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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 22 KB, 339x526, Marius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2118700 No.2118700 [Reply] [Original]

Humans were not any less intelligent 5,000 years ago, when the Egyptian pyramids were built. The human mind was not too different than it is today. Humans back then were simply less advanced and less knowledgeable, but knowledge =/= intelligence.

That being said, does ANYONE else find it at least somewhat odd that many of these ancient peoples like the Egyptians were so sure of an afterlife? I mean the writings and meanings on pyramid walls and the whole ritual of actually preparing the Pharaoh for an afterlife is really weird to me. Why would people, who are no less intelligent than we are today, believe in such a thing? Something must have led them to a conclusion of 'afterlives,' because they had no precedent set for them to believe in such nonsense (or is it?).

I mean nowadays we can simply say people are religious because religion was around for years, and they've sort of been brainwashed into it. They've been taught by their parents, who have been taught by their parents, etc etc.

But what about the first people, the early peoples? Almost every culture, even isolated cultures in Oceania, had something involving an afterlife. Why, what would possibly lead humans as intelligent as they are today to believe something like that?

>> No.2118707

Because they couldn't explain the world around them as well as we can.

>> No.2118710

nobody wants to die

we all know we're going to die

so we deny

>> No.2118715

>>2118707
that still doesn't really lead them to the conclusion of an afterlife.

>> No.2118734

>>2118715
it leads to a mystical conclusion, and everybody loves a happy ending, nobody wants to believe that they just cease to exist after they die.

>> No.2118745

>>2118715
You expect unbiased answers from atheists?

Crazy...

>> No.2118752 [DELETED] 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and inject some OC into sci.

Body needs a mechanism to keep you from eating poisonous berries and dehydrating yourself by splattering diarrhea all over the place, so it develops 'cause', so we associate the bitter red berries with feeling bad, and avoid them.

This trips up though when we attribute cause where there is none, aka superstition. Dancing in a certain way makes it rain, whatever. But in order for our dancing to mean anything, there has to be something that is watching to see if we do the dance right, so its a short hop from karma/our actions have consequences, to, there is someone watching us.

If there are sentient things watching us, meteing out karma, its not much of a leap to think this/these spirits are sentient people that have died, and thats where we'll go when we die, we'll turn into a butterfly spirit or something. There you can branch off into reincarnation.

>> No.2118761

>>2118715
Because they were stupid back then and religion likes to play on that. Since were we go when we die was the big question it makes sense why they would think of an afterlife

>> No.2118762

>>2118734

That's not a happy ending. That's no ending at all.

Personally I'm glad I'm not going to be the plaything of an omnipotent asshole for all time.

>> No.2118768
File: 88 KB, 640x356, 310NiggaPlease.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2118768

Why they believed what the believed can't really be decided by you, anon, me, or anyone else for that matter. Maybe they didn't believe that such a complex world could be spontaneous. Maybe they believed that death couldn't be the end for a species so great.

>> No.2118771

>>2118745
Atheists have the least amount of things messing with there brain so the things they say should be the least biased

>> No.2118774

I'm going to laugh my incorporeal ass off when we find out that consciousness cannot be destroyed and it simply moves to another plane of existence when one plane ends.

>> No.2118780

>>2118761
>because they were stupid back then

You're confusing knowledge with intelligence. The human brain isn't really different from 5,000 years ago. We still think almost the same. Sure we have more knowledge now, but not intelligence.

>> No.2118781

As you said it,lack of knowledge (well,you didn't exactly said it,but i guess you understand me)

>> No.2118782

>>2118774
Then it looks like you will never laugh

>> No.2118784

>>2118771
>bias

>> No.2118790

>>2118774
I consider this a possibility, maybe inevitability.

Just not for the reasons others have postulated.

>> No.2118793

>>2118780
are brain was the same size but environment plays the biggest part in it and since people today believe in an after life it makes sense why dumber people would as well

>> No.2118801

But again, knowledge has no impact on intelligence or coming to conclusions.

>> No.2118814

>>2118771
If you call thinking scientifically biased then thinking in a scientific bias is always good

>> No.2118823

>>2118801
yes it does, unknowledged people will come up with a different conclusion because they dont have the correct data to make a good enough conclusion

>> No.2118835

we know that life exists when we're alive.

we can't imagine nonexistence, it's impossible.

thus we imagine a new existence. That assumption may not be incorrect or illogical if we think about it a bit.

>> No.2118843

>>2118823
That's true, when regarding the topic specific to the knowledge.

We don't have any knowledge to support or disprove an afterlife hypothesis, yet most scientists easily don't believe in it. And the ancient peoples didn't have that kind of knowledge either, or so we think. Why else would that conclusion be made?

Understanding the universe, cells, atoms, or anything else still doesn't help you argue afterlife in anyway.

>> No.2118865

Being brought up in an environment where thinking is encouraged, people have an extraordinary amount of free time and having access to an abundance of nutrients while the brain's developing might have a big effect on the individual's level of intelligence. I don't think our genetic similarities are enough to draw a valid conclusion that they were as intelligent as we are today.

>> No.2118896
File: 8 KB, 252x157, brainfail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2118896

It doesn't matter how intelligent you are if you don't have enough information to decide.

In times when you couldn't learn anything that wasn't a result of direct observation, tradition, or things learnt in your family, it was probably hard to deny any kind religious concept, basically, because although you didn't have any evidence to support it, nor did you to invalidate it rationally.

Actually, i think that's still the fundamental reason we follow most traditions.

>> No.2118902

>Atheistfaggots fail to realize that morality can only exist in absence of strong law-enforcement when people are scared of the laws... Thus law-enforcement in historic times was god. Profit (prophet?) motive was safe afterlife.

>> No.2118907

>>2118752
Did anyone even read my post? Was it not clear what I was trying to say?

>> No.2118909

>>2118700
Because they were less knowledgable

>> No.2118911

>>2118907
It was clear that you were an idiot trying to apply Darwinian evolution to Human psyche.

>> No.2118915

>>2118902
Bitches don't know bout my precommitment to an insane drive for revenge

>> No.2118926

Why choose 5000? Why not 50,000 when we were just as smart with tech just as low?

>> No.2118929

OP, you just said that knowledge is not intelligence, and then you go on to talk about why intelligent people would have faulty knowledge.
Consider this: from the egyptians apparently intelligent perspective the idea of the "afterlife" was logical to them.

>> No.2118933

They were visited by extra terrestrials...not trying to troll. That's my honest opinion, it explains many things.

>> No.2118936

>>2118929
Or, the upper classes were just using these beliefs as tools to control the lower classes: which you also mentioned in your post.
The answers to your own questions are already in your post.

>> No.2118947

Most of the time, especially with religions like Egypt, it was a state religion. So people were basically raised to believe the religion without question, that their king was god-incarnate. This was also very common in Mesopotamia, but was really prominent with Egyptian society.

