/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 8 KB, 300x300, Atheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:01:42 2010 No.2150828 [Reply] [Original]

Atheist: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS THEREFORE YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT FOR BELIEVING IN ANYTHING. (Unreasonable)

Religious: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND YOUR AN IDIOT FOR NOT BELIEVING IN ANYTHING (Unreasonable)

Agnostic: There is a chance that both sides could be right but considering we can't prove or disprove either I'd rather deal with other shit instead of argue. (Reasonable)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:03:42 2010 No.2150833 Just get the fuck out

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:03:42 2010 No.2150834
File: 64 KB, 600x416, russels teapot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Wow. I can totally see why you would be an invisible pink unicorn agnostic, a UFO agnostic or a crab people agnostic.

Oh wait. That's fucking retarded. Learn to skepticism, agnostics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:05:42 2010 No.2150838 Agnostic: Sees the logical fallacy of religion, but is too much of a faggot to admit that the culture he grew up in is filled with unreasonable superstition and unjust morales. 4/10, made me reply.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:10:42 2010 No.2150848
File: 145 KB, 600x700, 1286680149425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Atheist: There is no proof that a god exists, thefore beliving in a diety is an unessesary assumption. (reasonable)

Religious: I know god exists, it says here right in the bible. Disagree? i'll kill you!(Unreasonable)

Agnostic: I dont understand the burden of proof, and i cant make up my mind because im an idiot.(unreasonable)

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:13:42 2010 No.2150851

>>2150833
>>2150834
>>2150838

Actually no, your a bunch of angry Atheists too proud of your own logic to allow the argument to ending.

I am an Agnostic, basically I just say YOU BOTH HAVE A GOOD POINT and then I walk away because in all Honesty its an argument that will never end because thats an answer no side can ever have.

Right now you just managed to prove my point by using another stupid argumentive poster in some last ditch effort to make me see how your right and I'm wrong.

Meanwhile i can't be either because I refuse to get mixed up in the bullshit arguing. While you continue your bullshit Agnostics will cure disease and make cheap energy.

PEACE OUT

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:16:42 2010 No.2150855 >>2150828 By that logic, agnostics are just plain wrong there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:16:42 2010 No.2150856 >>2150851 Dude, santa claus doesn't exist. It's really quite ridiculous to give credibility to the parents at this point. You'll only find out the hard way.

>>	cuttlefish !!cw6887rNPSD Sat Dec 4 07:17:42 2010 No.2150858 >>2150851 I hate these agnostics who try to push their ideals on you

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:17:42 2010 No.2150860 File: 99 KB, 1260x648, argument pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2150851 Attacking tone is a sign of desperation.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:20:42 2010 No.2150863

>>2150851
If you think religious people have anything close to a "good point", please return your brain as there are people out there who could use it more than you. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, and has no extraordinary evidence to back it up, rejecting that person's claim is fucking simple as hell and the LOGICAL stance. If you honestly think atheists and theists have equal arguments, I don't know what to tell you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:20:42 2010 No.2150864 Stoopid agnostics, you do realise that the only point in this debate is to cure boredom? If you aren't going to participate properly in the shitfest then you may as well be nothing at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:20:42 2010 No.2150866 Antitheist: No god exists, and it would be undesirable for a god to exist, also, you're all childish faggots.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:21:42 2010 No.2150870

The whole point of Agnosticism isnt to find an answer the point is to end the argument.

AN ATHEIST TRIES TO USE LOGIC AGAINST AN ILLOGICAL PEOPLE.

That can't work its not a matter of finding a way to get the Religious to understand its a matter of the Religious CAN'T understand. Your better off trying to teach a down syndrome child the theory of Relativity because they can at least understand it over time. A Religious person refuses to understand after hearing the argument which means they don't give a shit.

The simple fact is the Agnostic is the smarter one in the situation because they know this so they just say YOU BOTH HAVE A POINT and walk away because nothing gets done through arguing, if you want proof look at our Government.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:24:42 2010 No.2150875 >>2150870 No, you describe an atheist who doesnt get involved. Agnostics try and break up the flaming. Killjoys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:24:42 2010 No.2150876 File: 194 KB, 1140x741, 1250873823294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw ignostic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:24:42 2010 No.2150878 >>2150870 And yet here you are, arguing. Clearly you're not as smart as you think.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:29:42 2010 No.2150881

im religious and im better because i have faith!
im atheist and im better because i have logic!
im agnostic and im better because i walk away from the problem! but let me tell you about it!

coolstorybro. being agnostic is fine (given you don't really give a shit), and believing in a god is fine (given that you live a life independent of any worship/prayer/etc related with an established religion). the moment you think it's reasonable to be either in the modern day is an admittance of a shitty cultural context and/or slow parents. go live your lives, ladies, your personal definition of "reason" is irrelevant and clearly some people are just getting mad here for nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:29:42 2010 No.2150882 I am an agnostic because I know that I do not know. Peace Out.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:34:42 2010 No.2150888

>>2150882
You know that you don't know what, exactly? That goes exists or that god does not exist? Just saying "I know I don't know, hurr durr" doesn't mean anything. You haven't made a statement about what it is that you have no knowledge of. If this explanation doesn't make sense see >>2150848

>>	Indexer !t1.kaRtHUs Sat Dec 4 07:34:42 2010 No.2150891 Is there any term to describe those who don't give a fuck about all of this and just live to see the end of the days?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:35:42 2010 No.2150894 File: 20 KB, 300x300, Prince-Harry56.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw when atheists spend more time discussing God than my religious grandma

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:37:42 2010 No.2150896 >>2150859 Cool Bros

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:38:42 2010 No.2150899

>>2150894
I would imagine most religious people haven't given their fairy tales very much thought at all. Otherwise, they wouldn't still consider themselves religious, at least not organized religious. Forgive the rest of us who care about the truth value of claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:39:42 2010 No.2150901 You know what? Arguments like this start because of the "I am right, you are wrong and also a fag" mentality. I wish people discussed topics more calmly, with reason, using quotes and citations.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:42:42 2010 No.2150905

>>2150901
You are one of those people who always want atheists to demonstrate proof there is no god, aren't you. The only reason why most of these arguments don't include quotes and citations, is because the religious don't have them and the atheists don't need them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:42:42 2010 No.2150907 >>2150891 Intelligent and reasonable?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:50:03 2010 No.2150919 [DELETED]

>>2150905
Not really. I just want people to talk shit about each other because they don't think the same. Talks like this revolve around imposing your beliefs on others, which is gay.

A: "I believe that your God doesn't exist."
T: "Well, I still believe He does exist."
A: "Fine by me."
T: "Have a nice day, fellow human."

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:52:42 2010 No.2150920 >>2150919 >imposing your beliefs on others Yeah really how dare atheists actually debate with the religious? Meanwhile the religious actually ARE imposing their beliefs on others on a widespread scale.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:53:42 2010 No.2150921

>>2150905

Not really. I just want people to stop talking shit about each other because they don't think the same. Talks like this revolve around imposing your beliefs on others, which is gay.

A: "I believe that your God doesn't exist."
T: "Well, I still believe He does exist."
A: "Fine by me."
T: "Have a nice day, fellow human."

*edited, sorry, wrong context.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:53:42 2010 No.2150922

>>2150905
you are the one who always puts words into people's mouths and gets offended when people say you shouldn't present your hunches as facts
I agree people shouldn't feel so attacked whenever they get attention. all people want seems to be to state dumb opinions and get ignored.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:55:42 2010 No.2150926

>>2150920
what are you talking about? I've met jehova's and mormons a few times in my life, they weren't trying to convince me of anything
a lot different from 4chan where people want you to believe that before the big bang anything is possible because laws of nature apparently come afterwards

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:55:42 2010 No.2150927 File: 1.81 MB, 275x179, 00016p6y.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2150899 >Forgive the rest of us who care about the truth value of claims ahahahha

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:56:42 2010 No.2150929 >>2150920 Well, my point goes both ways. Both sides should STFU about how wrong the other one is. A: "I believe that your God does not exist." T: "That is rather unfortunate, but I must respect your beliefs, as I would want you to respect mine."

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 07:57:42 2010 No.2150933

>>2150921
That's fine except you left out an important part of that exchange.

