in our body. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suggest that the bible or christian god is real, the same way there is no reason to believe in Zues or Rah or Osiris, humans or human ancestors survived for millions of years previously to the invention of Christianity, this is apparent in fossil records and written history.
tl;dr the only reason to believe in any religion on earth is if someone on earth is telling you to.

[Anonymous No.2060649]

[Anonymous No.2060656]

>>2060637
The truth is that most will surrender ignorance when given alternatives. At current (Pew research statistics, I think), only about 2% of all born baptist Christians remain religious into adulthood.

Most atheists are reformed religious practitioners.

[Anonymous No.2060660]

>>2057579
>Mother Teresa
obligated the poor to convert to christianity
>His Holiness The Dalai Llama
in his administration the priest were the high class everyone else was a slave or a extremely poor person

[Anonymous No.2060671]

>>2060592
so i have to believe that the God who formed the universe is smarter than i am?

yeah, that's kind of a no-brainer

[Anonymous No.2060672]

>>2060583
the cost of believing in retarded ancient hypocritic nonsense is the loss of ones self-determination and self-respect

[Anonymous No.2060677]

>>2060672
the cost of believing Satan's lies is eternal torment

measure one against the other, and see on which side foolishness lies

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060681]

>>2060612
1) I used those two because they could NOT be shown to be true either way. The button was a hypothetical within my hypothetical.

2) By your definition of God, God cannot be proven or even argued to exist or not. NO ONE uses that definition in theology. It's a bad definition because for something to be utterly impossible to argue the existence or nonexistence of said thing must have ZERO connection with our universe. If there is no connection between our universe and said thing then not only is it a useless definition but it is pretty much by definition nonexistent. Because even the most general definition of God includes God creating the universe then there is a connection and thus there is no theoretical reason why one cannot argue for or against the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.2060728]

>>2060681
nothing can ever be shown to be true but like your examples they can be backed up by evidence or disputed with evidence god in the most general form cannot.

and yes we should be arguing deities not God. It's not that he has no interaction with our universe but that if he does exist he will have no effect on our lives (because its pointless to argue after death or outside of universe) sure christian God is retarded but ye

[Anonymous No.2060732]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU&feature=fvw

Betting on infinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite

[Anonymous No.2060752]

>>2060677
The word of your god is essentially drug-induced ramblings from easily-wowed goetherders from two and four thousand years ago.

The word you ascribe to satan is the best scientific truth that glorious human minds have been able to uncover through dogged persistence.

Also, making the fertility goddess Baphomet into a figure of evil? Now THAT is the very essence of evil. And it was done by you and yours.

[Anonymous No.2060754]

Stop feeding the trolls.
If you have to respond post a picture of jesus being fucked by a trap or something.

[Anonymous No.2060768]

>>2060754
I am not a troll plus I would lol just as much at jesus getting raped as anyone

[Anonymous No.2060781]

>>2060752
odd how those goatherders put together a perfect history; perfect geography; perfectly prophetic anthem that has been proven true over the centuries, without one falsehood; without one contradiction; without one necessary change.

Strange, indeed.

and your lesser goddess, fertility goddess, whatever demon you believe in, wants you dead.

[Anonymous No.2060783]

Christianity =\= /sci/

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060813]

>>2060728
Could you elaborate on your argument? Spend more time on it this time if you can. You obviously typed the last one really quickly.

[Anonymous No.2060865]

>>2060813
We cannot ever attain perfect knowledge we use science to prove something beyond reasonable doubt but it is never perfect however science is limited to within our universe or reality or whatever you call it, so I believe it is stupid to have any inclination either way to the nature of anything outside our existence, theism is not just limited to that which can affect us in this science driven world. But also what happens or more logicly doesnt happen after we die. Sure I believe it makes more sense to me that no God or anything after we die but putting probabilities on it and trusting my intuition from this existence seems stupid to me.

[Anonymous No.2060873]

>>2060562
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.2060885]

>>2060781

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2060886]

>>2060865
Again, you must have typed that out really quickly. You aren't using proper sentence structure. And this isn't me being picky, your lack of periods or even commas causes all your statements to run together. I can't tell what's what.