>> No.2118950

The belief in FUCKING MAGIC is found in more cultures than the belief in an afterlife.

>> No.2118968

>>2118911
>he doesn't know about neo-darwinian synthesis

>> No.2118972

>>2118801
>knowledge
>no impact on coming to conclusions
Excuse me, but... what?
Intelligence is used to piece together knowledge to form a conclusion.

>>2118843
>Gee, I sure wonder what lightning is
>It's Zeus having a fit!
>No wait, it's actually an electrical discharge

>Gee, I sure wonder what our place in the universe is
>We're at the center of it all, ofcourse
>No wait, we're actually not in any place special at all

>Gee, I sure wonder where such diverse wildlife came from
>God did it, ofcourse
>No wait, it's actually reproduction with slight variations taking place over hundreds of millions of years

Seeing a trend here? Thanks to scientific progress we are nowadays less likely to believe in unsubstantiated, preconcieved notions, and more likely to just admit we don't know something in the first place.

And so, we get this:
>Gee, I sure wonder what happens when you die
>You get reincarnated/go to heaven/go to hell ofcourse
>[Citation needed]

>> No.2118976

>>2118968
Whats that?

>> No.2118981

Intelligence =/= religion

Troll statement aside, I'll bite.

They didn't have anything else to go on, so they thought of furry yiff gods to explain what they didn't understand.
As for afterlife, even now, people have experiences where they believe they've seen heaven. We can't quite explain it. Was it just a hallucination of what the person has been taught will happen when they die?
It's better to wonder than assault others for having their own theory, but this is the internet.

>> No.2119003

>>2118976
Its the "intellectual" way of assuming how things happened.. i.e. Without proof we have arguments that make sense to proletarians.

>> No.2119004

>>2118972
those earlier examples aren't even nearly comparable to the last one

>> No.2119016

>>2119003
So would you care to actually critique what I wrote?

>> No.2119024

>>2118902
thats not how morals come about at all

>> No.2119034

>>2119004
They're all a case of superstition and belief substituting a gap in knowledge, how are they not comparable?

>> No.2119035

>>2119024
Gentlemen! We have a "Neo-Darwinist" around who will now give us a exposition of how Morals came about with his baseless arguments! Go ahead good sir! We are listening intently...

>> No.2119040

The answer to your question is that atheism isn't brought about by intelligence, or that superstitious belief is brought about by lack of it.
Your atheism isn't a product of your intelligence.

>> No.2119045

>>2119040
It's correlated though.

>> No.2119052

>>2119034
because the first 3 examples could all be applied to the scientific method in order to be solved, while the last example cannot.

>> No.2119054

The reason an afterlife used to sound plausible is that we didn't know that the brain is a physical object which acts as our control centre.

Nowadays the concept doesn't make any sense, but it still hangs around cos of tradition.

>> No.2119065

>>2119035
morals come from the environment and you dont need to believe your going to go to hell to not be a jerk to people.
It explains why some people give there seats to elderly while riding a bus.

>> No.2119073

>>2119054
>used to sound plausible
It's still plausible to well over half the Human population.
>we didn't know that the brain is a physical object which acts as our control centre
What does that have to do with anything? And I'm pretty sure we knew it was a physical object.
>Nowadays the concept doesn't make any sense, but it still hangs around cos of tradition.
Why doesn't it makes sense? Actually it makes perfect sense. It's just not backed up by scientific evidence, which is why the scientific community in general looks down on it.

>> No.2119074

>>2119065
People who think that morals come from religion must be puzzled by Northern Europe, which by all accounts has some of the happiest and most good-natured people in the world and yet is 80% atheist.

>> No.2119077
File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1226907054080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2119077

>>2118700
Imagine for a moment that there was a universe before ours that had choices much like our own and had outcomes which dictated our development. What if time moved backwards there? WHAT IF WE ARE STUCK IN A LOOP?

We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment. We are choosing to be here right now, hold on stay inside this body holding me reminding me that I am not alone in this body holding me. Feeling eternal all this pain is an illusion.

What if what comes after actually came before???

>> No.2119078

>>2119073
The concept of an afterlife is that "my mind goes somewhere else when I die".

But now we know that the mind is just an abstraction from the brain. If the brain stops, there is no longer a mind.

Cmon this isn't rocket science

>> No.2119080

>>2119074
were they always so?

>> No.2119081

>>2119045
Doesn't mean a thing. It's probably correlated because richer societies tend to be more atheistic and richer societies also tend to have more intelligent people in them. The cause of atheism is more to do with modern lifestyles than intelligence.

>> No.2119082

>>2119040
Is that why more intelligent people tend to be atheist?

>> No.2119092

>>2119081
I didn't make any claim about what the causal connection is. You're jumping at shadows.

>> No.2119093

>>2119081
smart people are less violent

>> No.2119100

>>2119080
They've been highly atheist for long enough that if they were going to descend into an orgy of baby-eating they would have done so already.

I find your implication quite offensive. I've always been atheist and I move in mostly atheist circles. I have morals. That should be the end of the discussion.

>> No.2119105

>>2119092
Well then what is the point of your post. What meaning does this correlation have if there is no causal connections. It doesn't show that intelligence leads to atheism, which was my original point.

>> No.2119112

>>2119105
Calm down bro, no need to get all insecure
I'm sure you're a perfectly intelligent religifag

>> No.2119114

>>2119105
untrue atheist have higher IQs on average

>> No.2119120

93% of all NAS scientists are atheists

Intelligence DOES cause atheism.

There is also a strong correlation with poverty and religious belief too.

>> No.2119122

>>2119105

Sounds like a butthurt Theist.

>> No.2119129

>>2119120
and a strong correlation with intelligence and antisocial behavior, and a strong correlation with psychopathy and atheism.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying that some true generalizations can bite us in the ass.

>> No.2119135

I think the concept of an afterlife is natural, it's a way of getting people to do things against their interests by saying that they'll get a reward "later".

But as already pointed out, it only makes sense if you are a body inhabited by a soul that will go somewhere else after you die. We now know that this isn't true, we're physical robots designed by evolution.

I have no idea how people can still believe in an afterlife, I guess they just haven't thought about it much.

>> No.2119136

>>2119112
>>2119122
I'm an atheist, seems like you are the guys being irrational.
>>2119114
I haven't argued against that. I'm just saying that intelligence doesn't cause atheism, which is why our intelligent ancestors need not be as atheistic as we are. What I am trying to say is that intelligence really does have a minimal effect on your beliefs as compared to social conditioning. Society had to develop for centuries in a certain direction before you could ever hold the notion that you are "intelligent enough to be atheist."

>> No.2119140

Sure is a lot of [citation needed] in this thread.

As someone has mentioned, knowledge =/= intelligence.

Therefore, how come atheism wasn't nearly as popular in the early days? I think that makes the whole argument of 'the more intelligent you are the more likely you are atheist' invalid.