A: "I don't believe that your God exists." (Corrected for accuracy)
T: "Well, I still believe He does exist."
>T: And therefore this list of things is wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to do them even though I already know you don't believe as I do
A: "Fine by me."
>T: "Have a nice day, heathen."

Since they have no basis for their claims, nothing they say should carry any weight yet time and time again, it does. That is the problem.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:00:42 2010 No.2150937

>>2150929
So it's not appropriate to point out when another person makes a claim for which they have insufficient evidence. Do you realize how quickly society would grind to a halt if every scheme half as crazy as religion was put in some "no touch" zone, free from the scrutiny of logic and reason?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:01:42 2010 No.2150938

>>2150848

Errrm... no.

There's a third option besides of believing or disbelieving God. Simply saying: "I neither believe nor disbelieve in God."

If I would ask you if you are still beating your wife, you would also neither want to answer yes or no, amirite? Because in the question lies the assumption that you have already beaten her. This must not be the case. (Learn2philosophy, please, before arguing)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:03:42 2010 No.2150940 >>2150927 I fail to see what is so humorous about that. Is this some joke that only religitards get?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:03:42 2010 No.2150941 >>2150938 I'm sorry, i meant: This doesn't have to be the case. (Germanfag here)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:04:42 2010 No.2150944 >>2150938 The question of belief in a god makes no such assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:05:42 2010 No.2150945 >>2150940 I'm not religious. I just find it funny...we both know the only thing atheist care about is about being right. same with the religious crownd

>>	theismIsGay !Y117JWu41. Sat Dec 4 08:06:42 2010 No.2150947 >>2150945 >the only thing atheist care about is about being right. Personally, I'm more concerned that people who hold beliefs without evidence may make bad decisions on the basis of those beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:07:42 2010 No.2150949 >>2150945 *crowd

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:07:42 2010 No.2150950 "God does not exist" - No change in behavior "God exists" - No change in behavior Result: Fuck off.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:08:42 2010 No.2150952

>>2150938
Oh FFS, you don't have to delve into the depths of philosophy to answer this question. The example you gave doesn't parallel the question of the existence or non-existence of something. Some questions do only have two possible answers. Your Shrodinger's god would then have to both exist and not exist in some quantum clusterfuck for you to be able to simultaneously say you don't believe nor disbelieve in him. It's a very simple question to answer. Are you agnostic about everything? Your sophistry does not amuse me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:10:42 2010 No.2150955 >may make bad decisions on the basis so you're worried about x religious plus x philosophies? good luck, anon.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:13:42 2010 No.2150959

>>2150950
>God exists: No change in behavior

Are you talking about the change in YOUR behavior not being affected by either outcome? If not, it is blindingly obvious that religious people's behavior is influenced and changes under the premise that god exsits.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:13:42 2010 No.2150960

>>2150944

It actually does. The question "Do you believe in God?" assumes that both conversational partners know what is meant with the term "God" and also assumes that you have to either believe or disbelieve. It's a simple linguistical trap. And once that is understood you can simply refuse to answer it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:15:42 2010 No.2150962 >>2150848 agnostic atheist reporting in

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:15:42 2010 No.2150963 >>2150950 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:16:42 2010 No.2150965 Video Games

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:16:42 2010 No.2150966 >>2150960 "Do you believe in a god?" That is a yes or no question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:19:42 2010 No.2150971 How can you say something you are talking about doesn't exist? Even if it's just a form of thought Kind of like a rule 34 on existence. Ah fuck. I can't get my point across like this.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:19:42 2010 No.2150972

>>2150966
>>2150960
To be fair, the answer "I don't know what a god is" is acceptable. If you're three years old.

Otherwise it is very simple, you either believe there is a "god", or you do not. If you do not actively believe in a "god" than you do not, and you're an atheist.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:20:42 2010 No.2150973

knowledge is "true, justified belief"
if you have evidence to prove/justify a belief, you have gained knowledge

agnosticists say that you cannot prove god's (non) existence, therefore you cannot know whether he exists or not
however, believing in something does not require knowledge of it
thus, you can still admit that you can never KNOW 100% sure, but still BELIEVE in god's (non) existence

if you say "when i look at the beauty of nature, i don't see how all of this happened by chance, thus i believe in (a) god, but i don't claim to know with 100% certainty that this god exists or that his existence could be proven. still, i find it very plausible that he does, seeing how complex the universe is", then you are an agnostic theist

if you say "well, i believe all this could very well have happened by chance. i don't think a god was needed for life/the universe to exist, and i find it very unplausible to assume that a god exists. thus, i don't believe there is a god, but i cannot say with certaincy that he definitely doesn't" then you're an agnostic atheist

you see, agnosticism and (a)theism aren't mutually exclusive

also, agnosticism isn't "neither believing nor disbelieving" or "neither being an atheist nor a theist"

"do you believe in (a) god?" and "do you think the existence of a god could be proven?" are two different questions
if the answer to the first one is "i don't know/i don't care", it doesn't necessarily make you agnostic, it makes you undecided/indifferent, which is something completely else
if the answer to the latter one is "no", then THAT makes you agnostic

i know i have been trolled, but whatever

TL;DR agnosticism=/=not giving a fuck
(a)theism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive
also, the game

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:21:42 2010 No.2150976 >>2150966 So is "Are still beating your wife?"

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:21:42 2010 No.2150977

>>2150960
More mental gymnastics by the fence sitter. When someone asks that question, rarely is it implied that they are referring to their own version, which they would have to define for you in order for you to make a determination. Hell, they probably don't even have a concrete description in their own mind about this divine being. Suppose you are talking with the very first person to suppose the existence of a god. This person has only that one definition and there are no other people suggesting other versions. If the claims that person makes regarding the existence and workings of this deity are completely unfounded and lack a logical basis, is it presumptuous to say that you don't believe such a being exists? Or to (re)ask this in a slightly different way, do you believe that unicorns exist? Are you agnostic about unicorns?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:21:42 2010 No.2150979 File: 53 KB, 800x600, 1289365084969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Proof that OP is stupid: >YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT >YOUR AN IDIOT OP can't basic grammar, why should I think he has basic reasoning skills.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:21:42 2010 No.2150980 >>2150972 nah, mature people often don't create an opinion about stuff no one knows exact answers to. just because atheists accept god has to be all knowing like christians say, it still doesn't mean anything

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:24:42 2010 No.2150984 >>2150976 The answer to that question is no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:25:42 2010 No.2150987 >>2150973 Thank you sir. I can now classify myself as an agnostic theist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:25:42 2010 No.2150988 >>2150971 By this glorious logic, everything ever thought up by man "exists". Shit, I gotta get me a Holodeck!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:25:42 2010 No.2150989 >>2150984 And with that answer, you would imply you have already beaten her.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:25:42 2010 No.2150990 >>2150984 But, the "still" implies that you have been beating your wife before. By simply answering "no", you can't exclude that possibility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:27:42 2010 No.2150992 >>2150989 >>2150990 What is the implied assumption when you ask whether someone believes that a god exists?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:29:42 2010 No.2150999

>>2150980
You obviously have no idea that some assumptions have to be made, even in science, for you to be able to test a claim. When an atheist "accepts" that god is omni-whatever, they are taking a claim made my a religious person as true for the purpose of following that line of reasoning and seeing if the omni-whatever of god is true, then A,B and C. If A,B, and C are logically contradictory, it can be said that the claim made by the theist is seriously flawed if not totally bunk.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:29:42 2010 No.2151000 >>2150992 Dunno, ask the other poster, it was his argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:31:42 2010 No.2151002 >>2150992 I'm not the agnosticfag, but they would say it's the specific definition of god you are talking about. Their argument is you are assuming which god they are asking you about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:32:42 2010 No.2151003 >>2151002 But god can be defined. There's no implicit assumption in the question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:32:42 2010 No.2151004 Is OP still a giant faggot? Yep.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:33:42 2010 No.2151007 Alright, the thread is now about the philosophical context of this argument, not the main point itself.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:36:42 2010 No.2151010

