Why can't God and science coexist? Why do the scientific-minded discount God while the faithful condemn science?

File: 7 KB, 300x168, jesusscience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:54:01 2010 No.2213534 [Reply] [Original]

Why can't God and science coexist? Why do the scientific-minded discount God while the faithful condemn science?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:55:01 2010 No.2213538 >Why can't God and science coexist? Why do the scientific-minded discount God while the faithful condemn science?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:55:01 2010 No.2213542 One is based on evidence, the other on faith. You cannot reconcile them; you can only choose one or compartmentalise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:56:01 2010 No.2213544 File: 38 KB, 392x278, seabeast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] That'll depend on which religion you're talkin about, OP. Personally, it just matters how your god is portrayed. Mine is in pic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:56:01 2010 No.2213545 science exposes truths that leave religion both obsolete and false.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:56:01 2010 No.2213546 Both of those mindsets are idiotic. The truly scientific-minded have to accept the possibility of a god until proven otherwise and the god faithful have to accept what is proven fact.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:57:01 2010 No.2213550 >Why can't NOT REAL and REALITY coexist? Why do the REALITY-minded discount THE NOT REAL while the BELIEVERS condemn REALITY? There ya go.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 22:58:01 2010 No.2213557

Religion is based on faith while science is based on empiricism. One relies on believing something without proof while the other requires it. They can coexist as long as people are able to compartmentalize each, in the same way someone can say they love their wife yet still cheat on them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:02:01 2010 No.2213569 >>2213545 I didn't mention a specific faith, a certainly not one that damns science. Why is it that when people think of religion they think of Christianity and Bible thumping? Certainly my faith doesn't have such beliefs

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:03:01 2010 No.2213571 File: 18 KB, 360x414, FuturePower.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2213557 Certainly with all this new information about different dimensions there must be some reason to accept that a metaphysical world is not beyond possibility

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Thu Dec 16 23:03:01 2010 No.2213573 File: 42 KB, 800x600, 1277827771855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:04:01 2010 No.2213577 File: 34 KB, 320x452, whatbeastisthis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2213571 Meh, sort of valid. But that doesn't mean a man floating in the sky is any source of this life after death

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:06:01 2010 No.2213585 File: 64 KB, 600x416, teapot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2213569 The very concept of faith is the anti-thesis to scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:07:01 2010 No.2213589 >>2213571 dimensions? Those are part of our universe (assuming string theory is correct) and follow sets of mathematical rules. I.e. they're bound by logic and are testable. The metaphysical is not.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:08:01 2010 No.2213591

I remember in biology our teacher showed us an interview of a geneticist who believed in god.

He said he believed god, or powerful being, created the universe and nothing more. Evolution occurred through a series of events that eventually lead to the current state of the universe.

He believed that god does not interfere with human life or any other life that may exist in the universe and that there is no divine heaven when you die.

One of his best quotes;
>"Do you remember what it was like before you were born? That is what it will be like when you die."

He believed all man made religions are essentially hoaxes created to control people by forcing an ideology.

This is the only type of faith you can have that doesn't contradict itself and can't be disproven by science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:08:01 2010 No.2213593 do you think deism could co-exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:10:01 2010 No.2213597 >>2213591 god of the gaps, always retreating.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:18:01 2010 No.2213620

Mormon here, what about Mormonism presupposes science can't be right? What about science presupposes Mormonism false?

I see no reason why we can't accept a life of faith and believe that what science teaches is true.

I find people that think they cannot be reconciled to be fools.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:28:01 2010 No.2213651 >>2213620 >What about science presupposes Mormonism false? The fact that some asshole made it all up. Mormons think that Native Americans are Jews. Native Americans do not have the DNA to be considered Jewish.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:28:01 2010 No.2213652 >>2213620 mormon bible is the generic bible + some extra chapters, right? If so, anything that applies to the generic bible applies to mormonism too. end of story.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:29:01 2010 No.2213656 >Scientific reasoning has exposed religious claims as outragiously impossible >Religion dogmatically resists anything that goes against its strict teachings >also butuhurt

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:30:01 2010 No.2213660 The idea of a God is something too specific and based on emotion to be taken seriously. What exactly is a "conscious creator"? How conscious are they? What is their goal? Do we associate human emotions with them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:32:01 2010 No.2213666 File: 53 KB, 729x650, 1290998048449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2213656 religiousfags just lose followers every day and science marches on at every-accelerating rates. And their lord still hasn't returned. pic related.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:35:01 2010 No.2213674 Religious people can accept science, but only if they 'forget' to apply the scientific method and scientific skepticism to their religion. And let's face it, claiming the existence of undetectable immortality givers is really pushing credulity.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:36:01 2010 No.2213678

>>2213546
>scientific-minded have to accept the possibility of a god until proven otherwise

Without any solid definition of "God", this statement has no substance. The purely rational have to accept the possibility of (every non self-contradictory) God and thing in the universe including unicorns, pixies, and sane women. Problem is should we ever actually discover a horse with a horn on its head would it still be the same thing as the "unicorn" we imagined?

>and the god faithful have to accept what is proven fact.

Science does not "prove facts", that's not how it works. All "scientific facts" are open to being disproved. Some (eg Newtonian gravity) tend to stick around for a few centuries before they are replaced with better theories of the universe, but no scientific theory is beyond evidential scrutiny.

The reason "belief in God" and "science" can not coexist is because one is based on Revelation - the idea that knowledge has been privately revealed to humans (through God talking or angels or voices in your head) whereas the other is based on reason and fallibilism.

You can not rectify faith with reason.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:43:01 2010 No.2213702

>>2213546
>The truly scientific-minded have to accept the possibility of a god until proven otherwise

No, because nobody delivers a "theory of god" that makes testable predictions. It's not a valid theory under the scientific method.

If you deliver a theory of god that makes verifiable or falsifiable predictions then those will be tested, the experiments will be peer-reviewed and then everyone will know that god (as defined in that theory) has a high probability to exist.
But that does not require faith, it only requires knowledge.

Science basically works like this: "I'll laugh at you for your nutcase theory, i'll ridicule you publicly and won't believe a word of it. But if you publish a paper on it and it gets through peer review and other people reproduce your findings then i'll re-evaluate my opinion of your theory."

In principle science may be agnostic. But that does not mean it'll tolerate any non-sense. The burden of proof is still on anyone who makes such claims.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:49:01 2010 No.2213724 which god?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:50:01 2010 No.2213729

>>2213678

>You can not rectify faith with reason.

Sure can.

Our current inability to understand that something does or can exist, doesn't mean that thing cannot or does not exist.

If you explained electricity to a human 2,000 years ago, it would have sounded crazy and magical, just like faith does. They did not have the base knowledge or tools to understand it.

Just because humans did not or could not know about electricity 2,000 years ago doesn't mean electricity did not exist 2,000 years ago.

Electricity did exist 2,000 years ago and despite bnot knowing about it, they experienced it through lightning, static electricity etc. Their inability to identify those phenomenon as electricty still does not mean it does not exist.

The process of humans understanding and identifying electricity was a gradual one.