Since these days more than half of the worlds writers, scientists, philosophers and politicians in some parts are atheists, shouldn't that be true back in the day? But we know it's not.

>> No.2119141

less knowledge of the world, as you said

>> No.2119147

>>2119136
It's true that atheism is the only rational religious position. But rationality isn't the same thing as intelligence.

A lot of religious people know perfectly well that their position isn't rational, they take it on "faith". They can still be perfectly intelligent while doing this, it just means that they have chosen not to apply reason to a certain part of their life.

>> No.2119156

>>2119147
A sensible thought after a lot of time... We think alike in this respect.

>> No.2119172

>>2119147
>A lot of religious people know perfectly well that their position isn't rational, they take it on "faith". They can still be perfectly intelligent while doing this, it just means that they have chosen not to apply reason to a certain part of their life.

I'm sure they have plenty of "reasons" that make sense to their capable minds for believing what they do.

>>2119140

>Since these days more than half of the worlds writers, scientists, philosophers and politicians in some parts are atheists, shouldn't that be true back in the day? But we know it's not.

Most intellectuals and academics (present and past) are simply dogmatic advocates of the prevailing popular thought.

>> No.2119173

The things about people who are science nerds and religion and the after life is that these things are not scientific and thus you reject them. These are philosophical questions and you can't prove there is not an afterlife. You guys can't apply any scientific reasoning to this subject so you automatically reject it. People who believe in an afterlife are just as justified as people who do not. As a matter of fact I would consider you dumber because you decide to believe in the most depressing most hopeless outcome.
>>2119114
People pulling made up statistics out of their ass. If this is true it's only because more dumb people are religious not because less smart people are. Averages don't mean shit.

>> No.2119174

>>2119052
>more likely to just admit we don't know something in the first place.

I highlighted my point, because you seem to have missed it. We are more comfortable with admitting we don't know something nowadays.
It's a case of the progress of scientific knowledge doing away with supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.
People no longer feel the need to have a make-believe explanation for something they don't know, we take things on evidence.

>> No.2119204

>>2119173
>People who believe in Santa Claus are just as justified as people who do not. As a matter of fact I would consider you dumber because you decide to believe in the most depressing most hopeless outcome.

Depressing to you =/= Depressing to everyone
Not believing something there is no evidence for =/= Dumb

>> No.2119205

>>2118762
>>2118762
>>2118762

I used to think that. My reasoning was:

"If I end up going to heaven as a muslim, I know all of my christian friends will be doomed to hell, most of my family, my girlfriend etc etc. I wouldn't be at peace in my death unless they were there with me. I don't want to go to heaven without them"

then i realised after 5 minutes in hell i'd regret my decision. don't say for one minute you'd prefer hell or non-existence to being the

"plaything of an omnipotent asshole for all time"

agnostic btw, i never had any real faith in islam and neither did the rest of my family. it was just a thought i was playing with.

>> No.2119210

>>2118801
>>2118801

retard

intelligence without knowledge is useless, knowledge without intelligence is fucking dangerous.

>> No.2119211

>>2119140
people are smarter today then they ever have which explains it
>>2119173
understanding that you should not believe in something without proof explaining why people who like science are most of the time atheist

>> No.2119217

>>2119204
The difference is that we know for a fact that Santa Claus is an untrue entity. Beliefs have been around since as early as we can remember and nobody can justly say with 100% certainty that there is no god. If you pay attention sure most religions have ridiculous entities called gods that explain natural phenomena but what about the creation of the universe and how there is an end to the universe. Most religions have these things in common but there is no reason for them to have thought about them because it plays no role in their every day life.

>> No.2119221

>>2119217
You cant be 100% sure that there is no Santa

>> No.2119230

>>2119205
Agnostic here too but I like to believe the Catholic moral code. Also the thought of a God dying for your sins doesn't sound too bad to me.

>> No.2119232

Clarifying myself in this post: >>2119172
>I'm sure they have plenty of "reasons" that make sense to their capable minds for believing what they do.

My point being that religious people DO apply reason to this part of their lives just as much as an atheistic person. I'm an atheist and I think it's quite humorous and ironic that atheists are the champions of "reason", as though "reason" had recently been discovered. "Reason" is, historically, the ability to accept and remember all the rationalizations for the culturally passed down beliefs of societies' dogmas: this applies to old religious societies and newer more atheistic ones. It's ironic because many atheists seem to think they are bringing in a new age of "reason" when all they are doing is carrying on the legacy of their supposedly unreasonable ancestors.

Religious beliefs were once the most useful beliefs to have and so the most reasonable people in society accepted them. Now science and atheism is a more useful view, and so the most reasonable people will accept that. It's not that religious people aren't less logical, it's that they are old-fashioned.

Truly, all intellectual breakthroughs are made by the most unreasonable people in society: by those that go against the grain. To quote Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

>Most intellectuals and academics (present and past) are simply dogmatic advocates of the prevailing popular thought.

My point here has hopefully been elaborated by the above, but I will say this: fashion (intellectual fashion as much as clothing) will ALWAYS have a much more dominant role in the psyche of all humans that "reason" ever has or will.

>> No.2119238

>>2119221
Sure I can. There is documented history that Santa was based off of an actual person and the fact that if I were when I was 5 years old to wake up and to walk into the living room I would see my parents and not santa. Try harder.

>> No.2119246

>>2119211
>understanding that you should not believe in something without proof explaining why people who like science are most of the time atheist

But there are proofs for theism. Plenty of them. The only thing that makes them less valid today than they were yesterday is that they aren't as convincing as they used to be. Science is very convincing these days (and that's no detriment whatsoever).

>> No.2119250

>>2119232
I am religious and I am not dumb. The only thing I dislike about atheism is how some go around ridiculing religions and saying atheism is fact. Atheism requires just as much faith as believing in a god in my opinion. I am glad though that some atheists recognize this and are tolerant of religions.

>> No.2119254

>>2119238
just like god you cant be 100% sure even though you would still be wrong and stupid to believe in it.
There is a chance that they were wrong and that santa is real, but they dont want you to know so that way they can keep all the gifts for themselves

>> No.2119261

>>2119254
That makes absolutely no sense.

>> No.2119266

>>2119250
not being intolerant but atheism is based off of not using faith. so no it doesnt take faith

>> No.2119274

>>2119232

No, look up the age of enlightenment.

"Reason" refers to the scientific method, rationalism and empiricism, which were definitely NOT part of intellectual discourse beforehand, which was why religion escaped debunking.

>> No.2119276

>>2119266
You don't understand what faith is. Faith is just believing something without a doubt that is not 100% proven. That is what faith is. Atheism is not based off of not using faith, it is based off of not believing in god.

>> No.2119277

>>2119261
Yes it does, there could be a Santa but he doesnt like you so doesnt give you presents and eveyone feels bad for you and says he is not real.
my point is that you should never be 100% sure of anything but yet you still should not believe in something just because there is a small possibility of something.