>>2151003
Exactly, it's mental tap-dancing to avoid answering the question. You and I both know that, in answering that question, there is a reasonable definition of what a god is (supernatural being capable of extraordinary feats) and we can safely say that evidence doesn't support the position of any such being existing. Thus, we are atheist. If they can bog down the definition to the point that neither party can agree on it, they don't have to make up their minds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:37:42 2010 No.2151011 >>2151004 Haha. Congratulations sir, you managed to inb4 observerfag.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:42:42 2010 No.2151020 ITT: agnostics try and find a third side in a dichotomy. Pick agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:44:42 2010 No.2151023

>>2151010
>supernatural being capable of extraordinary feats
does this give any insight to what a god is?

yea he's special and he can do a lot of things
great definition bro

no, if we ever discover what is god, we'll probably name the primal cause god first.
just because theists and atheists have some view of what a god SHOULD be, it doesn't mean a god is only that which has been imagined by us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:46:42 2010 No.2151025 >>2151020 what if you don't have an opinion? does it require a brain to blindly believe one side of the coin? or does it imply ignorence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:49:42 2010 No.2151029 >>2151025 You cannot not have an opinion. That's how it works. Not believing that a given good exists is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The first is called atheism, the second SHOULD be called antitheism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:55:42 2010 No.2151039 >>2150926 Yes. You're rights. Gays can't legally marry in most US states because the religious are tolerant and don't impose their beliefs on others.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 08:55:42 2010 No.2151040

>>2151023
Well, we are only talking about human constructions of god anyway, genius. Clouding the issue by saying humans don't have a clue what a god even is doesn't help. For example, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe any definition of god so far described by man exists as I find insufficient evidence for such claims. I do NOT rule out the possibility of some other, more all-encompassing definition of god (your "primal cause"). However, there is also insufficient evidence for even this broad interpretation of god so I am still atheist with respect to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:15:42 2010 No.2151083 >>2151029 I thought antitheist meant opposed to the idea religion (ie that it is better that it is not true). I don't think what you're describing is a position actually held.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:17:42 2010 No.2151087 >>2151020 fuck agnosticism, I'm a gnostic. Pick ignorance for yourself, leave me out of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:18:42 2010 No.2151089 Apatheist: You're all fags. Apatheism wins again.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 09:20:42 2010 No.2151097 How reasonable something sounds is an awfully bad way of deciding what to believe. I mean, quantum physics doesn't sound reasonable, but its true.

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 09:20:42 2010 No.2151100 File: 63 KB, 900x546, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] why would you want to be less of a star?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:34:42 2010 No.2151133 File: 187 KB, 1022x1545, rewards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2150828 >>2150828

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:36:42 2010 No.2151138
File: 34 KB, 500x429, atheist_chart.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

To this day, I have never met a self-described "agnostic" who actually knows what agnostic means.

It seems like the only people who understand the meaning of the word are atheists. At best, agnostic atheists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:38:42 2010 No.2151146 >>2151138 I'm an agnostic atheist and it's the only position you can have if you think scientifically. For practical reasons I say i'm an atheist just as for practical reasons I claim to be atheistic to the existence of fairies and magical teapots.

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 09:38:42 2010 No.2151147 File: 5 KB, 150x190, 1291152017403.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2151138

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:41:42 2010 No.2151153 >>2151147 Cool reaction image. faget

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 09:43:42 2010 No.2151157 File: 19 KB, 241x230, haha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2151153

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 09:44:42 2010 No.2151158 File: 57 KB, 534x675, thenoseson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:48:42 2010 No.2151161

I can not show you unequivocal proof that a creator exists.

I choose to go with the idea that a creator exists. By that, I also choose that there is something after life.

Sure, it could be bullshit, but it helps me sleep better at night.

A certain deep, but simple complexity is that I see when I look at nature or the universe or anything for that matter.

Bits and pieces of things inside bigger things inside bigger things arranged in order, randomly. When looked at (albeit with some color added), I find it all very beautiful.

I could be right about an afterlife, I could be wrong. Nobody here can be sure because nobody here is posting while dead.

Call me stupid for believing that a creator willed the universe into existence. Call me a faggot for believeing that with my last breath, my time as a human is over, but my time for existence is not.

Call me a fool for finding some inner peace from my beliefs.

Just because you may not agree me, you don't have to hate me. I still love you.

I need more coffee...

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 09:52:42 2010 No.2151170 >>2151158 picture emits lots of lulz

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 09:57:42 2010 No.2151183 >>2151161 >I choose to go with the idea that a creator exists. By that, I also choose that there is something after life. The real question here: is it still intellectual dishonesty if you are honest about it?

Moo I absolutely love today. Sat Dec 4 10:01:42 2010 No.2151190

Well, Think.
Atheist: This life is it, when I die I'm SOL.
Agnostic: There could be something else after this I guess...
Religious: Even If I'm wrong, after this life there is a chance at something else.

By being an atheist you Have no chance at something more. By being agnostic you give yourself room for thinking about it. By being religious you give yourself hope. If you are an atheist It is well....Stupid. If you believe in something, anything, at least you have a chance at another life after this one.Rather than just giving up on more.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:11:42 2010 No.2151211

>>2151183
>The real question here: is it still intellectual dishonesty if you are honest about it?

Can you explain further of 'intellectual dishonesty' that you find in my post?

I know my thoughts can be somewhat counter-intuitive because I can scream 'God, if your there then strike me down' and nothing will happen. Which could be used as a proof of no God. Or one could argue that 'it's God's will to not strike me down'. (Boy do I hate it when people use the term 'God's will'... like anyone could ever say for certainty what the will is of something which we have issues understanding in the first place.)

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:11:42 2010 No.2151212

Atheist: GOD DOSNTREUL IM MATURE SO I BELEV MATUR TING FOR MATUR PEPOL SUCH AS MY MATURSELF. KEK FAGOT I NO NED PRUF GOD DOENT RAUL IM MATREU

Theist: GOD DOES RELA PROUF HE DUNT IMATRU PERSUN SO NED KNOW PROF ONLEE UNMATUR PEEPS NED PROF

Agnostic: What does the evidence suggest? There is none? Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Until some evidence is produced having an opinion on this matter is foolish

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:12:42 2010 No.2151214
File: 205 KB, 530x409, 1277302777070.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151190

It is amazing that you can somehow read this entire thread and not bother to actually look up what any of those words mean.

None of them have anything at all to do with the afterlife. You could not believe in gods and still belief that you have a 'soul' that survives after death. Likewise, you could believe in god and also believe that this life is the only one we get.

Also, beliefs have no effect whatsoever on reality. Just because someone thinks there will be an afterlife doesn't somehow magically "give them a chance" at living forever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:14:42 2010 No.2151219 Nihilism- Debates like this are pointless. All possible human beliefs and opinions are worthless including this one.

>>	torpidSearcher Sat Dec 4 10:16:38 2010 No.2151223 >>2151212 THEIST: God exists! ATHEIST: What, why? Why would I believe that? It is sorta stupid. AGNOSTIC: What, why? Why would I believe that? Better say I haven't decided if I believe so I sound superior. I fix'd it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:16:42 2010 No.2151224 >There is a chance that both sides could be right Say what? Troll agnostic is troll.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:16:42 2010 No.2151225
File: 62 KB, 800x943, myfacehee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Theists: I believe gods exist.

Atheists: I don't believe gods exist.

Agnostics: I believe that knowledge of the supernatural is by definition unattainable. I could be a theist, or I could be an atheist. My belief concerning the possibility of understanding the supernatural has no bearing whatsoever on my non-empirical believes concerning the existence of the supernatural.

#/sci/ Agnostics: IM IN THE MIDDLE THAT MEANS IM RITE PLZ DONT ARGUE WIF ME :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:16:42 2010 No.2151226 >>2151212 >Until some evidence is produced having an opinion on this matter is foolish that's atheist stance as well

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:19:42 2010 No.2151235 >>2151219 This. But then again, if this is all shit, why go on living?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:19:42 2010 No.2151237

>>2151214

True, but wasn't it a belief at one time that the world is round? Or that we revolved around the sun instead of the other way around?