[Anonymous No.2060899]

Religious faith has nothing to do with modern day science.

Fighting over something that FAITH is a requirement to believe in is absurd. Fight about something else.

[Anonymous No.2060900]

>>2060781
>perfect history; perfect geography; perfectly prophetic
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA

gotta breathe a little

AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
AHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA

[Anonymous No.2060915]

>>2057579
mother theresa supported the haitian dictatorship and deliberately avoided giving her patients good medical care. She didn't try to fix people, she just gave them painkillers and made them lie waiting for death

The Dalai llama is an animal similar to an alpaca. Your argument is invalid. also
>>2057615

I don't know who Charles Manson is and I'm not going to make arguments for or against him because I'm capable of logical thought

[Anonymous No.2060921]

Faith doesn't start wars, faith doesn't turn people into assholes.

People start wars, and people are naturally assholes.

[Anonymous No.2060957]

>>2057617
nah man, those people were just catching up to all the deaths in the name of whatever deity, god or whatever theists caused over the course of human history, by that count atheists haven't even begun to make a dent

[Anonymous No.2060960]

>>2057906
You're not "agnostic". You are either an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.

Agnosticism and gnosticism refer to what you know.

Atheism and theism refer to what you believe.

Each and every single person is a combination of these two terms, be it gnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

Depending on whether you believe there is a good or not, you are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.2060999]

>>2060886
... here are my points on there own then:

True knowledge is impossible to attain.

Science gives us a reason or widely accepted justification to believe some claim to be knowledge.
Science is limited to this existence or reality.

I would say it is stupid to have an inclination either way on the existence of deities that might not affect us until after this life.

Ultimately I have no reason to believe in deities and they sound a far-fetched concept to me but I have absolutely no reason to not believe either.

[Anonymous No.2061016]

>>2060960
theist believes there is a god.
ateist believes there is not a god.

then what are you if you believe neither and admit not knowing whether there is a god or not?

You're full of shit. You not fuck all about what catagorizes anyone into an -ism.

[Anonymous No.2061017]

>>2060960
>Depending on whether you believe there is a good or not, you are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
I told you I don't believe either side my belief in both sides is 0 so 0 vs 0 = no side

[Anonymous No.2061022]

>>2061016

newfags.....

[Anonymous No.2061031]

>>2061017

Theism is the active promulgation of faith.

If someone asks you "Do you believe in god" and your answer is "No", "Are you full retard" or "I don't know" they all have one thing in common.

They are not actively stating faith.

If you do no have active faith in a god, you are an atheist. The above answers show the degrees of atheism.

Answering "I don't know" to the question shows weak atheism and agnosticism.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061054]

>>2060999
>True knowledge is impossible to attain.
If by "true knowledge" you mean 100% certainty then I agree so far as one excludes logical statements such as "A=A" or if "A=B and B=C then A=C", which can be known with 100% certainty.

>Science gives us a reason or widely accepted justification to believe some claim to be knowledge.
>Science is limited to this existence or reality.
Reality of course including everything that exists.

>I would say it is stupid to have an inclination either way on the existence of deities that might not affect us until after this life.
Whether you think it is stupid is irrelevant. The other poster and myself were discussing whether 50/50 is a neutral position given no evidence and if all you are saying is that whatever conclusion we come up with is useless then you shouldn't have interjected.

[Anonymous No.2061055]

>>2061022
if you say you don't know its not that you don't believe its that you are in a position where you do not feel it is right to make a claim learn to agnostic neutralist

[Anonymous No.2061067]

>>2061055

If you say you don't know you are doing one thing. You are not professing faith.

No faith = atheism.

Atheism is pretty fucking simple. Most people take the extreme form of it and think that is atheism in its entirety. They need to learn to atheism.

[Anonymous No.2061077]

>>2061054
I mean 0.00001% certainty that there is no god

Well im talking about our known reality this physical world

I didn't interject I am OP with the 50/50 claim, I am simply saying that you can be on the borderline it is not a dot for theism and the rest of the universe is atheism it is two extremes along an axis

[Anonymous No.2061085]

>>2061067
It's not about professing faith its about having faith

[Anonymous No.2061096]

>>2061085

You profess what you feel.