Our inability to understand or identify God doesn't mean it cannot or does not exist.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:52:01 2010 No.2213736

>>2213702

>No, because nobody delivers a "theory of god" that makes testable predictions. It's not a valid theory under the scientific method.

That is just fucking retarded. If all knowledge was based on already obtained knowledge, it would be impossible to obtain new knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:52:01 2010 No.2213737 >>2213729 LOL what a crock of shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:55:01 2010 No.2213746 Why do the faithful want god to exist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpKBxHMlzCU

>>	BONE Thu Dec 16 23:55:01 2010 No.2213748 >>2213729 god of the gaps get out

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:56:01 2010 No.2213756

>>2213737

>LOL what a crock of shit

So you know all things that are known are can ever be known as absolute facts?

Because if you follow your retardedness to conclusion you would have to in order for your wholesale rejection to make any sense at all.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:57:01 2010 No.2213757

>>2213729
the difference is that one thing would involve a knowledgeable person time-traveling into the past and the other would mean stone-hut philosophers writing books about some ill-defined thing they call "god" several thousand years ago and leaving it unchanged since then.

There is nothing new to learn about it if you don't subject it to scientific method. Because only revising your basic knowledge allows you to expand it.

Our knowledge of that god-thing only has expanded in one sense: Every day we learn more things that he is not responsible for.

Good that you mention electricity. A few thousand years ago there was zeus sitting on the olymp and sending down lightnings on unsuspecting humans.

Now we have clouds separating electric charges trough friction and discharging themselves through lightning strikes.

Guess what... god has been retreating ever since. He's now so far removed from the world that people claim he has no physical effects anymore and only really created the universe.

Remember when things were different?

Yeah, guess who's winning.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 23:59:01 2010 No.2213762

>>2213729

You are confusing definitions. "Faith" isn't the idea that hypothetically a God is possible. "Faith" is the solid belief in something for which there is no evidence. It is the mode of thinking "faith" that is incompatible with science, not the particular thing you might have faith in that is incompatible with science. The whole method of thought is wrong.

>>	BONE Thu Dec 16 23:59:01 2010 No.2213763 >>2213756 Just because we may not know if they exist or not does not leave you any room to postulate whether a god exists, or any particular god for that matter. Bertrand Russell's teapot argument sums it up nicely.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:01:01 2010 No.2213768

>>2213729
..but there was never a "leap of faith" for discovering electricity... it was gradual as you mentioned. Testing and proving and all that good stuff. Not basing your theories on a two thousand year old book that is unchanging (or any other dogma blindly repeated for generations).

Know what /sci/?
Let's all get together on Sundays and eat bread. That will help us understand electricity.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:02:01 2010 No.2213773

Look, I'm not going to say things you are used to hearing like "there is no evidence of god" because you don't want a scientific reason why we don't accept god, just like we don't want a religious reason why you reject science.

So here is the best answer I can give you. We all enter this world completely ignorant of everything, science as well as religion. Now, forget "science" and "religion" if you look around the world you notice some things.. such as "what goes up must come down", then there are other things that people just tell you that you can't see for yourself.
Are you going to go building your entire worldview based on what others tell you? Or based on what you observe for yourself?
The latter is science, the former is religion.

So they are not incompatible in the sense that science says religion is wrong (or vice versa) but being a person of science it is just difficult to simply trust what anyone says.

A lot of scientifically illiterate people think science is just faith in what scientists tell us, but that is complete BS. Science is completely naked, there is nothing hidden, every reason we have a rule or law or theory is presented in plain view for all to see and criticize.
With religion you just trust PEOPLE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:06:01 2010 No.2213784 >>2213773With religion you just trust PEOPLE. People who gain lots of money, power, and children's poopers the more the religion is propagated no less. Not exactly impartial witnesses.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:07:01 2010 No.2213786

For me, personally, I find it quite exhilarating to be living in this state of not knowing. To know that a deity exists, or does not exist, would, honestly, be much of a disappointment and would "spoil the fun."

Maybe I'm looking at this from too much of a child's perspective, but I still find it quite enthralling nonetheless that there exists a higher being out there that governs and safeguards the "truth," or vice-versa. Either way, we will certainly never know fully, because in the corner of our mind will always remain the shrivel of doubt locked inside.

The means is much more exciting that the ends.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:07:01 2010 No.2213789

>>2213591
>"Do you remember what it was like before you were born? That is what it will be like when you die."
>This is the only type of faith you can have that doesn't contradict itself and can't be disproven by science.

How does he know?

Such a proposition can't be proved OR disproved... yet.

Science (n.) 2. Accumulated and established KNOWLEDGE, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge. [1913 Webster, emphasis mine]

Science is just what we *know.* Atheism, on the other hand is a lack of faith. The smart ones have based that lack of faith on a lack of evidence and have solid reasons for not having it. The faithful are typically frightened people who have probably been brought up to believe all they're told. Most of them simply don't know anything else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:09:01 2010 No.2213795 >>2213786 Just so long as you contort God to match the truth, rather than try to contort the truth to match some preconceived notion of God you may have.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:09:01 2010 No.2213796 HURR I'M POSTING IN A SCIENCE VS. RELIGION THREAD

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:11:01 2010 No.2213802

>>2213591Evolution occurred through a series of events that eventually lead to the current state of the universe.

Evolution describes the variation of species. It doesn't describe where life came from, it doesn't describe the universe. Thought I'd clear that up because a LOT of creationists seem to have difficulty with that bit.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:11:01 2010 No.2213804

>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773
>>2213773

This is why science is superior. I agree with every word of this man.
If a god exists, at the very least, we would be born knowing of him/her/it. But we don't. In a world where you'd be in a different religion depending on where you're born, there is only 2 logical solutions....

Either A) the god doesn't give a shit, or B) there is no god.

From what we see in the present with our understanding of the universe and how it works, we can answer most things with what we've discovered with humanity as a whole. In time, we might be somewhat omnipotent.

All we need to know to disprove god is how the universe started (if it started somewhere, sometime at all). Once we get to the bottom of it, we can look at all the religiousfags and say "What now?". Then we can watch and laugh at them in denial.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:14:01 2010 No.2213811 >>2213546 Someone with a true scientific mind would know what a null hypothesis is and discount religion anyway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:14:01 2010 No.2213813 >>2213795 I fully agree. But I also think that with scientific aid, there will be no more room for god to be contorted into. Science will take up all the space. Then we can all agree for once.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:16:01 2010 No.2213817

>>2213804If a god exists, at the very least, we would be born knowing of him/her/it

Please don't use that argument, a lot of crazy fundies DO believe that people innately "know" that God exists and that atheists/other religions have just been tempted by Satan to renounce him.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:18:01 2010 No.2213824

>>2213757

Absolutley everything you said there is wrong.

>>2213773

>because you don't want a scientific reason why we don't accept god

There isn't one.

>being a person of science it is just difficult to simply trust what anyone says.

Except that is how scientific discovery is made. Unless you are retarded enough to think that every scientist recreates all the work, ever, that led to a discovery. Im I talking about thousands of years ob observations and expiraments conducted by countless people through human existence. All of our current knwoledge is based on that, and we don't move forward by starting at the first step with every fucking thing we learn.