Yeah, those beliefs have some effect on reality. Someone had to believe it enough to seek an answer and that's what they found. Eventually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:19:42 2010 No.2151238 File: 8 KB, 276x371, 1269129292187.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] -theists believe what they are told -agnostics can't decide what to believe -atheists think for them-fucking-selves conclusion: atheists are alpha

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:19:42 2010 No.2151239 >>2151226 No. http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm Atheism is defined as the belief there is no god

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:20:42 2010 No.2151240 >>2151226 No matter how many times you explain this to them, they aren't going to stop saying that. They call themselves agnostics because they're afraid of the word 'atheist', not because they don't understand what it means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:20:42 2010 No.2151241 >>2151235 Why not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:21:42 2010 No.2151245 >>2151239 >evilbible.com This site can't possibly be biased in any way, shape or form.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:21:42 2010 No.2151246 >>2151226 Except this guy >>2151239. It looks like he might genuinely be clueless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:21:42 2010 No.2151248 >>2151238 -theists believe what they are told -agnostics think for them-fucking-selves -atheists believe what they are told conclusion: agnostics are alpha

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:22:42 2010 No.2151251 >>2151239 no. it's a lack of belief in god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:22:42 2010 No.2151252 >>2151235 But then again, if this is all shit, why go on living? Why wouldn't you? Is your life that unenjoyable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:23:42 2010 No.2151256 File: 64 KB, 481x314, 1291224151573.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2151245 >Biased against the bible >DESCWIMINATION GAINST AYTHEUSTS >Ignoring the links to dictionaries

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:23:42 2010 No.2151259 >>2151248 nope, agnostics cant take a true stance on the subject like a real man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:24:42 2010 No.2151261 >>2151240 yes. "agnostics" are basically closet atheists.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:25:42 2010 No.2151262

>>2151251
Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".

I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:26:42 2010 No.2151265 >>2151259 We take the only reasonable stance

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:27:42 2010 No.2151267 File: 17 KB, 373x330, atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:27:42 2010 No.2151268 >>2151241 With life being as pointless as it is (Nihilism), why continue living?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:28:42 2010 No.2151271 I don't believe in God. I don't give a shit about what that makes me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:28:42 2010 No.2151272 >>2151268 nihilism is only for emo faggots

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:29:42 2010 No.2151274 >>2151267 Agnostics: White people Theists: Muslims Atheists: Jews

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:29:42 2010 No.2151275 >>2151262 >using a dictionary to support his argument doing it wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:30:42 2010 No.2151277 >>2151275 6/10 because atheists will support this

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:30:42 2010 No.2151281

>>2151268
I am a human being and a nihilist. Just because I can think from a perspective outside of the values human's place in things doesn't stop me from being human. Like most humans I have a powerful urge to survive and to be comfortable and secure. Although I can quantify these urges I am a slave to them like any other human.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:30:42 2010 No.2151283 >>2151268 >With life being as pointless as it is (Nihilism), why continue living? if you have to ask, you have not really lived yet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:32:42 2010 No.2151285 >>2151252 To be honest, yes. But I'm no longer a nihilist. My point is; if nihilists don't find value in anything (even worldly pleasures), why are they still clinging to life?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:34:42 2010 No.2151299 >>2151285 I imagine not all nihilists decide to continue living. I guess its a personal choice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:34:42 2010 No.2151301 >>2151281 Reasonable enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:35:42 2010 No.2151303 >>2151285 Why do you come on 4chan when it's the same shit day after day?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:35:42 2010 No.2151305 >>2151262 american dictionaries are biased towards theism. try this for a change: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:38:42 2010 No.2151312 >>2151299 I found out that the thought of being released from existential values was more depressing and contradictory. Being an hero is a really sad choice.

>>	seer of eternity, animus, the forbidden one !c1fBPhtoT6 Sat Dec 4 10:39:42 2010 No.2151315 File: 32 KB, 288x252, link.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] but i wanna be god

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:39:42 2010 No.2151316 >>2151303 For teh LULZ. Like I said, ex-nihilist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:41:42 2010 No.2151321 Apatheism-don't give two shits either way. >Captcha: folock Revelation Damn right Captcha. Sage for stupid crap

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:49:42 2010 No.2151341 Aaaaaaand yet another philosophical debate killed by Nihilism. Chalk one up guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:52:42 2010 No.2151346 >>2151285 see: >>2151281

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 10:56:42 2010 No.2151357
File: 13 KB, 355x267, super-retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151190

NO.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT AGNOSTIC MEANS

YOU DUMB FUCK.

YOU CAN BE AGNOSTIC AND STILL THINK THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPREME BEING IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

I THINK THAT THERE IS A 99.999999999999999 CHANCE THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST AND IS TOTALLY MADE UP BY HUMANS.

IM STILL A FUCKING AGNOSTIC
IM SO MAD

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:14:42 2010 No.2151392

BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT BERTRAND RUSSEL'S TEAPOT

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:16:42 2010 No.2151397 >>2151392 >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL >RUSSEL IT'S RUSSELL, FUCKTARD

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:29:42 2010 No.2151428 File: 59 KB, 480x360, gaijin4koma_peersblog_1200684654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Someone care to define agnosticism for me here? Bonus points if you define yourself as agnostic, but not atheist or theist.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:32:42 2010 No.2151435

>>2151397
>AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:35:42 2010 No.2151444 File: 98 KB, 521x800, gay-porn-free+-1819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] stop responding to retarded threads you fucking idiots

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:36:42 2010 No.2151451
File: 42 KB, 450x338, gay-porn-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREADI AM TROLL HERE IS MY TROLL THREAD

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:37:42 2010 No.2151454 File: 73 KB, 480x640, men-sucking-men_4_3569_si.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] guaranteedreplies.jpeg 300 posts and 33 images omitted

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:38:42 2010 No.2151457 File: 105 KB, 436x263, whatthefuckamireading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS THEREFORE YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT FOR BELIEVING IN ANYTHING. this is not unreasonable. its just rude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 11:41:42 2010 No.2151468 File: 102 KB, 533x800, hardcore-gay-porn+-1843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WHEN WILL YOU RETARDS LEARN TO IGNORE RETARDED THREADS

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 12:49:42 2010 No.2151665 Not all atheists, and not all theists are unreasonable. Stop rage mongering, it's unhealthy.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:05:42 2010 No.2151715

>>2151190
Reality does not care about your beliefs about reality.

Really, all you have is Pascal's wager, which is statistically unwinnable (seriously, how many religions and possible religions are there? And, there's no way to test which ones are more likely than the others)

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:08:42 2010 No.2151722

>>2151212

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Learn to Bayes' Theorem. If one result make something more likely (miracles make deities more likely), then the opposite result makes that thing less likely (lack of miracles make deities less likely).

Would seeing miracles make you more likely to believe in god? If so, then not seeing miracles should make you less likely to believe in god.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:12:42 2010 No.2151730
File: 30 KB, 400x311, Face Banana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw I am the OP and I left this thread six hours ago to go out and expected it to fade out.

You guys sure proved me wrong, You Atheists aren't arguing at all your just trying to prove your point LOL

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:14:42 2010 No.2151738 File: 7 KB, 301x270, Fuck Yeah.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Agnostic: There is a chance that both sides could be right but considering we can't prove or disprove either I'd rather deal with other shit instead of argue. I love grey areas.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:18:42 2010 No.2151749

>>2151238
>atheists think for them-fucking-selves

It's a nice idea, but I haven't seen it bear up in reality. My experience has been that atheists believe what they are told just as much as fundie xtians do, and when the time come to think something through carefully for themselves, they are just as woefully incapable of it as most people in this world seem to be.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:22:42 2010 No.2151757

>>2151715
>doesn't understand pascal's wager
To win pascal's wager, you have to only adopt one religion capable of making you a better person. It is not about God rewarding you for believing, which is how atheists like to portray it, but about believing in a religion because it will spur you to become a better person.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:30:42 2010 No.2151781 > there's no way to test which ones are more likely than the others This is completely opposed to some other people's experiences, but I suppose you can't be blamed for being lazy and unwilling to investigate things for yourself.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:33:42 2010 No.2151790

So, what would your response be to someone who told you that they have experienced and witnessed supernatural miracles in sizeable enough numbers that to allocate them to chance would be more ridiculous to to allocate them to their particular God. (me btw)

Here's the issue with attempting to refute or agree with that:
You can't call them a liar as that doesn't answer the question - it may win you the argument in other people's eyes but not the eye's of the original person.
You can't debate the authenticity of individual miracles since many have been witnessed (and the main point is that they appeared to come at the same time as prayer) so you would essentially be saying that you think my threshold for "when to allocate them to God" is too low.
Equally I cannot expect somebody to believe this unless THEY sense the miracles with their own bodies as the "You are a liar" response works very well from their end because what if I am a liar --> this then invalidates everything I have said and makes my position entirely hypothetical.