>> No.2119278
File: 64 KB, 600x416, russels teapot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2119278

>>2119250

Atheism is a skeptical position. It does not require faith to be skeptical, in fact they are polar opposites.

>> No.2119280

>>2119266
You can have faith that the stock market will crash in the next month while millions of human factors can change that outcome.

>> No.2119281

>>2119276
well yea but you dont need faith to not believe in something without proof

>> No.2119283

>>2119250
Nah, i'm not tolerant of religion. I think it's a useless artefact that needs to be gotten rid of just as much as racism, not because it's irrational but because it has no place in modern life or in our future. Not that old form of judeo-christian religion anyway.
I don't despise religious people at all, in fact it's probably healthy to have some opposition to new beliefs in society so that change doesn't come too quickly and with twice the amount of consequences.

>> No.2119290

faith is using something that is not logic to base choices on

>> No.2119291

>>2119217
>we know for a fact that Santa Claus is an untrue entity.
Judging by the feats Santa Claus is supposed to accomplish, we can safely assume he is just as supernatural as any god. If he is supernatural he can't be defined by any natural means, he is by definition beyond our understanding.
So we know Santa Clause is an untrue entity with just as much certainty as any god. The only reason for not believing in either is because there is no evidence for either.

>nobody can justly say with 100% certainty that there is no god
Russel's Teapot. That is no reason at all to believe that there is one.

>it plays no role in their every day life.
It plays a huge role in how we see ourselves and what our roles in life are, which shapes society. In ancient times, claiming divine origin would make you able to claim power. The question of origin has always been a big question in every culture. What's your point, if I may ask?

>> No.2119292

>>2119281
Faith is the act of believing something without proof.
So yeah to believe something without proof requires faith. Take away the religious connotations.

>> No.2119293
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1288652711080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2119293

Waitaminute guise....

How do we know that the scientific method is foolproof? That it is de facto right?

>> No.2119298

>>2119274
>"Reason" refers to the scientific method, rationalism and empiricism, which were definitely NOT part of intellectual discourse beforehand, which was why religion escaped debunking.

Of course we call it "Reason" now: this is the age of branding and copyright after all. Old societies might have had reason in them but they didn't have our registered trademark "Reason"!

>> No.2119300

>>2119293

Methods are not correct or incorrect.

Science produces results. Religion does not. Science wins.

>> No.2119301

>>2119293
>implying a general scientific method exists

>> No.2119309

>>2119250
>Not believing in unicorns requires just as much faith as believing in unicorns in my opinion.

>> No.2119312

>>2119298

Except it is neither a brand nor a trademark. Analogy fail.

>> No.2119320

>>2118700

Why? If I may offer a one word answer: control.

For instance a lot of the Jewish traditions were based around logical things such as don't eat pork (prone to passing on serious illness if not prepared properly), circumcise (arid deserts environments where washing daily was not an option for most people).

The religious hierarchies in many faiths have all added their own views to doctrine at various times and it's all about controlling people.

>> No.2119323

>>2119300

>results
You are contradicting yourself.... You are measuring th performance of a method by results.. Thus its "correctness" is quantitative.

So basically you have answered my question...

What I am asking is why do you think that the scientific method can answer all questions?

>> No.2119324

>>2119320

Hence the support for autocracy and fascism. Opiate of the masses, through and through.

>> No.2119326

I think that this is the Age of Reason or something like that. Reason has always existed, but this is the first time that people think it's a good idea to apply reason to EVERYTHING.

To the guy saying religious people use reason: no, they really don't. A tiny minority pretend that they do, and that's when you get things like creationism, NDE, Virgin Marys in toast, etc.

Most religious people act on "faith". Faith being the opposite of reason. It is simply extremely important to their identity to not apply reason to this topic.

>> No.2119330

>>2119301
Yes it exists.. It goes as:

Observe -> Hypothesize -> Experiment -> Theorize -> Repeat.

Don't be a jerk and ask me the meaning of each term...

>> No.2119333

>>2119291
Ok im going to respond to your first two points.
We know Santa Claus is an untrue entity because we know someone made him up. We do not know this of any religious entity. The reason we believe in a god is because we cannot prove that somebody made up god. It is a belief that has been ingrained in society since day 1.

For your third point the point I was trying to make is that almost EVERY religion has some sort of creation story and an end of the world. Now your point of how it may have been used to gain power could be valid but what is the probability that every religion around the world used the same strategy to gain power around the world? Also What use is their to an end of the world? According to atheists religions where used to explain natural phenomena but why would they need a end to the world?

>> No.2119336

>>2119312
Only it is. It's not a difficult point i'm making: older societies had just as much reasons for their beliefs as we do now: because there always had to be something to content and quiet the skeptics inherent in societies that needed concrete "proofs".
So we have had reasons for millenia, but we've only had (the age of) "Reason" and "the enlightenment" for a few centuries. It's not because we suddenly became more reasonable: it's because it made us much more rich and comfortable, so we gave it such a grand title out of smugness and satisfaction with our new dogmas, our new "Reason".

>> No.2119338

>>2119320
If Jews don't eat pork because its dangerous if undercooked, why do they eat chicken? Its dangerous as well. Any why not eat shellfish? Because some people are allergic?

>> No.2119343

>>2119323

Because never in the history of the world has a natural explanation been replaced by a supernatural one.

>> No.2119344

>>2119323
because not using science is as good as guessing

>> No.2119348

>>2119333
>We know Santa Claus is an untrue entity because we know someone made him up. We do not know this of any religious entity.

Sorry, this is completely false. We understand in great detail the evolution of various god concepts. I'm guessing you're a Christian, in which case you may not want to know that Christianity is a natural mishmash of previous religious traditions.

>> No.2119355

>>2119344
.....

i hate when this happens.. I ask a serious question and people asnwer idiotically.

>> No.2119356

>>2119309
You guys fail to understand this. Unicorns are proven to not exist because you can go around the world and not find one. Try doing the same for a god. You can't because it is impossible to prove that a god does not exist.

>> No.2119365

>>2119355
science has shown to work and until we find something better (which would use science to do) then we would use that and that would be the new way we look at things scientifically

>> No.2119367

>>2119356
>Unicorns are proven to not exist because you can go around the world and not find one.

You're an idiot. What if the unicorn is hiding from you at every turn? What if it's an invisible unicorn? What if it lives on another planet?

Here's the deal. When you're born, you don't believe in gods, and you don't believe in unicorns.

The only reason you should START believing in gods or unicorns is if you're presented with evidence that they exist. There is no such evidence, for either gods or unicorns.

>> No.2119373

>>2119336

Listen, shithead. Science does not consist of dogma. I am aware that it may be difficult for you to concieve of something that does not rely on arguments from misleading authority, but science consists of competing explanations. When one is disproved, it is rejected despite support for it. When one is validated it is accepted no matter how unpalatable.