>In a world where you'd be in a different religion depending on where you're born, there is only 2 logical solutions....

>Either A) the god doesn't give a shit, or B) there is no god.

Or c) you are retarded since those are not the only options. You exclude the concept that different people can explain the same thing in idfferent ways, which happens all the fucking time in science.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:19:01 2010 No.2213828

>>2213546

You're basically saying that we must search every scope of the infinite universe to confirm he doesn't exist anywhere, anytime? It's impossible to search everywhere, the space's reach is infinite. Even if we were granted eternity to look for him, we wouldn't get any closer. No matter how much we'd look, there'd always be more to look through.

If he doesn't exist, you're asking for impossible evidence, and "right" by default forever. You're asking for devil's proof. Therefore, burden of proof lies on the person making an extraordinary claim. I refuse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:20:01 2010 No.2213831 >>2213824 >Absolutley everything you said there is wrong. [clarification needed]

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:20:01 2010 No.2213832

>>2213789

>Science is just what we *know.* Atheism, on the other hand is a lack of faith. The smart ones have based that lack of faith on a lack of evidence

That isn't fucking science and its hilarious that you think it is.

The devout are retarded and you are on the other side of that retard coin.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:20:01 2010 No.2213834 >>2213817 If that were true it's actually evidence for atheism. Reasonable atheists exist, therefore god does not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:23:01 2010 No.2213840 >>2213824 "Retarded" is a subjective point of view. I could argue that god is retarded for making it so difficult to believe in him. In a scientific world- and to believe in with something that has no real evidence

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:23:01 2010 No.2213841

>>2213824

Except that is how scientific discovery is made. Unless you are retarded enough to think that every scientist recreates all the work, ever, that led to a discovery. Im I talking about thousands of years ob observations and expiraments conducted by countless people through human existence. All of our current knwoledge is based on that, and we don't move forward by starting at the first step with every fucking thing we learn.

Of course not, dummy. But all of their EVIDENCE is there for us to VERIFY. Any person can do the same scientific experiment and get the same results. Consistency is the key. Religionfags all have different "experiences" and "reasons" for believing in god.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:24:01 2010 No.2213848

>>2213831

Your time travelling BS is just nonsense and has nothing to do with the point.

>Every day we learn more things that he is not responsible for.

Show me the scientific proof of observations that were made and a conclusion was reached that God had nothing to do with it.

>Now we have clouds separating electric charges trough friction and discharging themselves through lightning strikes.

That isn't even a close approximation to explain lightning. And you would be surprised that humans don't have a complete understanding of lightning. So by your standard lightning does not exist, or the explaination is faith and therefor false.

etc. etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:25:01 2010 No.2213857 >>2213841 >Any person can do the same scientific experiment and get the same results. Except no one can do all of them, and/or verify all of them. They trust what other people tell them about their expierience.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:27:01 2010 No.2213861 >>2213840 >I could argue that god is retarded for making it so difficult to believe in him. If you were not retarded you would use that to modify you idea of what God is. Because that is what science demands. And a non-retard would know that.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:27:01 2010 No.2213866

>>2213832
>That isn't fucking science and its hilarious that you think it is.

What is it, then?

>The devout are retarded and you are on the other side of that retard coin.

I'm not, actually. For me, god (or gods) not existing is pretty much a fact. Maybe I've known a different breed of religionfag than the ones you have. I don't have *much* sympathy for them, I wouldn't trust them further than I would trust a rat, but part of me still thinks that being nice to people is a better approach to dealing with people and plus it keeps my blood pressure down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:28:01 2010 No.2213872 >>2213857 Technology is built using the principles in question. It's not as if you can build a computer, or a rocket, on faith. When things are done wrong, it's obvious.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:30:01 2010 No.2213879

>>2213857
This is why we have scientists who go through several years of college and then build up years of experience in this sort of field.
It's reasonable to believe them because we can verify that they are legitimate with their work by looking at their work history and preference.

Science grows by discovering new things. Religion is just the opposite- at it's core, you learn things by studying the same thing (which is a silly idea in of itself)- the bible.
Do you see the difference?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:31:01 2010 No.2213882 >>2213866 >plus it keeps my blood pressure down. ...except when I'm thrusting my unbelieving cock a hot Christian nubile.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:31:01 2010 No.2213884

>>2213866

>What is it, then?

Retarded bullshit. Just because you didn't observe something, doesn't mean it did not happen or does not exist.

Your inability to find or understand evidence is not proof of anything, but your own retardation.

>>2213866

>I'm not, actually. For me, god (or gods) not existing is pretty much a fact.

A fact that is not based on evidence to support it, but your own inability to find or understand evidence. Which doesn't make that a fact at all.

Thing exist, even if you can't observe or understand them. People make shit up and misinterpret shit all the time. Those are facts. And those facts don't prove or disprove God in any way.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:33:01 2010 No.2213889

>>2213866

I'm on your side, but I have to correct you there...
>fact
There are no facts in science. The closest are theories, which are general principles which we never witnessed to be wrong. It doesn't mean they can't be wrong. It just means, to this date, we haven't witnessed anything defy them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:33:01 2010 No.2213893 >>2213879 >It's reasonable to believe them Except scientists have been proven to lie in the past, all the fucking time. You hold scientists to a looser standard than you do to religious fags, and you fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 00:34:01 2010 No.2213894

>>2213857
And trusting the scientific community is reasonable, since anyone can duplicate any experiment, and gain publicity for calling bullshitters out on their bullshit.

Its not about trusting the community, its about trusting the process - if someone advances a bad theory, independently verifiable data will eventually be found and shared that contradicts that theory, and Science will discard it.

Science isn't right about everything, its just that no Scientist has been able to prove any part of accepted Science as wrong (if they did, then its no longer accepted Science. Kind of a no-true-scotsman sort of thing, except not fallacious).

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:34:01 2010 No.2213897

>>2213651
Easy answer, NOWHERE in the book of Mormon does it ever say that the Lamanites and Nephites were the only people in the Americas when they arrived. Since the Nephites were destroyed you wouldn't expect to find DNA evidence for them and while the Lamanites survived it's unlikely that a total of 20 people brought into the new world where the native inhabitants at the time numbered in the millions would leave much DNA behind to be found.

You would know this if you bothered to look into it.
>>2213652
This just shows you know nothing of Mormons at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:37:01 2010 No.2213904 >>2213884 Religionfag delivers. I'm convinced.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:37:01 2010 No.2213905

>>2213848
>Your time travelling BS is just nonsense and has nothing to do with the point.
It was an analogy to contrast the difference in temporal directionality of your arguments. Teaching a cavemen requires bringing current knowledge back in time. Religion requires you to accept dogma that has been unchanging for thousands of years.

Those are not even close to being similar.

>Show me the scientific proof of observations that were made and a conclusion was reached that God had nothing to do with it.
Occam's razor. If we can explain them without god then there is no reason to include god in the explanation. The burden of proof is on those who claim that god is necessary for them to happen.