There was a reason Jesus always performed miracles when preaching, and a reason he expected miracles to follow his disciples.

Until you personally sense enough miracles to tip you from coincidence to God, all I can do is pick apart any of your problems with popular Christianity and most likely rage against them myself

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:34:42 2010 No.2151791

People have seen angels, people have witnessed miracles, people have even seen God. To believe that every single account of people witnessing the divine is false is stupid in my opinion. I believe some of them are true, not all of them, but some.

Based on that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to live a religious life. The first statement
>THERE IS NO PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS THEREFORE YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT FOR BELIEVING IN ANYTHING.

Is a goddamn lie. You don't want there to be a God, a supreme being doesn't make sense to you, therefore you ignore all evidence of his existence then demand to see evidence of his existence.

I don't need to go to Russia for myself to believe it exists. I believe the accounts of those who've gone there for themselves. Some may be lying, some may be dreaming, some may be crazy, but some are telling the truth.

Thanks for playing atheists. Now get the fuck off the planet and take your religion destroying agenda with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:35:42 2010 No.2151796 >>2151722 So human evolution is a lie because of the missing link

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:36:42 2010 No.2151802 Thats like saying OH I LOVE THE ALLIES AND HOW THEY ARE FREEING EUROPE but on the other hand your saying OH BUT YOU KNOW A NAZI EUROPE AINT TO BAD EITHER. Fence sitters deserve to be shot. Can you handle that home boy

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:36:42 2010 No.2151803

>>2151781
>This is completely opposed to some other people's experiences, but I suppose you can't be blamed for being lazy and unwilling to investigate things for yourself.

Name an empirical test for the correctness of a religion then. What would be different about our world if a specific religion was true?

Its not about laziness, its about the untestability of religious claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:36:42 2010 No.2151805 File: 9 KB, 300x300, 234234234234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Get it? Cause they're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:37:42 2010 No.2151806 Additionally, a religious person or an atheist can any begin to argue with an agnostic if they get the agnostic to agree that it would matter a great deal if their current position were wrong. In that regard religfags have an unfair advantage

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:38:42 2010 No.2151809 >>2151722 Try that in a court of law and see if you can set a record for the highest decibels reached by laughter

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:39:42 2010 No.2151813 >>2151803 Name an empirical test for the correctness of atheism then. What would be different about our world if a specific religion was true? Its not about laziness, its about the untestability of atheists claims.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:41:42 2010 No.2151818

>>2151803
>What would be different about our world if a specific religion was true?

This seems to contain an assumption that the world is the way it is because none of them are true; which itself contains the assumption that you know the fundamental nature of reality.

>Its not about laziness, its about the untestability of religious claims.

Buddhists, Gnostics, Sufis, Taoists, and other traditions all *shun* unsupported belief, and ask you to investigate and test for yourself. Clearly, not everyone is having your problem with testing these things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:41:42 2010 No.2151820 File: 26 KB, 268x312, Successful Troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2151730 >>2150828

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:43:42 2010 No.2151824

You guys miss the point of life, you all expect more from it but thats just it, thats all it is, your the gift do you fucking understand? you thats it, dont ask for more dont beg for less thats all your really getting in this little ride so just deal with what you got and try to be happy.

Colin !!GWicPmfSgsD Sat Dec 4 13:43:42 2010 No.2151825

>>2151813
Here's my test. If I post in 5 minutes, you know Gods didn't strike me down for pride and blasphemy, something nearly every God does. Thus, if I post in 5 minutes, we know Gods aren't real, and we can finally settle this "Is there a God" question once and for all.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:43:42 2010 No.2151826

>>2151796
But each intermediate form we discover makes evolution more likely than not. If one set of known life forms gives you some probability of supporting the evolutionary hypothesis, then another set of known life forms with more intermediate forms should garner more support.

The "missing link" bullshit is about moving the goalposts and not being intellectually honest about evaluating the evidence.

Commit to some percentage belief about how likely evolution is with the lifeforms we know now, then update it up each time a species fits within the evolutionary framework when it is discovered. Similarly, update your belief downward when a species doesn't fit within the evolutionary framework when its discovered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:45:42 2010 No.2151829 >>2151825 Why would god care about an insecure faggot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:45:42 2010 No.2151834 >>2151825 Please tell em you don't actually think that makes sense.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:45:42 2010 No.2151835 >>2151813 If atheism is correct, we shouldn't observe more supernatural experiences than the baseline for irrational apes interacting with things they don't understand.

>>	Colin !!GWicPmfSgsD Sat Dec 4 13:46:42 2010 No.2151836 >>2151829 Wait, for every test I design, will your response be "God doesn't want it that way"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:46:42 2010 No.2151841 >>2151826 If the chain of evidence is incomplete then it is, at best, interesting but it cannot be called factual

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:47:42 2010 No.2151843 >>2151813 The only claim this atheist makes is "I don't believe in God."

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:47:42 2010 No.2151846 >>2151835 What does that have to do with God(s)?

LEARN LOGIC YOU DUMBSHIT ATHEISM = THE LOGICAL CHOICE Sat Dec 4 13:48:42 2010 No.2151847
File: 64 KB, 600x480, 1277242324010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2150828
I don't think you understand reason, or logic.
This debate was actually settled a long time ago.
Atheism is the only logical choice that can be made regarding religion. The proof is as follows:

1) There is no assertive scientific evidence for any sort of religion. People have looked for centuries, but to no avail. Hence, if you choose to "believe" in some sort of religion, this belief is not based off logic, reason or science. Assertive evidence is needed to prove that a "belief" warranted. Lack of "refutive" evidence is not enough to logically warrant a belief in something (see 3)

2) Since there is no
"assertive" scientific evidence for religion, it seems like the only logic choice that can be made is, atheism or agnosticism. "No there is no God" or "I'm not sure if there is a God", both (initially) seem to be logically sound.

3) However, if you claim agnostism, you are basically claiming the "possibility of something", because there is no direct "refutive evidence" (once again). This is not a valid form of reasoning. The idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims, was proven false log ago. (see Russell's teapot). If you really don't understand this, you need to take a basic logic or phil course.

4) Hence, our only choice left is atheism. Which passes all logic tests, and meets the minimum criteria to be a logically valid belief.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:48:42 2010 No.2151848 >>2151836 Exactly. You can't prove god isn't real. Theists can't prove he is real. Agnostic master race knows this and focuses their attention of things that can be solved

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:48:42 2010 No.2151850 >>2151818 >Buddhists shun unsupported belief They believe in reincarnation. Your statement is wrong as a simple matter of fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:48:42 2010 No.2151851 >>2151835 And my response --> yup it does, you just haven't seen it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:48:42 2010 No.2151852 >>2151836 Until you can show why the God you're testing would want it that way, your tests are useless.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:50:42 2010 No.2151856 >>2151851 Show me the evidence then. Do it. I'm not going to change my mind just because someone says there is evidence. I'll only change my mind if I genuinely believe there is evidence for it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:51:42 2010 No.2151858
File: 69 KB, 218x230, 1285612621332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151847
>Atheism: The belief that god isn't real
Here is a comprehensive list of evidence to support that claim:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawkins said so in his books
>Logical

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:51:42 2010 No.2151860 >>2151856 Like agnostics

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:52:42 2010 No.2151862

>>2151847

So, what would your response be to someone who told you that they have experienced and witnessed supernatural miracles in sizeable enough numbers that to allocate them to chance would be more ridiculous to to allocate them to their particular God. (me btw)

Here's the issue with attempting to refute or agree with that:
You can't call them a liar as that doesn't answer the question - it may win you the argument in other people's eyes but not the eye's of the original person.
You can't debate the authenticity of individual miracles since many have been witnessed (and the main point is that they appeared to come at the same time as prayer) so you would essentially be saying that you think my threshold for "when to allocate them to God" is too low.
Equally I cannot expect somebody to believe this unless THEY sense the miracles with their own bodies as the "You are a liar" response works very well from their end because what if I am a liar --> this then invalidates everything I have said and makes my position entirely hypothetical.