If you can't honestly say to yourself "I believe in God" you are an atheist. Atheism isn't a boogieman "agnostics" think it is. Many agnostics are atheists too; they simply lack faith-- but they don't know if a god is real or not.

Atheism is a lack of faith. Strong atheism is the kind everybody thinks of when they think of atheism. There is more than one kind of atheism and they mix with agnosticism.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061099]

>>2061017
1) Atheism is the mere LACK of belief in deities.
2) One would only be SIMPLY agnostic if one was 50/50.
3) The neutral position on matter is one of nonexistence.
There are an infinite number of objects, A, that could exist. For the sake of practicality all things that do not have an argument for their existence should be regarded as nonexistent (one would not bet that there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter unless one has a reason to believe so). In statistics within science this is known as the Null Hypothesis, see (>>2060596).
4) One can only be 50/50 if one has both reasons for and against the existence of A.
5) To be an agnostic one must have both reasons to not believe in God AND reasons to believe in God.

What are your reasons for believing in God that elevates it above the infinite number of possible things that may or may not exist, such as leprechauns or a teacup orbiting Jupiter?

[Anonymous No.2061125]

>>2060900
Yes, perfectly. Uniquely perfect. In all ways.

[Anonymous No.2061133]

>>2061077
And I argue here (>>2061099) that to be 50/50 one must have reasoning both ways. Nonexistence is the neutral position for the sake of practicality. One cannot be 50/50 about the infinite number of things that may exist just because one cannot prove that they do not exist.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061156]

>>2061077
And I argue here (>>2061099) that to be 50/50 one must have reasoning both ways. Nonexistence is the neutral position for the sake of practicality. One cannot be 50/50 about the infinite number of things that may exist when one cannot prove that they do not exist.

[Anonymous No.2061159]

>>2061099
>1) Atheism is the mere LACK of belief in deities.
Stopped reading there.
GTFO with this tired bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2061169]

>>2061159

>he's telling wikipedia to gtfo

[Anonymous No.2061206]

>>2061169
>still believes in wikipedia

[Anonymous No.2061220]

>>2061206

>thinks wikipedia has more apocryphal information than himself

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061225]

>>2061159
Latin 101:
"theism" = "belief in deities"
"a" = "without"

Thus, "atheism" = "without belief in deities"

Furthermore, if your definition of atheism does not describe any atheist then it is YOU who is has the detriment in a discussion. Your definition is useless the same way my definition of communists would be useless if I defined communism as the political philosophy of baking cakes every waking hour.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061245]

>>2061159
Latin 101:
"theism" = "belief in deities"
"a" = "without"

Thus, "atheism" = "without belief in deities"

Furthermore, if your definition of atheism does not describe any atheist then it is YOU who has the detriment in a discussion. Your definition is useless the same way my definition of communists would be useless if I defined communism as the political philosophy of baking cakes every waking hour. You single out one group and use your own definition of atheism to tell them why they are incorrect, but because your definition of atheism differs from the definition of actual atheists your argument why atheists are incorrect is unfounded the same way me arguing communism is bad by saying cakes are bad for you.

[Anonymous No.2061249]

>>2061225
You best be joking, nigger. Take a fucking Latin class, before you start trying to teach Latin. The a- goes with the theos. It doesn't go with the -ism. The -ism denotes a doctrine. The doctrine of atheos, or godlessness.

If you're still too fucking dumb to understand how Latin works, look at how all such similarly-constructed words take their meaning.

Just as it's not a-(the-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of God,
but (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.

I know they don't tell you about things like Latin in books like "the God Delusion" and "God is not Great", but what do you expect from limiting yourself to atheist drivel. You can't do that if you want an actual objective rational understanding of things.

[Anonymous No.2061258]

One day, probably not too long from now, Christianity - and every other man-made faith, for that matter, will be left behind. Already, we watch on as faith becomes obsolete as we discover more and more about this amazing universe around us.

[Anonymous No.2061259]

>>2061125
The only thing perfect about is how perfectly it corrupts people and insinuates itself into certain social niches.