The laser in your DVD drive works based on quantum effects (quantized energy levels of electron bands among others). Last time i checked i don't have to refuel god-substance to keep it working.

>That isn't even a close approximation to explain lightning.
oh, but it is. of course i simplified, but essentially charge separation occurs due to friction of ice droplets colloding with each other due to convection within clouds.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:38:01 2010 No.2213907 >>2213834Reasonable atheists exist, therefore god does not. Those same fundies also believe that all atheists eat babies.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:39:01 2010 No.2213912

>>2213894

>Science isn't right about everything, its just that no Scientist has been able to prove any part of accepted Science as wrong (if they did, then its no longer accepted Science. Kind of a no-true-scotsman sort of thing, except not fallacious

And no one has proven all aspects of faith wrong.

You trust scientists because you feel they make a good argument for trusting them. You distrust the failthful because they have not been as persuasive to you.

Their inability to persude you don't disprove God exists. And even if you believied them over scientists, it wouldn't prove God exists.

You also try to black and white them in to 2 opposing groups which is wrong in itself.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:40:01 2010 No.2213916

>>2213893

It's not hypocrisy. I'm seeing results with them. Even if some of them do lie, the fact that I have convenient things like cellphones, television, light bulbs, and other various things proves that they are reliable. What have I gotten from religion? A old book promising me eternity? Prayer, which essentially seems like luck? I basically have to die before I see any real evidence, and even then, I'm not even sure if it's true or not.
This is not hypocrisy. I see results here.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:41:01 2010 No.2213920

>>2213905

>oh, but it is. of course i simplified, but essentially charge separation occurs due to friction of ice droplets colloding with each other due to convection within clouds.

This gets to all of your retardedness.

Can you or any human now or ever reliably recreate that? The answer is no. So by your standard lightning doesn't exist.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:42:01 2010 No.2213922

>>2213893
scientists lie, they are humans. The work they accumulate doesn't, as long as it gets verified independently.

Yes, new scientific findings may be controversial. They may be particually incorrect and need revising. They even may be outright fraud. But this will be corrected for sooner rather than later.
This is what scientific method is all about, don't trust the people, only trust the evidence that has been checked and checked again.

That microwave in your kitchen? It operates on electromagnetism, works pretty good, doesn't it?
That GPS in your car? It uses relativity (correction for time dialation) and quantum effects (atomic clocks on those sattelites) to stay accurate. Would you call it a fraud?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:43:01 2010 No.2213927

Utahfag here. You Mormons are a bunch of liars, cold-hearted crooks, and holier-than-thou asshats with your fake smiles and Prozac. You consistently cover up your shaky, unsubstantiated cult beliefs by claiming you're all about family values while you bear your sappy testimonies at church every Sunday. Die in a fire.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:44:01 2010 No.2213929

>>2213916

>This is not hypocrisy. I see results here.

It is when you consider that the Church used to be the largest funder of real science. See fags like Newton.

Also, most scientists are not aitheists because they understand the concept better than you.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:46:01 2010 No.2213940

>>2213912aspects of faith
>>2213912You distrust the failthful

You keep using this word.

>faith
>belief that is not based on proof

As much as the religious would like to use some Orwellian Newspeakesque means to twist it into a synonym for truth, that's still the definition you're arguing from. By definition faith belies evidence. There really can't be any rational arguments to support the concept.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:46:01 2010 No.2213941

>>2213920
of course we can and did. charge separation by friction is as old as the greeks. You know why electrons are called electrons? Because electron means amber in greek. And you know what happens when you rub fur against amber? Electric charges happen...
Charge separation and all...

Of course we can't have 10km high clouds in our labs. But we don't need that, we can approximate conditions and use replaceme them with models that exhibit similar electric and mechanical properties as ice droplets in clouds.

But hey, if you still believe zeus is throwing lightnings at you... so be it. I'll enjoy my lightning rod, while you simply submit yourself to the divine will.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:47:01 2010 No.2213942

>>2213922

>The work they accumulate doesn't, as long as it gets verified independently.

And that independent verification relies on trust among admited liars.

You tried to discount human communication because it is fallible so that you can discount faith as it relies on human communication.

Yet, you admit that fallible human communication is essential to science.

You try to have it both ways with opposite concuslions.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:47:01 2010 No.2213944

>>2213929

>It is when you consider that the Church used to be the largest funder of real science.
The church also supported the science that the Earth was flat. Then they supported the science about the Earth being the center of the universe. Bitches don't know 'bout my Gallileo.

>Also, most scientists are not aitheists because they understand the concept better than you.
[citation needed]

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 00:48:01 2010 No.2213946

>>2213912
There's a fundamental difference between Scientists and religious leaders. If Scientists find evidence that reflects poorly on a theory, that evidence is generally shared. If religious leaders find evidence that reflects poorly on a religious teaching, that evidence is generally suppressed. Its not about how reliable I see the individual people, its about how reliable I see the organizational infrastructure behind Science vs Religion. Science tests its beliefs empirically, while religion doesn't.

In other words, Scientists have given me a good reason for trusting them because they actually have good reasons for trusting them. Religious leaders have, uhh, the opposite of that. We can't even trust them to accurately report simple matters of fact, such as whether or not any priests have been molesting children (low blow, but its the easiest example I can think of)

There's a difference between Science and Religion, and I'm not going to let you pretend that there isn't.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:49:01 2010 No.2213949

>>2213929the Church used to be the largest funder of real science. See fags like Newton.

Newton held some really batshit insane religious beliefs, but he was not a Catholic. And the nation he studied and taught in had been the Church of England for a over a century when he made his discoveries.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:49:01 2010 No.2213950

>>2213941

>Of course we can't have 10km high clouds in our labs. But we don't need that, we can approximate conditions and use replaceme them with models that exhibit similar electric and mechanical properties as ice droplets in clouds.

So you cannot verify your explination through a complete and accurate demonstration.

Still, according to your standards lightning doesn't exist.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:51:01 2010 No.2213956

>>2213946

And you are still wrong. You make overarchign assumptions about the 2 groups you created.

Some religious leaders have lied, so all relion is bullshit.

Some scientists have lied, but fuck it, you want to believe that they don't all lie.

Still trying to have it both ways. It is incredebly unscientific of you.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:53:01 2010 No.2213959

>>2213950you cannot verify your explination through a complete and accurate demonstration.

O.o To be fair it's not ever possible to make a complete and accurate demonstration. We can never know that conditions are exactly the same between two tests. It's not impossible that the universe will suddenly blink out of existence in the next few minutes. Nothing can ever be absolutely certain, and you can never actually know anything.

Pleasant dreams.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:55:01 2010 No.2213963

>>2213956
You missed the sort of Adam Smith / Ayn Randian motivations that the two groups have that he pointed out. It's economically beneficial for scientists to bust other scientists for lieing because it helps their own work. It's economically beneficial for priests to cover up lies of the Church because they're all on the same boat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:55:01 2010 No.2213965 >>2213546 "Not discounting the possibility" is an OK standpoint as long as you realise that doesn't mean the probability of a god existing isn't 0.5

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:55:01 2010 No.2213966

Instead of trying to untable this mess of retardation do something simple for me. This should be very simple for you.