There was a reason Jesus always performed miracles when preaching, and a reason he expected miracles to follow his disciples.

Until you personally sense enough miracles to tip you from coincidence to God, all I can do is pick apart any of your problems with popular Christianity and most likely rage against them myself

Posted earlier itt but everything here is a repost

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:52:42 2010 No.2151863 >>2151757 >religion will spur you to become a better person AHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:53:42 2010 No.2151864 >>2151850 Buddhists are told not to believe in reincarnation, not to believe in any of Buddhas statements.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:53:42 2010 No.2151865 The bottom line is the traditional agnostic, is actually an atheist, albeit a weak atheist. Most agnostics don't even know what agnosticism really is. Therefore, agnistics=dipshits

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 13:53:42 2010 No.2151868

>>2151846
If god(s) exist, we'd be more likely to notice god(s) doing things than if god(s) don't exist.

If god(s) don't exist, we'd be less likely to notice no god(s) doing nothing than if god(s) exist.

Let me try another phrasing: if you'd be more likely to believe in a deity if tomorrow night you see "YHWH" burned into the moon, then you also have to be less likely to believe in a deity if tomorrow night the moon is exactly the same as it was the night before.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:55:42 2010 No.2151873 >>2151847 >bullshit claims based on lack of understanding of virtually everything

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:57:42 2010 No.2151878 >>2151868 Again, that line of thought presupposes a great many assumptions about the nature of the god(s) in question, and also about your ability to "notice" their effects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 13:59:42 2010 No.2151881 >>2151865 >He doesn't know what agnosticism means

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:00:42 2010 No.2151887

>>2151856

Find yourself a proper church (which will be fairly difficult) and challenge them. If you can't find a proper church that makes sense then you're a bit screwed unless God reaches out and grabs you

Oh wait, Salvation is by Grace not Works that no man may boast.
So let me get this straight, humans are screwed unless they have a direct experience with God? Yup
Also, if you challenged me and I prayed and it happens there is no way to know that I did pray - I could just be trolling - so then your entire basis for faith (I am naively assuming you would not put it down to chance - see earlier argument about that) would be based on one coincidence and you would ruin your life trying to follow the rules (as you wouldn't get into a proper church and learn that the rules no longer apply to a saved Christian)

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:01:42 2010 No.2151888

>>2151757

I prefer to make myself a better person. Organized religion has a terrible track record, here.

See: Catholic priests abusing children, every irrational war, suicide bombers, etc, etc.

Besides which, believing in belief is not belief itself. Even if I think its better for me to be a member of a religion, that isn't enough to convince me of the tenants of that religion. All that does is get me in the door, which is not enough to make me a better person.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:03:42 2010 No.2151898 >>2151878 Apply Occam's razor directly to beliefs in any deity whose effects are indistinguishable from their nonexistence. Come on, its not that hard.

ATHEISM = THE LOGICAL CHOICE Sat Dec 4 14:04:42 2010 No.2151902
File: 28 KB, 363x310, 1277429447433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151862
A few people "claiming" to experience some weird shit is not science bro. It is not logical to make assertive assumptions based off a few peoples anecdotal stories.

All you are doing is making appeals to ignorance and appeals to emotion, you are not presenting any sort of logical train of thought, or reasoning. You simply have "faith" based views (which are akin to you being gullible as fuck).

Show me how you can logically get from,
"I experiences some weird shit", to some assertive insight about a religion being true. You seem to have evidence the world does not? Positive evidence that proves the existence of God? Yet you won't share it?

LMAO....In reality you are mistaking things that aren't evidence for evidence, due to your lack of critical thinking ability.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:05:42 2010 No.2151907

>>2151856
Also thank you for saying "Show me the evidence then - do it"
I have already said how it was not a single miracle or hearing second hand about miracles but observing an increasingly large number of them. I could ridicule your cynicism if I showed you a website detailing miracles or posted a few I've seen up as how would you know they're real?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:06:42 2010 No.2151910 Agnostic: "The guy preferring to let science come before beliefs is no more reasonable than the guy that thinks a talking snake tricked a woman into eating a magical apple" (totally reasonable)

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:07:42 2010 No.2151926

>>2151902

again - repeated miracles in context. The context was where my beliefs came from

Of course you can't "believe in God" because of some random supernatural stuff but when that stuff correlates alarmingly well with a biblical Christian message you have to stop and think

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:08:42 2010 No.2151930

>>2151898
Occam's razor only works within consistent metaphysical belief structures. It doesn't work to choose one set of metaphysical belief structures over any other; if it were applied in such a way the end result would always be solipsism. So it doesn't help your argument, and it does nothing to show that your simplest explanations are not merely a self-consistent misinterpretation of reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:09:42 2010 No.2151937 >>2151898 Apply occams razor to being that have the power to shape the universe as they see fit. Come on it's not that hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:13:42 2010 No.2151949 >>2151907 >how would you know they're real? Exactly you dumbfuck! If you have no way to prove something is real, then it is not a valid to take it as real. You need to be able to verify shit.....DURRRR. YOU MUST BE TROLLING?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:13:42 2010 No.2151951 >>2151926 There's so much random shit in the bible you could find just about anything that "correlates" with something. And whatever you experienced, it wasn't supernatural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:14:42 2010 No.2151959 >>2151951 >And whatever you experienced, it wasn't supernatural. Evidence?

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:16:42 2010 No.2151967

>>2151862

Privileging the hypothesis.

Basically, it should take a certain amount of evidence in order to locate the true hypothesis out of all possible ones. This is much more evidence than it takes to determine whether or not one hypothesis is right or not.

In human minds, if you can convince someone to evaluate one particular hypothesis out of all the possible ones, most of the work of convincing someone OF that hypothesis is already done.

Trying to decide "is Christianty true" is extremely premature, since there isn't enough evidence to promote evaluating the truthfulness of Christianity to my attention.

>what would your response be

I'd agree to update my belief in the nonexistence of all supernatural effects slightly downward. After all, unlikely things have to happen to some people sometime. If you want to revise my beliefs more, you have to give better and more detailed evidence than "this one time, something spooky happened"

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:17:42 2010 No.2151971
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1270664214909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151907
>dumbfuck disproves his own argument

If a belief has no assertive evidence backing it up (that you can prove is real), it is not a logical/reasonable/scientific belief to have. Enjoy your faith (gullibility) faggot!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:18:42 2010 No.2151977 >>2150921 You don't know what being an atheist is. Being an atheist != believing there is no god Being an atheist = not believing there is a god Two very different things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:19:42 2010 No.2151978 >>2151949 I'm saying I can't show you; you have to see for yourself - allocate the ability to be self-consistent to people other than yourself please. Also u mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:19:42 2010 No.2151980 >>2151959 um, what? If you're going to say something as crazy as "derp something supernatural, rather than a natural phenomenon that I'm just ignorant of, happened to me" i'm afraid the burden of proof lays with you.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:19:42 2010 No.2151982

>>2151926

Why were you even thinking of correlating it with a biblical Christian message, as opposed to say, Thor? Or an Islamic message? Or thetans? Or any one of a billion other possible reasons supernatural things were happening?

Most of the work of convincing you to be a Christian was done when you decided to compare things to a biblical Christian message.

Its like picking a name out of a phone book to investigate a murder, then claiming you found the murderer when the name happens to share hair color and shoe size with the murderer.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:22:42 2010 No.2151993 >>2151937 Come on, you can do better than just pattern-matching to find a statement that sounds like its talking about Occam's Razor.

sage sage Sat Dec 4 14:22:42 2010 No.2151994
File: 104 KB, 466x522, 1289762459072.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151959
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on those who asserted it, not those who refute is.

Did you never go to college? High school? Were you fucking raised by boars? Cause you seem to be uneducated as fuck!

Trolling??

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:23:42 2010 No.2151996

>>2151980
You're making an assessment of data you haven't even seen. You are, in effect, implicitly claiming supernatural powers - specifically, the ability to correctly form a theory about reality without reference to the data from reality.

Also, burden of proof is a social matter, and does not, in itself, require that supernaturalism needs to be proven before naturalism. It is merely your already formed and held belief in naturalism that would make you think so.