The only good thing about bible is how we can research it and see how alien to current civilization the thought patterns of the people that lived millennia ago were.

The most moral human of those times would now likely be called a sociopath at best.

Which speaks volumes about the validity of using the bible as anything else than research material.

[Anonymous No.2061264]

>>2061245
By you're definition, I could be a cosmonaut, just by calling myself a cosmonaut, because the actual definition in the dictionary (or from etymology) doesn't matter, only the fact that I'm calling myself one makes me one, and defines the word by whatever I am.

[Anonymous No.2061267]

here's a simple thought experiment to help clarify athiesm.

Take 2 religions and athiesm, then create a list for each. The list has to give the top 5 atrocities attributed to a person of that belief. You can only add an atrocity if it is born out of the persons religious beliefs. So if you took away their religious beliefs and it is still likely that they would have acted in the same way, the atrocity doesn't count.

For example, 9/11. If the terrorists who flew the planes in to the twin towers were not Muslim, they almost certainly would not have carried out the 9/11 attacks. So if you chose Islam for one of your lists, 9/11 can be added to that list.

A priest who sexually assaulted young boys is likely to have still sexually assaulted young boys even if he wasn't a christian. So pedo priests cannot be added to a christian list.

Once you've created the lists, please explain how you added anything to the athiest list. You cannot 'take away' an athiests religious beliefs, you can only give an athiest religious beliefs.

What's the point I'm trying to make? People don't do bad things because they are an athiest. as there is no athiest dogma that can be used as an excuse to act in a bad way. The same cannot be said of religion, there are many example of religious people acting in a bad way because their religion tells them it's ok.

[Anonymous No.2061270]

>>2057617
>actually thinks Hitler was an atheist

[Anonymous No.2061271]

>Religion thread
>LOL GTFO TROLL
>Argue anyways

[Anonymous No.2061274]

>>2061258

And truly, we are but at a single point in the human experience - which may continue on until the end of time.

People just need to understand the beauty in death.

To become one with the universe, once more.

Much like the stars from which we were birthed, we never truly die.

[Anonymous No.2061284]

>>2061267
Neither Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would have committed their attrocities had they not been atheists. All religions prohibit actions such as those done, and any sort of belief in either karma, or an an accountability after death would further deter them.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061292]

>>2061264
If you are arguing words aren't malleable then I'll point out that you and I both know already that words are indeed malleable. Of course they cannot have drastic shifts in meaning because that isn't culturally feasible. However in the case of atheism we are referring to a relatively minor difference in definition (even though said minor difference has large implications). Your definition of cosmonaut is unfeasibly different from everyone else's definition of cosmonaughts.

Now, when it comes to minor changes it comes down to practicality. Which definition is more practical. I have already argued why it is more practical to use the definition of the group that defines themselves by that definition.

[Anonymous No.2061296]

>>2061284
And they wouldn't have committed their atrocities if there weren't any religion in the first place. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.2061303]

>>2061284
>Neither Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would have committed their attrocities had they not been atheists.
really, so which specific athiest dogma or belief led them to commit those attrocities?

> All religions prohibit actions such as those done, and any sort of belief in either karma, or an an accountability after death would further deter them.
explain 9/11 then
explain the crusades then

[Warden !/XflYWrXB6 No.2061306]

>>2061267
You are aware that religious can order people to do bad? Slaverly is ok as far as the bible is concered.

So what happens when the religion is the motovation and/or means?
Don't pretend nothing would change were religion taken out of the picture.

[Anonymous No.2061307]

>>2061284
>Religious people don't perform genocides

[Anonymous No.2061326]

>>2061284

I asked you to explain how you added anything to the athiest list.

Are you turning them into christians and saying that if they were christian they wouldn't have committed genocide? Christianity has lots of examples of genocide.

Are you turning them into Muslims? Hindus?

What is the religious belief that you are taking away from them to prove that their attrocities are indeed attributed to their "athiestic beliefs"?

[Anonymous No.2061339]

>>2061096
no many atheists are agnostic too.
Many agnostics are neither theist or atheist learn to neutralist.