Present the verifiable evidence that all religion is always wrong, and/or that God doesn't exist.

This should be so easy because you believe so deeply, sorry I mean you know for a fact that it is true.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:59:01 2010 No.2213977
File: 35 KB, 525x660, kim-jong-il_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"let there be light" = Big Bang
"one thounsand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" = Millions of years to create earth

That's how I look at it. OPEN MINDED christian that doesn't act retarded about religion

<- pic not related

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 00:59:01 2010 No.2213981

>>2213956
are you retarded? He just raped you. Did you even read this?

>If Scientists find evidence that reflects poorly on a theory, that evidence is generally shared. If religious leaders find evidence that reflects poorly on a religious teaching, that evidence is generally suppressed. Its not about how reliable I see the individual people, its about how reliable I see the organizational infrastructure behind Science vs Religion.

Since you're so stupid, I'll spell it out for you.

If there are liars in science making false claims claiming them true, those claims get attention and are tested. With religion, they're not. Is your brain full of fuck or something?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:00:01 2010 No.2213986 >>2213977 So what was the whole bit about Lot getting drunk and doin it with his daughters allegory about?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:01:01 2010 No.2213988

>>2213950
then you must be misunderstanding my standards. i'm fine with an approximate model as long as it makes reasonable predictions. You see.. we don't have the sun in our labs either. But a farnsworth fusor produces neutrons under similar conditions to the center of the sun, just as predicted by theory.

This gives credibility to the theory even without exactly reproducing every single aspect of it.

For example if your religion claims that god himself resides outside the material realm but makes testable predictions about him by claiming that angels are lesser aspects of god which descend on earth... then having a live specimen of those angels and testing the prediction of that god-theory on them instead would give your theory of god some credibility, even if we have not observed him directly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:02:01 2010 No.2213989 >>2213986 I don't really know FUCK, I'm converting this thread to a KIn Jong w/e the fuck hes name is spelled GO!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:04:01 2010 No.2213999 File: 52 KB, 274x239, Okayguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2213989

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:04:01 2010 No.2214000

>>2213977
so the bible is not to be taken literally? It's just all a huge parable?

Then i'll take the "god spoke to <some prophet>" part as a parable too and it actually means "philosopher had some idea and wrote it down".

Now this isn't about faith anymore, because you don't really believe in god, just teachings of some philosophers. Afterlife does not exist, it's just a cautionary tale explaining to children that deeds often have consequences.

As soon as you make the "don't take it literal" argument there is nothing stopping me from applying it everything in the bible.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:06:01 2010 No.2214005

All I can say about this debate is this:

Scientists have a tendency to do things like explain how a TV works, and then give us a working TV.

Scientists present us this research and reasoning and logic, and shows us how a medicine works, then actually test the medicine and prove that it works.

Scientists will do this again and again, for billions of different things. Chemists tell us how the bonding in some polymer works, shows us all the facts, and produces us a polymer that acts exactly how they said it would, according to their research.

The thing is, science is a fantastic record here. Given the global science community's tendecy to prove itself to be credible, I find that it's perfectly reasonable to have a degree of faith in them, especially knowing that I could, theoretically, test everything they claim myself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:06:01 2010 No.2214007 File: 8 KB, 213x237, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214000 No, I believe in God My own way... :)

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:07:01 2010 No.2214011

>>2213988

Where is your testable evidence that God doesn't exist?

I mean, come on fuck face. All your believes are testable facts, so you beliefe that there is not God has to be based on testable facts.

>>2213981

>are you retarded? He just raped you. Did you even read this?

His unverified and general assumptions are now facts. In a thread where you do nothing but bitch about specific testable facts.

The problem is, you guys are really retards, but you think you are smarter than you are by misunderstanding science. It is a poor way to derive self worth.

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 01:08:01 2010 No.2214017

>>2213956
You're still trying to reduce all of Science down to Scientists, and all of Religion down to religionists, and trying to make a false equivalence between the two.

The difference is that when Scientists lie, they can get caught. This is because Science is about making predictions about how the world works - and if the world works out differently, the prediction was wrong.

When the pope says "God wants you to do X", how many people can prove that the pope was wrong? Zero.

When a scientist says "When you do X, Y happens", how many people can prove that the scientist was wrong? As many people as can do X and observe whether or not Y happens.

Each person who can or has tried to do X and observe Y and fails to report that Science is incorrect is further evidence that the original scientist's work was correct.

(Aside on what I consider to be "evidence". Evidence is any observation of reality that distinguishes between two competing theories. Any observation that confirms the theory when the outcome is positive also disconfirms that theory when the outcome is negative, and vice-versa. So failing to observe any Scientist publishing a refutation of a Scientific theory is an observation of reality that makes me more likely to believe in that Scientific theory. Essentially, if nobody calls the Scientist out for lying, its less likely that they are lying, since its more likely that they are lying if someone calls them out. This mechanism is completely gone for religious doctrine, since there are commonly accepted doctrines that have been called out as wrong without updating the doctrines).

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:09:01 2010 No.2214021 >>2214005 >All I can say about this debate is this: >debate >Debate >DEbate >DEBate >DEBAte >DEBATe >DEBATE I lol'ed

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:10:01 2010 No.2214024 >>2214011 >Where is your testable evidence that God doesn't exist? the burden of proof is on you my friend. god is not a scientifically accepted theory.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:11:01 2010 No.2214028
File: 3 KB, 99x126, 101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2214017
I find it funny that you can't just accept a tiny chance of a god..

I mean, its like believing a Ghost. I dont believe in Ghosts but when I scary movie and go to a darker place ( I DONT CARE HOW OLD YOU ARE) you still get the chills...

Im just saying.. its not proven, but its not impossible either dawg!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:13:01 2010 No.2214037 >>2214028 What if god was gay?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:14:01 2010 No.2214039 >>2213546 Great example this is why i believe in unicorns.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:15:01 2010 No.2214044 File: 9 KB, 259x194, monekyjimmie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214037 not cool man, just down right disrespect man :(

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:17:01 2010 No.2214053 >>2214028 who says i wouldn't give god a chance if someone would turn up with a verifiable/falsifiable theory and then go on to test that theory? You don't seem to understand how science works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:18:01 2010 No.2214057 >>2214044 No, no. What if god was gay?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:18:01 2010 No.2214058 >>2214053 meh... there is no point in trying anymore.. Just remember one thing though "better safe! than sorry!" when he comes.. or not.. lol IM OUT BUBYE!

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:19:01 2010 No.2214061

god doesnt exist its a false hope to give you something to feel good about yourself, to feel like someone loves you.

if god existed there would be no reason why he couldnt just come down and say so. there would be no reason why he couldn't just give us some scrap of evidence.

god also doesnt exist because why would he create gays, atheist, and people of other faiths if he hates them.

Also before whatever religion you practice it didnt exist, but the god would have existed. So all the people before the origin of that religion were never given a chance for salvation.

no religion has been around forever, religion was created by man.

"God did not create man, man created God."