You'll note physics, for example, has changed tremendously since the days of Newton. Science makes the advances it does precisely because it is skeptical, questioning and pursues truth and hard evidence over orthodoxy. When religion sends people to the moon, you will have grounds to question the superiority of the scientific method. When prayer heals amputees, when the worlds' suffering is cured by divine intervention rather than the work of humanity.

But that won't happen, because it has been evident for some centuries that religion is bunk.

>> No.2119375

>>2119356
how do you know that unicorns dont live underground or they are invisible

>> No.2119376

>>2119338

Shellfish are scavengers, thus eat scum and can cause serious illness, just as pigs are inherently filthy animals. It was easier not to eat them.

On the other hand, chickens are nowhere near as filthy and are easy to prepare.

Any more questions?

>> No.2119378

>>2119355
Stop being a tripfag then

>> No.2119379

>>2119348
I went to a Catholic college where I had to study theology. We went over every one of these topics. Catholicism has pagan influences only because the early believers were mostly pagan converts. Catholicism is pure Judaism with Jesus Christ. Btw, I am agnostic, I only believe in a supreme being and hopefully an afterlife.

>> No.2119381

>>2119356

We've checked the clouds dude. Neither heaven nor god is up there.

You've been swindled.

>> No.2119384

>>2119379
Why? What evidence do you have that there's a supreme being?

Don't you understand that the concept of an afterlife doesn't even make sense now that we know that we're physical robots?

>> No.2119386

>>2119379
There were many jesuses before jesus that jesus was based on

>> No.2119387

>>2119373
You obviously can't handle a religious debate. Nobody in here is a troll. Also science does not prove atheism.

>> No.2119389

>>2119378
Happy?

The real problem is this:

Why is the scientific method more valuable than faith alone?

Is it due to its Reproducibility?

>> No.2119393

>>2119375

ALL HAIL THE INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN!

>> No.2119394

>>2119386
That isn't an argument Jesus has been proven to exist in many non-biased non-christian texts.

>> No.2119395

>>2119375
I don't you just proved your own argument wrong btw.

>> No.2119397
File: 14 KB, 248x262, 1231708531148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2119397

>>2119393
HAIL!!!

>> No.2119399

>>2119389

You have the gall to say that while using a godless, magic-devoid computer?

Science's criterion for good explanations is evidence. Evidence trumps faith because faith is not necessarily related to reality, whereas evidence IS.

>> No.2119401

>>2119389
Scientific method does not prove atheism. Everybody would be atheist then. Trust me if atheism was proven do you think anyone would waste time praying to a god?

>> No.2119403

>>2119395
My argument is that you cant prove that unicorns are not real, but since there is very little proof that they are real you should not believe in them.
just like god

>> No.2119406

>>2119394
im talking about the magic parts

>> No.2119409

>>2119401

Um, because they have never read any of the arguments for atheism, or assume god 'transcends logic', ie still exists while making no fucking sense

>> No.2119410

>>2119401
yes because people dont like using logic, science states that you should not believe in things without proof so by that science has proved atheism to be right

>> No.2119415

>>2119399
>>2119401
Now I have two guys thinking that I am a theist and an atheist...

I have made no claims... i have just put forth a question:

Why is scientific method method better:

Dude 1: Because it is grounded in reality..

My answer: but reality KNOWN to us.. Does it mean that it is universally applicable? can be apply science to phenomena that are NOT reproducible?

Dude 2: Science does not prove atheism.
My answer: neither does it credit theism...

Need better answers guys... Be serious and give me your best.. I am listening...

>> No.2119419

>>2119415

All phenomena are reproducible.

>> No.2119423

>>2119403
Thousands of years of belief. Also because you cannot prove something to be real it doesn't exist even though there are many things in science that we cannot prove to be real but we just take as fact. Look as a theist I just want atheists to understand that people should just believe what makes them happy and that nobody deserves disrespect because of their beliefs unless obviously proven false. Sadly this will never happen.

>> No.2119424

>>2119419

That's what YOU claim. theists claim otherwise...

>> No.2119437

>>2119410

So since there is no proof there is a god there is not a god but because there is no proof there isn't a god there is a god?

>> No.2119438

>>2119423
1st well that aint proof
2nd we are on the internet talking about religion, so yes nothing wrong with proving wrong things wrong

>> No.2119446

The belief that atheism is a more justified belief than any other is a backwards belief.

>> No.2119447

>>2119333
>We know Santa Claus is an untrue entity because we know someone made him up.
Knowing the historical origins of Santa Claus doesn't make you 100% certain that he didn't ascend to godhood at some point. Don't you see the hipocrisy in what you are saying? You are trying to rationalize a belief in a god because it is not 100%, but you do not aknowledge the uncertainty of other scenarios.

>We do not know this of any religious entity. The reason we believe in a god is because we cannot prove that somebody made up god.
We can't prove that somebody made up any mythological creature, yet people don't expect gryphons to eat them. Believing in the existence of a supernatural being because the circumstances of its origins are unknown is just plain idiotic. Religion is deeply ingrained in our society yes, but it is still unsubstantiated on all accounts.

>the point I was trying to make is that almost EVERY religion has some sort of creation story and an end of the world.
Uh huh. And? I don't get the point here either. Are you trying to say that some religion must be true because many share similar structure?

>> No.2119449

>>2119437
what? just dont believe in things without proof, it isn't hard to understand

>> No.2119454

>>2119446
no it aint, without proof there is no reason to believe in it.

>> No.2119455

>>2119424
I am not saying that theism is proven, I am saying that people should believe whatever religion they want unless it is proven false.

>> No.2119456

>>2119423

There is a very easy way to disprove theism involving a benevolent god. Look at the studies done on intercessory prayer. None of them show any benefit.

>> No.2119458

>>2119455
>people should believe whatever religion they want unless it is proven false.

What on earth? But nothing can ever be proven false to your standards! If someone wants to believe that Jews are trying to take over the world and must be killed, should we just let them think that because it isn't "proven false"?

>> No.2119460

>>2119456
>>2119456
http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2010/07/ideal-god.html

>> No.2119472

>>2119449
The argument you are making is a circular argument. It all depends on where you start from so lets say you start with that you think there is a god. Well since science says to not believe things that aren't proven you shouldn't believe that there is no god because there is no proof that god doesn't exist. Now if you start as an atheist you say there is no proof a god does exist so I will not believe in it. Also there is no law in science saying that you cannot believe things that do not have proof.

>> No.2119477

>>2119472
>lets say you start with that you think there is a god.

But you don't! Everyone starts out as an atheist. They should only stop being atheists if someone convinces them that gods exist. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that adults just tell them that gods exist when they're very young, and it gets stuck in their head.

>> No.2119478

>>2119472

Yes, there is. It's called methodological naturalism. You either reject supernatual bullcrap or compartmentalise it.

>> No.2119479

>>2119458
If you believed that a fire god made volcanoes go boom then you learn that it involves tectonic plates and etc. That would qualify as being proven false.