So to a supernaturalist, your ignorance of a supernatural phenomenon which you assess as natural is just as wrong.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:25:42 2010 No.2152002

>>2151967

And that's all I wanted - Thank you so much
Also I couldn't provide you with any evidence you would have to see it yourself. Again, weight of evidence is important. I come from a Christian family but did not believe until I had witnessed around 20 miracles in my church (small things - broken toes, back problems, allergies) and another 2-3 miracles happening to friends I knew very well + over 120 miracles happening at a big meeting + the Holy Spirit filling me.
It took me a bloody long time and I can only hope that you'll be able to say something like this in the future

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:27:42 2010 No.2152013 >>2151994 That rule doesn't work: T: I assert that God exists. The burden of proof is mine. A: I assert that God doesn't definitely exist. The burden of proof is mine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:28:42 2010 No.2152018 >>2151982 Because the people praying for the miracles were Christians but mainly because of the filled by the Holy Spirit thing (and I so hate how wishy washy that sounds [and how difficult it is to incorperate into an argument])

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:28:42 2010 No.2152019

>>2151996
If someone told me they killed a group of bears with their bear hands, would I need supernatural powers to know they're lying?

Have you ever even tried googling your "supernatural" experience to see what experts have to say about it?

And are you seriously trying to twist words around in some petty attempt to defend your absurd beliefs by convincing yourself that everyone else is just being unreasonable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:28:42 2010 No.2152020 >>2152002 The ignorance in which you exist is stunning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:29:42 2010 No.2152024 >>2152013 No, it doesn't work because burden of proof only works on people who share the same base assumptions as you.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:29:42 2010 No.2152026

>>2151996
>You are, in effect, implicitly claiming supernatural powers - specifically, the ability to correctly form a theory about reality without reference to the data from reality.

Nope. He's just making a statement about the probability that some phenomena is natural, given that an ignorant person claims it is supernatural. He is using data from reality - namely, that the person giving the data is a dumbfuck and claims that something supernatural happened.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:31:42 2010 No.2152028 >>2152019 Yes, yes you would to "know" But you wouldn't to "suspect" inb4 "reasonably suspect" is that is totally subjective

>>	Mokes Sat Dec 4 14:31:42 2010 No.2152029 How about 'Don't Careism'?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:31:42 2010 No.2152031 File: 39 KB, 525x700, 1281779806583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152002 SKY WIZARDS. SKY WIZARDS EVERYWHERE

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:33:42 2010 No.2152042 >>2152028 LOL, leave it to religious people to get picky with words when faced with dreaded reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:33:42 2010 No.2152043 To quote Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

>>	bloke from earlier Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:33:42 2010 No.2152044 >>2152026 He's actually saying that you weren't there so you can't know for certain - placing very strict definitions on the "know" namely for certain. Besides, even if you were there what if you were hallucinating

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:34:42 2010 No.2152047

>>2152002
>implying that broken toes, back problems, and allergies can't fix themselves

Come back when you pray back an amputated limb.

Oh wait.

On a serious note, I doubt you are noticing enough non-fulfillment of prayers and comparing the rate of fulfillment to random chance or people trying to pull a fast one on you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:35:42 2010 No.2152050 >>2152024 That doesn't make my reason incorrect. Besides, it's possible to set up a discussion where both people accept the same base assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:36:42 2010 No.2152051 >>2152042 Please explain how "reasonably" is non-subjective. Do you give it a fixed probability threshold? (furthermore that threshold is often different depending on the consequences of your assertion

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:36:42 2010 No.2152055 >>2152043 /thread

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:37:42 2010 No.2152057

>>2152047
serious note continued: also comparing problems fixed by prayers to problems fixed by not praying. If your church prays for 25% of its problems, and 30% of the prayed for problems get fixed, and 30% of the not-prayed for problems get fixed, then there's no evidence that the prayer did anything.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:37:42 2010 No.2152058

>>2152019
Essentially, your argument boils down to
>In my experience, reality seems to work like *this*
>someone claims something that would only happen if reality worked like *that*
>I don't think reality works like *that*
>therefore it didn't happen
...which may very well sound reasonable to you, and in a logical sense it certainly could be valid. It is not, however, philosophically neutral. It requires a rigid foundation of "reality works like *this*", used as justification to not investigate other possible ways that reality might work. It is, in that sense, circular logic, since you will view reality through your assumptions as a lens. This might be good enough for you. I was hoping for more, though.

sage sage Sat Dec 4 14:38:42 2010 No.2152061
File: 239 KB, 650x520, 1267737760735.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2151978
But everyone "sees" different things dumbshit...hence no facts can be established.

Ohh, I forgot you don't like facts, you just like making up nonsense. Well, I saw no God at all.

I also saw a group of serial killers, abducting your whole fucking family at christmas. They torture and rape the shit out of y'all for years. They make you hurt and rape each other as well, a few of yall are killed at each others hand, then forced to fuck and eat the bodies.

They eventually split yall up, sell yall into slavery overseas. You are eventually killed at the age of 60, by the various parisites and infections that your masters (you refer to one as "God") have filled you with.

Your body is then desecrated repeatidly, before it is given to the surviving members of your family as there only source of food.

THIS IS 100$% TRUE right? I saw it for myself. So, it must be fucking true! enjoy your last few days buddy!

\thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:38:42 2010 No.2152062 >>2150838 >>Agnostic: Sees the logical fallacy of religion Implying the belief in a superior being is exclusive to religion

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:40:42 2010 No.2152072

>>2152026
He's saying more than that. He saying his assumptions about the nature of reality can be trusted, and that he can conclusively dismiss alternative perspectives confidently.

>that the person giving the data is a dumbfuck and claims that something supernatural happened.

That is not data, that is interpretation.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:42:42 2010 No.2152079 >>2152058 Philosophically neutral isn't rational. Being philosophically neutral is being a rock. People lie or are incorrect about unlikely-sounding experiences at a higher rate than about likely-sounding ones.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:42:42 2010 No.2152085

>>2152047

Nope not claiming they can't randomly get better.
A broken arm can't heal in 2 days when doctors gave it 5 weeks (interestingly enough that guy claimed it was because he was a "very active person" and didn't believe it was as a result of me and a friend laying hands on it and praying, later using it as a counter example refuting miracles)
But now we're getting into discussions about individual miracles and my argument was initially, and still is, about many examples not a few.

If you ignore results that deviate from your expected curve, then at some point you may have to revise your expected curve if the amount of excluded points becomes too high - that is what I did

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:42:42 2010 No.2152086 >>2152050 >it's possible to set up a discussion where both people accept the same base assumptions. Sure. This isn't it, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:42:42 2010 No.2152087 >>2151190 What if god rewards doubting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:42:42 2010 No.2152088 File: 24 KB, 420x525, 64831_EpicWin_Epic_Wins-s420x525-48785-580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152061 Yes, I also have ancedotal evidence supporting that this will happen to >>2151978 ! Poor guy!

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:43:42 2010 No.2152094

>>2152072

Fine, I'll give you the point about not being data. Appears to be a dumbfuck is a more accurate way of putting it, anyhow, since you don't actually know if they are one or not. All you really know is your perception of their ability to rationally judge experiences.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:45:42 2010 No.2152101

>>2152079
What sounds likely or unlikely depends upon your initial assumptions. "Likely" to a naturalist can be the opposite of "likely" to a supernaturalist.

>Being philosophically neutral is being a rock.

Hardly. If you're not willing to be skeptical of your own fundamental assumptions then you're not willing to be skeptical in any meaningful sense. Only fools believe that they cannot improve on their mindsets.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:48:42 2010 No.2152114

>>2152051
You could in fact KNOW that someone hasn't killed a group of bears with their bare hands, because it's a scientific fact that 3-inch bear claws tear through flesh like tissue paper, and that it is in fact impossible to bludgeon a bear to death with only the force of a human punch.

Same goes for whatever "miracles" you claim to have experienced. Broken toes heal, neck problems go away, and most importantly occupying your thoughts on something else--such as music, romance, or yes, religion--is proven to dull pain, giving way for those "miracles" you saw at the Sunday hick-gathering; that says nothing other than the fact that your religion's effects on you are no more holy or supernatural than the effects on the gay couple fucking each other next door.