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:19:01 2010 No.2214064 File: 8 KB, 160x120, comecloser.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214057

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 01:20:01 2010 No.2214066

>>2214028

The chance of any particular religious explanation being even worthy of considering whether or not it is the correct metaphysical explanation, out of the space of all possible metaphysical explanations, is so astronomically low to be practically zero for all intents and purposes.

I mean, to jump from "How did everything exists" to "this particular magical man made everything, and by the way he hates shellfish" is completely irrational and unfair to all the other possible ways that everything could start existing.

To even consider whether or not a particular religious explanation is true is going to bias people unfairly towards accepting that particular religious explanation. I refuse to play that game until some exceptional evidence pointing towards your particular religious explanation is found (no, the Bible doesn't count, because its not special enough; its a book written by some people, and there have been many books written by many people. In my wild and reckless youth, I read too much Heinlein and spent too much effort into analyzing whether or not Heinlein was right about how every book actually describes a physical universe that actually exists. I'm not making that mistake again when I'm deliberately aware of it.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:20:01 2010 No.2214071 >>2214058 what if your wrong and allah exists or zeus exists or the flying spaghetti monster exists Christianity =/= the only religion

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:21:01 2010 No.2214074

Let's turn the chessboard around, and look at why we wouldn't trust religion, shall we?

Religion was formed at a time when people didn't have a good understanding of how things worked. They wanted answers, but didn't have the means to unveil them at the time. They couldn't provide natural answers, so they made supernatural ones. We know there were more than just one religion, and we know that they all had different "answers" to the questions. For example, romans believed Zeus to make lightning and Helios to be the sun god, and the Aztecks had some other explanation. There are over 1000 religions out there, what makes christianity so special? What gives you so much confidence in your own belief? You look for all the flaws of all the other religions, but turn a blind eye on your own. This is why atheists have an advantage when they say there's reason to believe in what they believe. Most of them grew up with a religious family themselves. They had both perspectives and had reason to believe in science. And then they could point out and laugh at the flukes in their own belief they once had.

So as an atheist, it's a powerful argument to ask anyone "what makes your religion, of all the thousands out there, true?"

With science, we get explanations and results and accurate predictions with what we know and achieved with science. If something contradicts itself, we discard our old belief of it and form a new one that better fits with the quo. If the evidence cannot contradict the new belief formed, we keep the belief and assume that's the truth. With religion, if something contradicts itself we just alter our interpretation of it until it no longer contradicts.

There is nothing anybody can say to disprove me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:22:01 2010 No.2214078 File: 52 KB, 267x220, newtrollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214071 One is better than none..? 2.3% chance of win better than 0.0% chance YOU MAD?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:24:01 2010 No.2214083 >>2214078 There are an infinite number of concieveable gods. The chance is 1/infinity.

>>	fizixfag !yOO9L7sT1k Fri Dec 17 01:24:01 2010 No.2214084 I'm a scientist and a Christian.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:25:01 2010 No.2214088 >>2214078 more like 0.0001% chance of win and you only have one chance to live so that gives atheism a 50% chance of win because we live this life to the fullest and dont spend our one life worrying about sins and shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:26:01 2010 No.2214092 >>2214064 WHAT IF GOD WAS GAY?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:26:01 2010 No.2214093 >>2214084 That won't last.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:29:01 2010 No.2214098 >>2214078 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 01:31:01 2010 No.2214102

>>2214093

That's actually assuming quite a bit; namely, that the person in question doesn't compartmentalize their beliefs and that they use information and thoughts from one area and apply it to others.

You can be a Scientist without being a Rationalist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:31:01 2010 No.2214106 >>2214084 have you applied scientific method to your faith?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:33:01 2010 No.2214111 >>2214102 All it would take is to actually read the New Testament.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:41:01 2010 No.2214125

>>2214111
According to the bible, there will be an apocalypse. For the second coming of christ to happen, everyone would have to reduced and dominated to believe in some sort of evil (everyone becomes satanist?). The number of religious people is declining, and atheist-increasing. Once everyone does become religon-less, this evil cannot happen and the second coming of christ is omitted. The word of the bible- the basis of christianity, would be considered a lie.

What then? All it takes is that.
And no, atheists are not evil. We don't eat babies or anything like that, and we do have morals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:50:01 2010 No.2214161 >>2214125 some of us

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:56:01 2010 No.2214190 >>2214161 hail satan

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 01:58:01 2010 No.2214201 I'm "scientific minded" and "faithful" I don't "discount God" or "condemn science"...

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:00:01 2010 No.2214208 >>2213534 God isn't real. Science isn't a tangible object, so it's not real in that sense either. The scientific process works. Believing in god does not. Any questions?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:02:01 2010 No.2214215 >>2214125 >And no, atheists are not evil. We don't eat babies or anything like that, and we do have morals. Our PR is working, well done.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:04:01 2010 No.2214226 >>2214208 Entity and Concept are different things?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:04:01 2010 No.2214229 >>2213542 >implying by god he means the christian god or any god that requires faith to believe in

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:05:01 2010 No.2214236 >>2213546 >no one replies to this post /thread

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Fri Dec 17 02:05:01 2010 No.2214237

Because most currently popular religions assert that science and religion are merely separate realms of knowledge that don't overlap, but many claims central to those same religions violate the supposed separation. Like souls, which if they existed would need to interface with our material brains.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:07:01 2010 No.2214239 >>2214236 i did.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:08:01 2010 No.2214245 >>2214237 Souls is a bad example. Noah's Flood, Genesis creation myth, and so on, are great examples, because they are flagrantly false (according to science).

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:09:01 2010 No.2214249 >>2214125 I wouldn't exactly call it morals. Morals imply that there is a definite right or wrong, which I doubt much atheists will agree with. We have ethics. Much better term, imo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:10:01 2010 No.2214254 >>2214249 >Morals imply that there is a definite right or wrong, which I doubt much atheists will agree with. That definition is not universally agreed upon.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Fri Dec 17 02:11:01 2010 No.2214265

>>2214245

>>Souls is a bad example.

I disagree. I'd contend that cognitive neurobiology has disproven souls to the same extent that germ theory has disproven evil disease spirits. That is to say, neither disease spirits nor souls can be absolutely disproven, but we have sufficient natural explanations for both. The only remaining reason to cling to the supernatural placeholder explanations is if you deeply wanted them to be correct. It's why plenty still believe in souls but few believe in disease spirits.

And anyway, whether or nor souls can be disproven, they violate the supposed separation *conceptually*.

>>	The ThunderBird !!m4ANrdZXfVL Fri Dec 17 02:14:01 2010 No.2214271 >>2214265 >>2214237 And what about the gingers?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:16:01 2010 No.2214279

>>2214265
Dunno. I agree that the soul hypothesis is as unnecessary for predictive power as the disease spirit theory. I feel that the disease theory is more in contradiction with reality than disease spirits though.

Either way, Noah's Ark is way better than either of those, as is Genesis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:16:01 2010 No.2214284 Dear /sci/ Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children? Thank you.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:18:01 2010 No.2214290

>>2214245
There is the account of a flood to have happened though. See the tablets containing the sumerian kings. It reports a flood. As in an enormous flood. The one described in Gilgamesh.