>>2061099
1. atheism has multiple meanings and as such the definition is vague, agnostic atheism is pretty much what you said except an agnostic atheist with there view of it being more likely that a god doesnt exist. So on average agnostic atheists would take actions using idea God doesnt exist but an agnostic neutralist would either take 50/50 decisions either way or not make a decision at all.
2. I am 50/50
3. incorrect take a neutral view on murder vs a view of 'I dont believe murder is right' (atheism)
The agnostic neutralist view says murder may be right or wrong or neutral I am not in a position to say, while the agnostic atheist says I dont believe murder to be right
4.
for God = it seems as logical (based on knowledge of existence outside our physical reality) as there being no god
against god = I have no proof of god
for no god = it seems as logical as a god
against no god = I have no proof that there is no god
5. see above

leprechauns and jupiter are within our physical reality so can use the scientific method to try and prove or disprove if I wanted to, and using the scientific method on them there is no reason to suggest they exist physically however using the scientific method on God you have no reason to believe he exists with the physical universe but the science cannot be applied to beyond.

[Anonymous No.2061349]

>>2061307

I guess no one told the people who lived in Yugoslavia that. Pity if they knew so many people who not have been subjected to religious genocide there.

[Anonymous No.2061371]

>>2061339

you seem to miss that agnostic neutralist can be either theist or atheist, (there is no middleground between this)

theist can be split up into different types, if you are not agnostic theist, you are one of those types of agnostic atheist.

yes atheists get lumped all together at times and then people falsely label what they think you believe but they are being stupid, end of the day you have to accept it. otherwise fuck off the board and actually learn your definitions properly

[sage No.2061372]

>>2061339
>for God = it seems as logical for God = it seems as logical as there being no god


LMAO, you dont understand logic, do you?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061385]

>>2061339
> I am 50/50

Let's say you and I visit some field neither of us has ever been to before. We come across a rock. I bet you that there is a toy dinosaur under the rock. You obviously will take that bet because there is no reason a toy dinosaur would be under that rock. Your NEUTRAL position would be one of nonexistence. However, if before I made the bet we came across a sign that said "Young Paleontologist Scavanger Hut Bonanza!" you would have a reason to believe there might be a dinosaur under that rock. Because you have a reason to believe you can now say you are 50/50 about whether or not there is a toy dinosaur under the rock.

So, for you to be 50/50 about God you have to have some reason to believe in God. One who has no reasons would take the neutral positon of nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.2061391]

>>2061274

Perhaps our atoms will one day become part of our mother star, and the process will begin all over.

Perhaps our consciousness is tied to the matter which make use of it.

Quatum mechanics of the mind?


Or even the soul?

[Anonymous No.2061396]

>>2061284


>Neither Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would have committed their attrocities had they not been atheists

[Anonymous No.2061471]

>>2061396
0/10

[Anonymous No.2061491]

>>2061303
>>Neither Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would have committed their attrocities had they not been atheists.
>really, so which specific athiest dogma or belief led them to commit those attrocities?
The belief that as long as you murder anyone who would deem to hold you accountable, that it is possible to be forever unaccountable for your actions. This is the most dangerous belief in atheism.

[Anonymous No.2061502]

>>2061371
no the nuetralist part replaces the atheist or theist hence the -ist

[Anonymous No.2061505]

>>2061491
>>2061471
SUBTLETY! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?

[Anonymous No.2061529]

Stop comparing the best in atheists with the worst in Christians and the best in Christians with the worst in atheists.

Dear God I can't believe you guys are this stupid.

[Anonymous No.2061535]

>>2061529

Fucking this.

And yet all other posts in this thread are ignored.

/sci/, I am disappoint.

[Anonymous No.2061537]

>>2061529
this thread is full of stupid, i agree, we need mods to delete these threads

[Anonymous No.2061542]

Well since Everyone here is arguing religion and not subjecting themselves to any practice of objectivity.

Someone please post something with the most logical fallacy's possible. I want to read it and smash my own dick with a hammer. I'll post pics

[Anonymous No.2061557]

>>2061542
God is a scientist

[Anonymous No.2061565]

>>2061557
Not quite there.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061581]

>>2061339
I don't understand your murder argument. Please elaborate.