>> No.2119482

>>2119477
Like I said 500 years ago the thought of someone being an atheist was unthought of.

>> No.2119489

>>2119472
All i say is you need proof for believing in things. I dont believe in aliens,unicorns,god,fairie and vampires and if you believe in one of those things but not the others then your a hypocrite. science has the scientific method showing you should believe in things with proof and thats all im saying

>> No.2119492

>>2119458
Godwinned. You lose.

>> No.2119493

>>2119478
I got this off of a wiki because it explained it better than i could have
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.

>> No.2119498

>>2119455

Is though shall not kill!... except gays enough proof for you? Even if it's not he's clearly not a kind God you know killing off a mans family to test his faith for example.

>> No.2119500

>>2119458
I do not believe in moral relativism. The guy can believe whatever he wants and try to do whatever he wants but I will not let him do it.

>> No.2119517

>>2119500
Before posting anymore comments make sure you understand what I posted here. The majority of people have contradicting moral relativist beliefs. Such as I believe abortion is wrong because I believe it is human but I can understand how people can believe it is not and also believe that Muslim car bombing is wrong I can't believe how anyone could believe that bs. What I believe is that abortion and Muslim car bombings are both wrong and I can understand where they are coming from but my moral tell me this and I will stand by them.

>> No.2119518

Why are most of these conceptual afterlives so distinctly different though? Surely, if there was an after-life and ancient peoples were knowledgeable of it, most civilizations would have very similar versions of the after life. If you look at the pictures and hieroglyphs in egypt, you'll find that each Pharaoh added their own distinct spin on the after life. No 2 pharaohs suffered the exact same fate.

>> No.2119521

>>2119500
Moral relativism has nothing to do with it!
You and him only differ on the facts, your morality is identical. If you thought that killing the Jews was the only way to save humanity, then you would do it too.

>> No.2119531

>>2119521
If i believed it yeah but I don't. I believe that it isn't so I will try to stop him. I wont go "oh I can understand that since I can't prove him wrong I am going to do nothing to stop him". I will be more like "oh he is doing something I believe to be wrong so I will stop him."

>> No.2119533

>>2119472
>because there is no proof that god doesn't exist
This is where your logic goes haywire without you noticing it yourself. Guess why people use the unicorn analogy? You don't need to prove a negative claim to discard the positive counter-claim. Wherever you go, people never seem to be able to understand this. Why? Is it really that hard to understand?

>> No.2119544

>>2119472
Sweet, that pink pony that eat asteroids and farts pixie dust that creates atmosphere around earth like planets truly exists. Prove me wrong.

>> No.2119548

>>2119533
What if saying that a god doesn't exist where the negative claim? It is all about perspective.

>> No.2119556

>>2119544
We know how atmosphere is created. If you were to say that millions of lightyears away there was a pink pony that farted out planets but we couldn't see it I couldn't prove you wrong. The only thing I could say is that it would probably not be a unicorn because i think any breed of horse requires oxygen to live.

>> No.2119563

>>2119531
>I wont go "oh I can understand that since I can't prove him wrong I am going to do nothing to stop him". I will be more like "oh he is doing something I believe to be wrong so I will stop him."

And if a religion wants to cut parts off their babies' penises because they think god wants them to? Is that wrong? Is it any less wrong because their god can't be "proved wrong"?

>> No.2119570

>>2119533
Also I agree completely with what you say, you do not need to prove a negative claim to discard a positive counter-claim. Thus why I respect your belief in atheism and you should respect my belief in theism.

>> No.2119575

>>2119548
God doesn't exist IS the negative claim.
You don't need to prove that god doesn't exist to discard the belief god does exist is what I'm saying.
Just like you don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist to discard the belief that unicorns do exist.
People go their whole lives using this principle, but when it comes to their own belief, suddenly it doesn't apply anymore.

>> No.2119576

>>2119556
Isn't that just an assumption? That horses need oxygen to live? Also, what if i said the pony was invisible to human eyes and simply guides the process of atmospheric creation? The point I'm trying to make is that if we exaggerate an argument, we can easily see the flaws in it. Something that believers in God are either oblivious to or outright ignore. Perspective has nothing to do with God. You either choose to ignore the lack of evidence, or you choose to accept the lack of evidence. The perspective is constant.

>> No.2119577

>>2119556
not if its magic

>> No.2119578

>>2119563
Well will it cause any permanent damage to the baby? Since I do not believe in moral relativism if this seriously harmed the child I would try to stop it despite their belief. But lets say this is a fully grown man cutting off his own penis, do whatever you want.

>> No.2119595

>>2119548
I don't know why you're posting on the /sci/ board. In order for something to be considered feasible there must be evidence to suggest your claim. Saying that god exists is a positive suggestion based on nothing tangible.

>> No.2119596

>>2119578
>Since I do not believe in moral relativism if this seriously harmed the child I would try to stop it despite their belief.

It hinders their sexual pleasure and makes it more difficult to masturbate. It's happening all over the world right now. Why aren't you stopping it?

>> No.2119604

>>2119576
It isn't an assumption, we have a whole process of how lungs work etc. This pony wouldn't be a pony but some other species of animal we have not discovered. Your argument does not work.

>>2119575
:)
>People go their whole lives using this principle, but when it comes to their own belief, suddenly it doesn't apply anymore.

God does exist is the negative claim, now apply it to your own belief. I misread what you wrote btw I do not agree with this.

>> No.2119606

Has anyone noticed that the people who don't believe in unicorns are acting like a religion themselves? It's sort of ironic, they all write books like "The Unicorn Delusion" and "Unicorns Are Not Pink", and they spread their dogmatic propaganda around the internet.

Why can't they see that not believing in unicorns requires just as much faith as believing in unicorns? They're so narrow-minded and arrogant.

brb going to church to worship unicorns

>> No.2119608

what are people doing in a science board when they say you dont need proof to believe in something because thats the basics of science

>> No.2119615

>>2119596
The majority think its ok and also there are positive reasons. Circumcision does not permanently cripple someone. If it did it wouldn't be done. Try abortion, I am trying to stop it by voting for people who are also against it.

>> No.2119617

>>2119604
God does exist is the positive claim. God doesn't exist is the negative. As saying that God does exist would suggest that you have evidence to support the claim. Saying he doesn't requires no evidence, as evidence has not yet been presented for you to choose disbelief as a reasonable option.

>> No.2119621

>>2119615
>Try abortion, I am trying to stop it by voting for people who are also against it.

niggayoujustwentfullretard.flac

What, ALL abortion? Even when the foetus has the sentience of an insect? Do you never kill insects?

>> No.2119630

>>2119608
no it isn't and also I am a physics major so that what im doing here.

>> No.2119640

>>2119621
but I believe it has a soul and also I believe that because it will have greater sentience later in life that we should protect it while it is unable to protect itself.