In fact, many myths/legends report the same event happening. Why?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:19:01 2010 No.2214298 >>2214290 Yes, but it wasn't global, nor did Noah take 2 of each creature onto it (and 7 of some other kinds). All humans nowadays do not derive from Noah. It's bullshit. Also, again: Genesis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:19:01 2010 No.2214300 File: 22 KB, 280x390, Josef_Fritzl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214284 we do, we do all the time. they're so delicious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:19:01 2010 No.2214301 >>2214290 Plagiarism. If you think gilgamesh described an actual flood, you'd have to accept the rest of the events described therein, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:21:01 2010 No.2214308 >>2214125 if anything it will probably be that quack that wants to scour the milky way with berserker drones.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:23:01 2010 No.2214321

>>2214301
There is a chinese myth. There is also a native american myth. What if they are all based on the same event?

Myths and legends they might be, but when you find it repeated so often in different places, I question if it truly was a myth, regardless of religious connotations.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:26:01 2010 No.2214340

>>2214321
Because it was not a global flood. Evolution and related analysis conclusively proves that it is not the case. Genetic diversity shows that we came from a whole hell of a lot more than ~7 humans ~4000(?) years ago. Same for damn near every species today, with some notable exceptions like the cheetah.

Also, can't fit 2 of each species onto the ark. Hell, the beetle species alone wouldn't fit.

Also, can't distribute the species across the planet in time.

And a bunch of other things which I've forgotten offhand.

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 02:28:01 2010 No.2214346 >>2214321 If there are flood myths in a hundred different religious/spiritual contexts, then why does it lead to considering your religious context over any of the others?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:33:01 2010 No.2214370 >>2214346 Actually, the flood myth is predominant in only Abrahamic religions, is it not?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:34:01 2010 No.2214375

>>2214346
I am not claiming that it belongs to christianity.

I am saying that there are several accounts of a flood at certain point in time. When? Hell if I know.

Lets assume that Jesus did exist. The earliest known record of him was made by a greek man named Thallus that described his death at the year 50 A.C., roughtly 15 or so years after it. Bible claims darkness covered the Earth. Thallus said that an eclipse happened at that day.

Are both true or both are wrong? Or is it all a myth (Despite Thallus bein a historian)?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:35:01 2010 No.2214379

>>2214321

You neglect the possibility that humans simply have a tendency to come up with similar stories. Things like tragedies, horrors, and comedies were present in a whole ton of different cultures.

It's also worth noting that human creation myths have a tendency to fall under 6 or so categories.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:35:01 2010 No.2214381 >>2214375 Eclipses don't cover the earth in darkness. If one did occur that day the bible still got it wrong. u mad?

>>	Bayesian Conspirator !t8Lgs/NqoU Fri Dec 17 02:39:01 2010 No.2214395 >>2214375 Other religions have equivalent levels of historical validation to their claims. Why, again, should I consider the validity of Christian claims, as opposed to other religions?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:50:01 2010 No.2214433 >>2214381 >>2214395 Once again, I am not saying this in favor of christianity. My point is: Are legends entirely based on myths, or could there be some real world events behind it? I can dismiss religion. I cannot dismiss historical events so easily.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 02:55:01 2010 No.2214457

>>2214433
You don't need to dismiss any potential real flood behind Noah's flood to dismiss Noah's flood itself. There was no global flood. There was no guy who saved 2 (or 7) of each animal. The entire point of the myth is blatantly false. Noah's Ark is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:30:01 2010 No.2214567 >>2214457 Am I talking to a wall? I do not care about Noah. I'm simply questioning if there truly was no flood at all. Am I getting myself understood or are you on the same level as a fundie christian?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:37:01 2010 No.2214581 >>2214433 Impossible to tell in this case without secular records. Both complete fiction and mythologized facts have been found in history.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:37:01 2010 No.2214582 >>2214567 Awesome. So you don't agree with my original statement that Noah's Ark is hilariously stupid and false, and that it's a great way to attack christians and such as wrong and stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:39:01 2010 No.2214588 >>2214582 >and that it's a great way to attack christians Did christians bully you at school or something? You sure are obsessed with attacking them and their beliefs. Just chill bro. Be cool. "New atheists" indeed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:42:01 2010 No.2214597 >>2214581 There is one non secular record. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/sumerian-king-list-faq.htm There. A non-secular archeological recording of a flood. I do not give a flying fuck about the myth. But did a flood happen? Possibly.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:42:01 2010 No.2214599

>>2214588
Christians are delusional. They believe in patently wrong things. Delusional people make public policy decisions based on their delusions, such as protection of child molesters, denial of access to birth control and abortions, killing, raping, pillaging, stealing land, and so on.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:47:01 2010 No.2214616
File: 34 KB, 690x656, rage.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2214599

mfw people have done most of those things trying to exterminate religion.

Also, trying to put an intellectual spin on the right to an abortion is pretty stupid in itself, so don't pin that on Christians.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:48:01 2010 No.2214621 >>2214616 Yes. I don't claim that religion is the root of all evil. I don't claim that atheists are always moral. I simply claimed that believing in fairy tales makes you more likely to make immoral decisions, private and public policy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:50:01 2010 No.2214625 >>2214616 >people have done most of those things trying to exterminate religion I'm not seeing a correlation that could be construed as "most of those things" for the purpose you've proposed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:52:01 2010 No.2214632 >>2214625 >Implying Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Stalin didn't rape, pillage, and kill in the name of promoting a forced secular society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:54:01 2010 No.2214637 File: 20 KB, 511x220, Flong-Stereotyping.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2214621

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:55:01 2010 No.2214641 >>2214637 No. If you believe that god says don't use condoms, then you'll act on that. If that belief is wrong, then you've just committed an immoral act. Delusional people are dangerous.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:56:01 2010 No.2214642

>>2214621
Staling. Robespierre. Both with their own secular/atheistic agendas. I consider them both to be quite amoral, despite their "good" intentions.

When you start seeing men as the root of evil, you will learn that their beliefs are nothing more than a excuse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:56:01 2010 No.2214643 >>2214642 Yes, but it takes religion for good men to do evil.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 03:57:01 2010 No.2214647 >>2214642 Robespierre was the one who got the Convention to declare the existence of a supreme being. He was a deist crazed with power. Herbert was the atheist.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:01:01 2010 No.2214656

>>2214647
What? No.

Robespierre wanted to impose a "religion" based on the state. The worship of the state. Read your sources again. He was no deist.

You know, kinda like the worship of personality they have going in Korea, who is largely secular.

People will always try to follow a god.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:02:01 2010 No.2214658 >>2214567 >Am I talking to a wall? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:03:01 2010 No.2214664 >>2214641 But now you're using your own views to imply what is right or wrong based of off your own thought, as opposed to what is. Get Hume's Guillotine up in this bitch.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:03:01 2010 No.2214665

>>2214658
He's subtely changing his position. He claimed halfway through that he feels bad dismissing religion when there's perhaps a basis in fact. That's why I continued to attack him, because that's a bullshit thing to say.