>it seems as logical
Well then you have a reason for believing that haven't told us. Why would God existing be logical but not a giant cosmic toaster creating the universe not be logical?

That kind of touches on what I have been arguing this entire time. God is one of an infinite number of things that MIGHT exist. Why are you 50/50 on God but not those infinite other things like the Cosmic Toaster?

[Anonymous No.2061582]

>>2061542
http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

[Anonymous No.2061594]

>>2061385
That example probably seems to work for you because you are overlooking the fact that you have extra knowledge (you want to win the bet) if neither had any knowledge of the bet I might be more inclined to being 50/50, however your example fails as an analogy.

0 reason to believe 0 to not believe 0:0 = 50:50
simple maths brah

[Anonymous No.2061602]

>>2061582


Jesus fuck...

[Anonymous No.2061607]

>>2061581
no its that god is among infinite things that might exist outside of the physical universe a cosmic toaster is within the universe so can use scientific method as it is the best we have

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061640]

>>2061594
I have no extra knowledge. We both have no idea what is under the rock. I said that already, but let me just restate the example.

You and I walk into a field NEITHER of us has EVER been to before. We find a rock. I bet you there is a toy dinosaur under the rock. You will take this bet because you have no reason to believe there is a toy dinosaur under that rock. The only reason you might not take the bet is if you had a good reason to believe there is a toy dinosaur under the rock, like if you saw a banner that said "Young Paleontologist Scavenger Hunt Bonanza!".

[Anonymous No.2061651]

Theists are all fucktarded pieces of shit that should be destroyed. No buts.

[Anonymous No.2061670]

>>2057556
Don't give me this pure and utter bullshit about men who have so much fucking money they couldn't spend it in 5000 lifetimes giving it away because they don't know what else to do with it as great examples of charity. Charity is dirty hard work doing things for people simply because you love helping people out. It's going to old folks homes and donating your time to keep a lonely man or woman happy in their later years, it's donating your time even when you're not wealthy to clean up your community, hell it's even taking out the garbage for the woman across the street every day.

Don't shove this bullshit at me that handing out money means charity. Handing out money is worthless. You could give a hundred billion dollars to Africa and it wouldn't mean shit or you could donate your time and energy, even if you have little money of your own, to go help people in your own community who can then help others who can help others until everyone in the world is working together to make this whole world a better place.

[Anonymous No.2061695]

>>2061640
No I have the extra knowledge that you would be trying to win money so you will take what you believe to be a winning bet which will give me a reason not to take the bet

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061700]

>>2061607
Cosmic Toaster is just its name. It has to exist "outside" of the universe because I said it created the universe. :D

[Kvlt Klassik !bIuWb5H.AU No.2061707]

>>2057617

At least those atrocities weren't committed in the name of Atheism.

[Anonymous No.2061739]

>>2057556
Reported. Shame, /sci/ this isn't even remotely connected to science or mathematics yet you cheer on the OP like a fucking idol. I am disappointed.

[Anonymous No.2061742]

>>2061700
What importance does the name have and sure just as likely

[Anonymous No.2061792]

>>2061695
You aren't making any sense dude. I have no extra knowledge. It's just a plane old rock and I have money to burn. Even if I wanted to win the bet I am still on the same footing as you. If is that big of a problem to you then assume the person making the bet is a monk that doesn't want money and is just using it in random ways.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061831]

>>2061742
The name has no importance other than it being a toaster.

So really, you are not 50/50 on God existing because you also admit the Cosmic Toaster might have created the universe. That means you are 33/33/33 on whether God exists, the Cosmic Toaster exists, or if neither exists. You can't be 50/50 for and against each's existence because both are mutually exclusive and your probabilities would add up to 150.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061836]

>>2061792
And I forgot my trip.

[Anonymous No.2061860]

>>2061792
You may or may not have extra knowledge (the sign) and although I don't know if you do or not I have the extra knowledge of knowing you want to make money as who proposes a bet they think they will lose on average.

Its not about you wanting the money in that example I have the knowledge that you must think you have a good chance of winning (or you wouldnt make bet) so unless I had extra knowledge I wouldnt make the bet
tl;dr bad example

[Anonymous No.2061873]

>>2061792
You may or may not have extra knowledge (the sign) . Although I don't know if you do or not I have any extra knowledge. I know you think you can make money as who proposes a bet they think they will lose (on average).