>> No.2119641

>>2119630
Wait are you saying you dont need proof for it to be logical to believe in something?

>> No.2119644

>>2119630
Hey physics major, I have a great new theory! There's an extra type of quark you haven't discovered.

The weird thing about this quark is that it isn't at all detectable and the universe behaves exactly as if it doesn't exist. Amazing huh?

What should we call it?

>> No.2119645

>>2119621
>someone disagrees with me on a subjective issue
>they are retarded

>> No.2119648

>>2119617
Except for some reason we have believed since the beginning of time that he did exist. You cannot use this argument for this.

>> No.2119650

>>2119640
>I believe it has a soul

See? This is you doing something morally wrong based on unsubstantiated beliefs. Just like my example with the Jews.

There is no evidence for the existence of gods or souls. And yet you are using this idea to ruin women's lives. Do you see the problem?

>> No.2119652

>>2119644
inb4 "God particle", thats taken you fags

>> No.2119654

>>2119630
Actually evidence is the single most important feature of science. You may be able to hypothesize something, but without evidence, it does not equate to reality nor function.

>> No.2119655

>>2119648
lol, if you're measuring from 0AD maybe.

>> No.2119659

>>2119604
>God does exist is the negative claim
Uh, no it's not. Positive and negative claims are not a matter of perspective, but rather semantics, and they already have clear defined meanings.
"X exists" is a positive claim. "X doesn't exist" is a negative claim. That's it.

>now apply it to your own belief
I don't believe there is a god because there is no reason to believe so. This is logically consistent. Or did you want me to apply a different kind of logic?

>> No.2119660

>>2119648
>Except for some reason we have believed since the beginning of time that he did exist.

Hahaha nice try. Religion is relatively recent, and we have not believed in YOUR particular god until very very recently. Read this, you might learn something.

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

>> No.2119661

>>2119648
That is not proof and yes you can

>> No.2119662

>>2119644
Have you never heard of miraculous healings? With this logic you should just not believe in anything. Also how was the universe created?

>> No.2119663

>>2119210
No actually you are the retard.

Intelligence is simply *among many other factors* the capability you have to retain/how quickly knowledge. It's completely independent from knowledge.


Underageb& pieces of shit shouldn't be on this forum, and if they will, they shouldn't insult when they are clearly wrong. Fucking faggot.

>> No.2119666

>>2119662
we have proof that the universe is real because we can see it and miracle healing is bullshit

>> No.2119667

>>2119661
You are assuming that the things that occurred in the different religious texts are false without basis.
Until you get a time machine and find out for yourself you will not know.

>> No.2119668

>>2119648
Actually I can. As before a mono-theistic god was conceived people worshiped almost entirely within polytheistic religions. Also, if that is your argument. Atheism has been understood long before people believed in god. Actually and interesting point here. People seemingly did not worship deities beyond, simplistic, night vs. day gods until we developed agricultural techniques. Once we started to farm, people had this new thing called "free time", and then organized religion was born.

>> No.2119670

>>2119662
>Have you never heard of miraculous healings?

Finally the truth comes out. At the core of any religious person you will find pseudoscience.

>> No.2119675

>>2119667
thats not how it works its not real until proven wrong not the other way around

>> No.2119681

>>2119666
I didn't ask you if the universe was real or not I was asking how it was created. You know, before the big bang (which isn't proven but there is a lot of evidence for it) and there are many documented cases of unprecedented healing which I promise you are not all bs.

>> No.2119683

>>2119667
No, I am assuming that they are false because they do provide any evidence for the belief. Which is my basis. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're trolling because thisshitaintlogical.jpg

>> No.2119686

>>2119681
I dont know how the universe was created and at east im willing to admit i dont know.

>> No.2119688

>>2119681
>there are many documented cases of unprecedented healing which I promise you are not all bs.

We got him on the ropes, guys! He's admitted his faith is based on testable falsehoods! Here kid, read this:

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

>> No.2119691

>>2119681
Blah-blah-blah. How was god created and............blah blah blah....... The point is something came from something that we can not possibly conceive so saying that a conscience being is the creator of all life is fundamentally flawed, as we can simply apply occams razor,and be done with him.

>> No.2119693

>>2119675
No, if it did happen and they wrote it down. It is because they wanted to document it. Now people want evidence to prove something that could have happened and was documented actually occurred.

>> No.2119694 [DELETED] 

>>2119686
>I dont know how the universe was created and at east im willing to admit i dont know.

We're even BETTER than you! We don't even claim to know that the universe WAS created!

>> No.2119700

>>2119694
Christians do make the claim that god created the universe.....actually the believe the universe was created after the earth. Read genesis.

>> No.2119701

>>2119693
being in the bible does not count as historical text

>> No.2119703

>>2119693
>No, if it did happen and they wrote it down. It is because they wanted to document it.

Oh cool, so you're a Muslim?

>> No.2119705

>>2119694
That was an atheist who posted that. Also what scientific law exists that explains how things can exist without being created?

>> No.2119708

>>2119693
>Implying that biblical characters in the old testament don't share strikingly similar stories to Egyptian Pharaohs.

The bible is being unveiled as an alternate history. The evidence is piling up.

>> No.2119710

>>2119705
>Also what scientific law exists that explains how things can exist without being created?

Guys, I think this is a troll. Just putting that out there.

>> No.2119712

>>2119700
That isn't a Catholic belief. It is more to show that god was the one that created the earth. You need study Catholic belief before you start making claims about what all christians believe considering how many different subdivisions there are.

>> No.2119716

>>2119710
thats a real good statement. something cant come from nothing

>> No.2119724

>>2119712
It was a Catholic belief up until the beginning of the 1900's. Simply saying you can believe something doesn't necessarily mean that the church has changed it's position. Catholicism 2.0 is simply a religion altering their stance on certain subjects as the world becomes more and more secular in order to retain membership.

>> No.2119725

>>2119716
>something cant come from nothing

Your own religion claims that something came from nothing. So you might not want to go down that road.

>> No.2119728

>>2119681
And I promise you that they all have perfectly natural explanations, and are thus no miraculous healings.
If there were genuine, supernatural, miraculous healings, one would think you could at the very least reproduce them in a controlled environment. The problem is to get these healers to actually agree to this. Take a wild guess as to why.

>> No.2119731

>>2119725
im an athiest and i agree that god defies nature

>> No.2119735

>>2119725
No I was just trying to show that scientifically, something cannot come from nothing. Thus one of the main reasons I believe in a god. Because no matter how far back you go there had to be a beginning and that is where God would be with his supernatural powers creating shit from nothing and planning how evolution would work.

>> No.2119742

>>2119735
then who created god. It would be easier for the universe to come from nothing then it would be god because god is way more complex

>> No.2119744

>>2119728
I am not talking about healers. I am talking about people suffering from terminal illnesses in hospitals and people randomly developing stigmata or cripples walking through the well at lourdes and losing their disability or corpses not decaying. Also since it wouldn't be scientific it wouldn't be able to be reproduced.