And allow me to introduce you to the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This little concept may be new to some sections of America where it's still illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays, but for the rest of civilized society this covered pretty much all you need to know about subjectivity. You can play lawyer hide behind the subjectivity of reason, but if human error was great enough to make it as subjective as you like to believe, we quite literally wouldn't have evolved far enough to throw rocks at each other; every animal in existence has a less flexible grasp on the concept of basic reason than what you seem to possess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:51:42 2010 No.2152128 File: 89 KB, 500x334, 6225692_73da197b1a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152061 I too, know this to be true

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:52:42 2010 No.2152135

>>2152101
There's a difference between being able to question the basis of common knowledge to a reasonable extent, and going so far as to say that peasants from 2000 years ago have a better grasp on knowledge than scientists in educated societies today. Get back to working on that philosophy degree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:53:42 2010 No.2152138 File: 418 KB, 594x500, 1267340126132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2150828 >supernaturalist But there is no proof of the supernatural......It is just akin to more "making shit up"

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:54:42 2010 No.2152141

>>2152114
>I've never seen miracles, therefore miracles cannot happen.

...in other words, any experience that someone assesses as a miracle is not a miracle, and they only assess it as a result of some flaw in their thinking.

Or restated, your thinking is flawless.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 14:55:42 2010 No.2152143

>>2152085
Alright, back to the statistical thinking.

You're only giving the data for when maladies are prayed for and they are fixed. In order to accurately assess whether or not prayer is doing anything, you need more data. Specifically, you need to know what percentage of all maladies get fixed, regardless of whether or not they got prayed for, as well how often prayed for maladies don't get fixed.

Without this, all I can conclude is that you saw some good things happen sometimes after your group prayed. I'm okay with this, because good things happen anyways.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:56:42 2010 No.2152148

>>2152057

And you've assumed I didn't take that into consideration. When I look back at things the whole church prayed for or there was a prayer request sent out then the number of fails/successes was extremely small.
Random personal prayers are too difficult to analyse as there are far too many of them and far too many ways of "answering".
Example of this: Someone prays for a certain job, and fails to get it. He keeps looking around and finds one that pays enough and doesn't have any Christians in at all.
It is unreasonable to expect somebody to believe this is not coincidence. So I don't count that as a valid miracle to use for the purpose of talking to other people or I counted it as a fail before I was a Christian.

when I said it took me a certain number of miracles to reach the tipping point, they were not miracles like this. The ones that convinced me were typically healing (as they were the only ones you can't easily disregard as coincidences).

Ironically I am disabled and have not been healed and the Apostle Paul was disabled (he refers to a "thorn in my flesh") yet was not healed.
This very personal miracle failure was the main reason I took so long to realize. As much as i like to think I am entirely rational, selfishness and personal attachment to a miracle success or failure did (and probably still does) cloud my view

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:56:42 2010 No.2152150

>>2152086
>Sure, this isn't it, though.

OK, but my reason for the "burden of proof" being fallacious can't be circumvented and therefore is a legitimate reason.

Your reason can be circumvented by setting up a proper discussion. So it's not a legitimate reason for the burden of proof being wrong. It's just a circumstance in which it would be wrong.

But anyway, I'm glad we agree that the "burden of proof" rule doesn't actually work.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 14:57:42 2010 No.2152153

>>2152135
>going so far as to say that peasants from 2000 years ago have a better grasp on knowledge than scientists in educated societies today.

Stripping the humor out of that sentence, you're basically saying that people who didn't think exactly like you do are stupid. As if everyone before the enlightenment was prone to walk around attributing everyday events to supernatural causes for no good reason.

>>	sage sage Sat Dec 4 14:59:42 2010 No.2152158 File: 47 KB, 497x414, 005a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >"burden of proof" rule doesn't actually work. WTF am I reading? Looks like someone failed intro to philosophy

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:01:42 2010 No.2152163

>>2152141
My thinking is simply less flawed than your thinking. When I see someone fall to their death, I don't think "God must have crushed them." I think "g=9.81m/s^2"

And by assuming that non-believers simply haven't experienced "miracles," you're assuming that your eyes/ears possess abilities that others' don't, or that you're a higher priority for your sky wizard.

sage sage Sat Dec 4 15:01:42 2010 No.2152168
File: 20 KB, 254x296, troll_5116425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>everyone before the enlightenment was prone to walk around attributing everyday events to supernatural causes for no good reason

DURRRRRRRR
So you never took a world history course? Are you 12? 13?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:01:59 2010 No.2152169 >>2152158 Yeah, that'd be you. Tell me, when two theists meet, do they have a burden to prove to each other the existence of god before they start talking about god?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:02:01 2010 No.2152175 >>2152168 So you never took an anthropology course? Seriously, your implication only marks you an idiot.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:05:11 2010 No.2152187

>>2152163
>My thinking is simply less flawed than your thinking.

Yes, that's what all dogmatists think.

>And by assuming that non-believers simply haven't experienced "miracles," you're assuming that your eyes/ears possess abilities that others' don't, or that you're a higher priority for your sky wizard.

Like your assumption that your intellect possesses abilities or qualities that theirs don't?

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 15:07:14 2010 No.2152192

>>2152101

I don't believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, since it has risen every previous morning, and I choose to follow anti-Laplacian priors for the sake of argument.

I know that my anti-Laplacian priors are good because in the past, the predictions I've made using them have never come true.

>serious commentary now

There are fewer fundamental assumptions than you think, and they are more fundamental than you think they are.

You are just trying to convince me to lend credence to unlikely hypotheses by an open-mindedness argument. However, being too open-minded is also a bias that can cause someone to believe in incorrect things and too easily accept weak arguments.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 15:09:02 2010 No.2152205 >>2152141 Yet you are completely fine with ignoring African testimony as to the existence and power of witchcraft, and don't take even the most basic of precautions against witches.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:10:05 2010 No.2152208

>>2152192
>There are fewer fundamental assumptions than you think, and they are more fundamental than you think they are.

And now you have some supernatural insight into how many fundamental assumptions I think there are, and how fundamental I think they are. Nice trick.

>You are just trying to convince me

Actually I don't care in the least what you believe. My interest lies entirely in how many cognitive errors people will willingly accept in service of their worldview.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:11:26 2010 No.2152212

>>2152187
Dude, I'm English ---- I'm the one who should be doing all the imperialistic I'm superior you're a hick stuff.
As for scientific method - doing physics 2nd year
so tits or gtfo (Taking your breasts to be vanishingly small [as there are no girls on the interwebs], this reduces to gtfo)

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 15:12:50 2010 No.2152216

>>2152148

>When I look back at things the whole church prayed for or there was a prayer request sent out then the number of fails/successes was extremely small.

I could start a church that prays every night for the sun to rise the next morning, and get an even better success rate.

Starting to see what my problem is with your data reporting? Hint: its not with the rate of positive results of prayer, its with the rate of positive results of non-prayer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:12:50 2010 No.2152217 >>2152205 Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I am, in point of fact, a practitioner of witchcraft. How am I supposed to be in awe of your intellectual prowess when you keep churning out false conclusions?

TG Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:17:22 2010 No.2152232

>>2152192
Not all replies are me - it appears there is another thiestfag on here but I previously I cba use a name most of the time

His point still stands - it is not an open-mindedness argument (I think) it is an argument regarding the subjectiveness of everyone's world views and the presence of hidden assumptions

>>	TG Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:19:50 2010 No.2152242 >>2152205 Being saved is a flawless protection from witchery - everything that sets itself up against God had its' power removed at the cross for those who believe in it. My precaution against all other supernatural stuff is simple: be aChristian

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:20:31 2010 No.2152246 Agnostic Atheist Master Race reporting in. If you're a faggot who thinks he can know whether a god exists or not then get the fuck out of the /sci/ence board.

>>	TG Anonymous Sat Dec 4 15:21:21 2010 No.2152253 >>2152216 I have already said that healings were the only miracles I take into account when discussing probabilities with others and I do not count the times when the person can be treated by doctors and we pray for no complications

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Sat Dec 4 15:22:37 2010 No.2152257

>>2152208
>insight into how many fundamental assumptions I think there are, and how fundamental I think they are.

You think you can be skeptical of your fundamental assumptions. Thats insight enough.

Fundamentally, we assume that things that things are more likely to happen in the future if they have happened often in the past. We also are fundamentally convinced by a Modus Ponens argument. We can conceive of intelligences that don't work that way, but we can't actually think using that way.

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