Its not about you wanting the money in that example. I have the knowledge that you must think you have a good chance of winning (or you wouldnt make bet) so unless I had extra knowledge I wouldnt make the bet
tl;dr bad example

[Anonymous No.2061881]

>>2061831
If you think the Creator is in the form of a toaster, that's just a conception of God as a toaster; it's not an alternative to God.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061926]

>>2061860
So assume I don't have any intention on winning the bet. That is why I took me out and put in a monk. You are just avoiding the example. Work with me here. Obviously my intention in making the bet was not a focal point of my example, but you keep making it out as such.

Let me restate the example to diminish your problem with it -

Let's say you and a monk with a lot of money are walking through a field and you come across a rock. The monk doesn't need the money so he is getting rid of it in random ways (HE HAS NO INTENTION TO WIN, TO LOSE, OR ANYTHING; ZERO INTENTION). He bets you that there is a toy dinosaur under the rock. You do want the money. Do you take the bet? Of course you do and you would win because there is no reason there would be a toy dinosaur under the rock. However, if you saw a sign that said "Young Paleontologist Scavenger Hunt Bonanza" you would have a reason to suspect there would be a dinosaur under the rock thus you would have to actually weigh the odds.

Don't over analyze this. There is no intent behind the bet. There is just the bet. If you have no reason to believe there is a toy dinosaur under the rock then any water be it 10:1, 1:1, or 1:10 you would take if you had any sense. However if there was an actual reason to believe there is a toy dinosaur under the rock (like if there was the aforementioned sign) then you wouldn't take any odds, you would have to weight the chances.

[Anonymous No.2061959]

>>2061926
ye but thats only because I have the extra knowledge that dinosaurs arn't common who knows whats common outside physical universe

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062005]

>>2061881
>If you think the Creator is in the form of a toaster, that's just a conception of God as a toaster; it's not an alternative to God.
I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that no, a toaster creating the universe is not the same as God creating the universe. God is not defined as ANYTHING that has created the universe. God has specific characteristics, like intelligence, moral perfection, and omnipotence. The Cosmic Toaster is not intelligent, it is not morally perfect, and it can only create universes and toast.

There are an infinite number of made up things I could propose as the source of the universe that aren't God. If you believe that the existence of God is 50/50 without any reasoning then you must also believe all the other infinite number of things that could exist are 50/50, but they can't all be 50/50. Given that there are an infinite number of options the probability of each of them existing is zero unless you have a reason God is more likely than the infinite number of other things that might exist.

I'm not trying to convert you or anything like that, I'm simply trying to make you understand where I am coming from when I say nonexistence is the neutral position. The way I see it is that one has to have a reason for something to exist before they should assign it a probability of existence other than zero. Do you at least see where I am coming from?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062064]

>>2061959
Fine, then lets consider "outside the universe" to be the "rock" and instead of a dinosaur I say a yellow square. Or how about a Motorola cell phone? Or what about a dodecahedron? Or how about instead of calling it anything at all we will just call it some as of yet undefined thing A. Do you follow?

So, lets say we have the capability of finding out what is under the "rock" by looking outside of the universe. Anything that is not logically inconsistent COULD be out there, right? We have no experience with the outside of the universe so anything that is possible could be out there.

So, I can define anything as A, right? That means there are an infinite number of options of A. Given that we have no reason to believe one over the another since we have no evidence for one over another each has an equal probability. Well the probability of something being true for N number of equally probable options is P=1/N. Because we have an infinite number of options the probability of any one option (God included) is equal to zero.

THE NEUTRAL POSITION IS ONE OF NONEXISTENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE!