>> No.2119745

>>2119735
>Because no matter how far back you go there had to be a beginning

The thing you're not taking into consideration is that time isn't as simple as you think. Time isn't some magic object that we all take for granted, time is PART of the current physical model.

Spacetime has "edges". Time doesn't go back further than the big bang. NOTHING can happen before the big bang. In fact, "before the big bang" is like saying "redder than red".

>> No.2119749

>>2119735
>planning
Oh, so it's a person now?

He plans things?

Or is it a she?
Or is it both?

>> No.2119750

>>2119742
The point of god is to have a being that does not need to be created.

>> No.2119755

>>2119749
you need to be a human with sex in order to plan things?

>> No.2119758

>>2119744
>I am talking about people suffering from terminal illnesses in hospitals and people randomly developing stigmata or cripples walking through the well at lourdes and losing their disability or corpses not decaying.

Yeah it's all bullshit bro. You don't believe in UFOs, why do you choose to believe in this crap?

>> No.2119759

>>2119750
then why not say the universe didnt meed a creator.
Adding god only makes things even less likely

>> No.2119760

>>2119750
Which is why I'm a pantheist. :-). Apply Occams razor and you can be one too.

>> No.2119765

>>2119745
Even without time, even without going before the big bang. Something had to have started it.

>> No.2119767

>>2119760
stop using the god of the gaps argument. just because we dont know how the universe was created does not give any proof to god. God would be way less likely to be created out of nothing the the universe

>> No.2119768

>>2119765
>Something had to have started it.

Says who? You keep saying this, but why? You're just repeating it like a mantra.

>> No.2119777

>>2119759
I think it is less likely to say that things just dont exist. Also this is why I say just believe whatever the hell you want. Nobody will know the truth till they are dead. Also Occam's Razor is not 100% true.

>> No.2119779

>>2119765
that still aint proof for god. why must it be god that started it all? because you could say who created god

>> No.2119794

>>2119779
I can't tell you that god exists for sure just like I can't tell you he doesn't exist. All I can tell you is that you can believe whatever you want and you should never be a moral relativist because it is dumb.

>> No.2119803

>>2119768
Law of cause and effect. If there is one observable event it is that for something to occur something must have caused it.

>> No.2119806

>>2119777
>Also this is why I say just believe whatever the hell you want.

You're an idiot. If people thought like this, there could be no science, there could be no maths, there could be no civilisation.

You're applying a double standard. YOU get to believe whatever you want, but hey, if you ever run into an insane conspiracy theorist I bet you wouldn't let them believe whatever they want.

>> No.2119809

>>2119803
>If there is one observable event it is that for something to occur something must have caused it.

You just rephrased your mantra and said it again.

>> No.2119818

>>2119806
This is why it is important that I put that you shouldn't believe in moral relativism in the picture. I can understand why an insane conspiracy theorist might believe what he believes but I am not going to let him hurt people because I can understand him. Read on moral relativism.

>> No.2119819

>>2119794
Im sorry but thinking that good and evil are real things just show that you dont understand environmental conditioning

>> No.2119829

>>2119818
>you shouldn't believe in moral relativism

But moral relativism is obviously true! You'd have to be delusional to not accept it.

Also, you, right now, are doing something morally disgusting. You are trying to make all abortion illegal on the basis of your supernatural beliefs.

>> No.2119846

>>2119819
I never said that. I do understand environmental conditioning. Being against moral relativism means that if I see a terrorist trying to bomb a plane I will try to stop him despite understanding that he has been conditioned this way and he believes what he is doing is right. This is why I hate no one.

The abortion example I think is best
Some people believe that fetus is human but can understand that other people can believe it is not and thus are pro choice because they believe that they should give the other person the option. These same people believe that terrorists are wrong and also understand why they can believe what they do is right.

Since I am against moral relativism I can understand why people think a fetus is not human and still be against it.

>> No.2119857

>>2119846
>Being against moral relativism means that if I see a terrorist trying to bomb a plane I will try to stop him despite understanding that he has been conditioned this way and he believes what he is doing is right.

You're an idiot. You don't at all understand what these words mean, you have strawman definitions for them that I bet you picked up from your church.

Moral relativism is simply the position that moral judgments are not statements of fact, and can only be made in the context of a moral framework.

There couldn't be anything much more obvious than that.

>> No.2119862

>>2119829
It has nothing to do with my supernatural beliefs. I believe a human isn't defined by being sentient or not. By keeping abortion legal I am essentially according to my belief allowing people to be murdered everyday. If I believed this and did nothing I think that would be more disgusting.

>> No.2119875

>>2119857>Being against moral relativism means that if I see a terrorist trying to bomb a plane I will try to stop him despite understanding that he has been conditioned this way and he believes what he is doing is right.

I did not type this sentence. I understand what moral relativism is. I just wanted to show how moral relativism is applied to abortion but not to terrorists.

>> No.2119878

>>2119857
Also I don't go to church, I think it is a waste of time.

>> No.2119883

>>2119862

nope.rar

You believe there is an undetectable object called a "soul" that exists in foetuses. This is why you will happily squish an ant but don't want a foetus with the same level of sentience to die.

It has everything to do with your supernatural beliefs.

>> No.2119897

>>2119875
>I just wanted to show how moral relativism is applied to abortion but not to terrorists.

You still don't get it. Moral relativism isn't a normative position. It's just a statement of fact. It is the true statement

"Moral judgments only make sense in the context of a moral framework."

Knowing that moral relativism is true has nothing to do with whether you would choose to stop a terrorist.

>> No.2119902
File: 33 KB, 598x448, 1280097947381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2119902

You answered your own question.

>> No.2119910

>>2119875
You're confused. You and the terrorist have very similar, if not identical, moral frameworks. They go like this:

"I should do what God wants me to do."

You and the terrorist don't differ on morality, you differ on FACTS. The terrorist thinks that God wants the terror attack, and you think he doesn't.

Neither of you has the slightest evidence either way, of course, and you don't even have evidence that there is a thing called God that wants things in the first place.

>> No.2119924

Wouldn't subjective morality be proven automatically since and by the arguments that stand on the subject of morality? [rhetorical]

>> No.2119934

>>2119924
>Wouldn't subjective morality be proven automatically

Yes. Saying that morality is subjective is like saying that water is wet. If you deny it, you're seriously fucked up.

What Christians often don't understand is that their morality is arbitrary too! Their morality is "obey God". Why wouldn't it be "disobey God"? Or "ignore God"?

>> No.2119955

>>2119862
wtf are you talking faggot.
christfags have no clue about human rights.
the mother is carrying the baby, as long as the baby is undeveloped, it's still her body she's dealing with. it's HER choice, not some random christfag like you.

i like how christfags imply that they know what's best for every woman out there.

>> No.2119959

anyone thinking that moral values don't evolve & change is a downright retard, or a typical christfag.