[Anonymous No.2062073]

>>2062005
then a cosmic toaster is not an alternative to god or no god, but rather has its own existence whether there is a cosmic toaster or not which I would also be 50/50 on.
So while we differ on what is a god or not (I would say the toaster would be god) I am still 50/50

>The way I see it is that one has to have a reason for something to exist before they should assign it a probability of existence other than zero. Do you at least see where I am coming from?
I see but to me you sound too hung up on convential religions and not theism as a whole, I am not trying to assign it a probability other than zero but am arguing that it is retarded to try and give either side probabilities

[me !7HAMu23nPc No.2062079]

>>2062064
Just chiming in here, anything outside the universe must have no physical traits...

[Anonymous No.2062089]

>>2062064
but N/N:N/N = 50:50

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062092]

>>2062073
>then a cosmic toaster is not an alternative to god or no god, but rather has its own existence whether there is a cosmic toaster or not which I would also be 50/50 on.
No, the two are mutually exclusive because only one of them could have created the universe. The definitions of both are different and they are mutually exculsive so you have to assign each equal probability or you have to have a reason to favor one over the other. If you don't have such a reason then the probability of God/Toaster/Neither becomes 33/33/33.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.2062102]

>>2062089
woops I meant
1/N:1/N
god:no god
0:0
50:50

[Anonymous No.2062112]

>>2062092
unless you now consider the toaster to be god which I would
toaster/god:no god
1:1

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062124]

>>2062089
One thing I forgot to add was that we are only looking at what created the universe. Only one thing can be true. God is one of an N number of options that could explain the universe. Unless you have a reason to say God is more likely than the other options they all have the same probability of being true. Because N=infinity the probability of any one option drops to zero.

P is the probability of any option x.
N is the number of possible options.
P=1/N

If N=infinity, then for any x, P=0.

[Anonymous No.2062146]

>>2062124
yes but what if u consider anything which created the universe to be god then ur reasoning doesnt get u anywhere

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062167]

>>2062112
You are defining God to be anything that has created the universe. That isn't the definition of God. By your definition of God atheists are theists because both believe the universe was exists.

ANY philosopher or theologian will tell you that God is defined to be an intelligence that created the universe, is perfectly moral, and is omnipotent. If that isn't what you thought the definition of God was then you might not be what you think you are, eg theist/atheist/agnostic.

[Anonymous No.2062194]

>>2062167
sorry gtg Il be back, good point tho but I can explain

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062199]

>>2062146
Then that isn't God. I'm currently taking a philosophy class on God (not by choice) and my professor has outright said that God is defined as an intelligent being that is omnipotent and perfectly moral and that anything that does not meet that criteria would not be God by standards of any philosopher or theologian. This man god a PhD studying God.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062209]

>>2062146
Then that isn't God. I'm currently taking a philosophy class on God (not by choice) and my professor has outright said that God is defined as an intelligent being that is omnipotent and perfectly moral and that anything that does not meet that criteria would not be God by the standards of any philosopher or theologian. This man got a PhD studying God.

[me !7HAMu23nPc No.2062237]

>>2062209
What the hell makes him so right?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062262]

>>2062237
There is a well established definition of God. If one is going to discuss this stuff then there have to be set definitions. Obviously the current definition of God is what people go into theological discussion assuming is what everyone will mean when the use the word God. If someone doesn't like that definition then they should state their definition from the very beginning. The discussion is meaningless if one redefines words randomly.

[Anonymous No.2062273]

>warren buffet
>bill gates
>good

[me !7HAMu23nPc No.2062280]

>>2062262
That's like saying everyone has their own definition of the word banana. Half the problem is that noone knows what the fuck they are talking about. If you use your brain, then you can easily deduce the existence of a creator. Then you will know why the word God was invented. Before that moment, God could be anything.

[Anonymous No.2062295]

> billionaires who are giving away all their money upon their deaths
>have had important parts in advancing technology and other important crap
i guarantee you they both did more for humanity than you ever will

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2062298]

>>2062280
>That's like saying everyone has their own definition of the word banana.
I didn't fucking say everyone has their own defintion of any word. I said there is ONE well established definition of God. That is the opposite of what you said I said.

I'm done with this thread. I've wasted enough of my time arguing this shit. I must have a mental problem.

[me !7HAMu23nPc No.2062324]

>>2062298
Bullshit. Definitions come from a source. The problem is, not everyone has seen God. You think people make up definitions of God for fun? No. First they witness God, then try to describe him.