He ended with a reasonable statement that a flood maybe occurred, but none of the other details of Noah's Ark could possibly be true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:04:01 2010 No.2214670 >>2214664 >But now you're using your own views to imply what is right or wrong based of off your own thought, Yes. That's all we can do. It's better than being delusional. >as opposed to what is. What?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:08:01 2010 No.2214676 >>2214632 Your argument does not follow and regardless that's still not "most of those things."

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:09:01 2010 No.2214683 >>2214670 What I'm saying is that your view is no more correct than the person who thinks condoms shouldn't be used. Both are based on your individual world view, hence my reference.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:10:01 2010 No.2214687 >>2214665 ie: Floods occur all the time and people of the era lacked the ability to gauge weather phenomena on anything more than a local scale.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:11:01 2010 No.2214688 >>2214683 That's an abdication of all moral responsibility. You could as easily say that there's no reason to say murder or rape are good or bad. Murder is bad. Rape is bad. Denying condoms to consenting adults is bad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:12:01 2010 No.2214693 >>2214676 4/7 = 57% =most. Also, my argument does follow because the same acts you denounce Christianity for have also occured during attempts to wipe out religion, therefore, my argument is relevant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:13:01 2010 No.2214698 >>2214665 Clearly then, YOU'RE talking to a wall!

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:13:01 2010 No.2214699

>>2214693
Yes. My argument is that most people tend to be moral, well moral enough. Religion plays against this trend, making good men do evil deeds. It's not cut and dry 100% causation. It's merely a "small" causation, but big enough at times to be on guard against as dangerous.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:14:01 2010 No.2214700 >>2214688 And to some, using birth control is immoral. Morals differ, and while some are almost universally held, others are not.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:14:01 2010 No.2214703

Science and belief in God are mutually exclusive because science dictates that the onus to provide proof is on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God is an extraordinary claim, and we haven't any extraordinary evidence. Ergo, scientifically minded people don't believe in God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:16:01 2010 No.2214711 >>2214699 Yet religion is also responsible for many good things such as organized charity, and many values we take for granted in today's society are products of Jeudo-Christian values.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:17:01 2010 No.2214713

>>2214700
Yes, and I claim that my morality is superior, and should be practiced. I bet that most people would agree with me if some for some stupid bullshitted writings from 2000 years ago.

You should at least hopefully agree that people who say that "no condoms because jesus said so" would feel horribly bad and ashamed if they later learned that jesus wasn't the son of god and he never said that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:17:01 2010 No.2214714 >>2214688 >Rape is bad. WRONG.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:18:01 2010 No.2214716 >>2214703 Technically, agnostics are the most scientifically minded people. Atheists who say there is no God are making claims without support, just as theists do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:19:01 2010 No.2214721 >>2214716 Agnostic atheist. The probability of a god is infinitesimal

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:20:01 2010 No.2214725 >>2214688 >Rape is bad Nature loves rape. Other living things engage in it frequently. Human beings are somewhat unusual for refraining.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:20:01 2010 No.2214726 >>2214713 Well at least we can agree that morality is simply a claim on whose views are superior.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:20:01 2010 No.2214727

>>2214711
This Jeudo-christian values thing is bullshit. Half of the ten commandants aren't any law that I know of, and some are quite contrary to the American way of life. No idol worship, put no other god before me, sabbath, don't covet. I mean, come on.

Then there's jesus who said don't plan for tomorrow, abandon your family and follow him, and other horrible things. Let's not forget the abbonination that is vicarious redemption. No, when you hurt someone, you don't need to make it up to them. You need to make it up to jesus.

Then there's all the horrible slaughter in the various holy books.

There's the first recorded case of the Neuremburg defense, when that dude almost killed his own son. I mean, that is abhorrent.

Our values are more the result of the enlightenment, not any bullshit papers from thousands of years ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:20:01 2010 No.2214730 >>2214716 How about this? We're sick to our back teeth about hearing about the baseless LIES that theists make?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:21:01 2010 No.2214734

>>2214716
As I said in the other thread, I have abundant evidence that no theist god exists. A theist god is a god which by definition interferes in human affairs. We have evidence against any such interference and breaking of natural law - aka miracles, especially against the popular documented false miracles and false gods.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:25:01 2010 No.2214749 >>2214725 Morality is not social Darwinism. What is moral is not necessarily natural, and what is natural is often not moral. No atheist believes in social Darwinism. You likely need to be religious to believe that natural = moral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:25:01 2010 No.2214751 >>2214727 I know it really makes atheists butthurt, but we separated church from state, but did not separate God from state. See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/judeochristian_values.html

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:27:01 2010 No.2214754

>>2214751
What? There's a difference. I won't even bother clicking that. I know it's bullshit even before I read it. The intent of the founding fathers is most clear that the state shall have nothing to do with any (false) gods. The important ones, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, were mostly deist and/or atheist, and they were all decidedly secular.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:28:01 2010 No.2214762

>>2214751

mmm judeo christian values, like animal sacrifices, pacifism at any cost, killing witches, supporting the feudal system, saying condoms causes aids, abusing children, denying evolution, restricting knowledge, banning books, burning books, supporting fascism...

I could go on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:30:01 2010 No.2214771 >>2214762 Ask the native peoples about Christian love.

>>	sage sage Fri Dec 17 04:31:01 2010 No.2214774 File: 8 KB, 320x240, 1269418354165.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WTF /sci/? why do you even warrant this bullshit with a response. Start acting like fucking scienist and let this fucking nonsense 404!

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:31:01 2010 No.2214776

>>2214754
None of them were atheists. Madison was Christian, Washington was a very pious Christian, Jefferson called himself Christian and also a Deist. Franklin called himself a Deist, but these are not the kind of Deists who don't believe in Providence. All the founding fathers believed in Providence (divine interference in the affairs of men).
>>2214734
There is no such evidence, moron.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:31:01 2010 No.2214778 >>2214762 >>2214754 Lol, just keep spouting your uninformed bullshit. It's ok, I didn't expect you to read it. I mean, why on earth would you read something which might hurt your precious little worldview!?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:32:01 2010 No.2214780 >>2214776 Let me guess, Einstein was religious too, right? Asshat. Go get educated.

>>	sage sage Fri Dec 17 04:33:01 2010 No.2214784 File: 121 KB, 240x249, 1278293231770.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:33:01 2010 No.2214787

>>2214778

There's a damn good reason church and state are segregated. Pick up a history book, check salem witch trials, spanish inquisition, galileo, the feudal system and the french and russian revolutions, which knew opiate of the masses when they saw it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:35:01 2010 No.2214793 >>2214776 No, no, he's correct. Atheism really didn't get its day in the limelight until On The Origin of Species was published, a full 75+ years after the Constitutional Convention.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:36:01 2010 No.2214795 >>2214787 >There's a damn good reason church and state are separated. Fixed.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:40:01 2010 No.2214810

>>2214787

You're not even refuting my point! I agree and support the separation of church and state, but implying that America was not founded with some theistic values in mind is blatently false. The majority of the Founding Fathers were religious in some way, hence, they some religious values were noted when they put their views into founding this country.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:41:01 2010 No.2214812 >>2214780 >revisionist detected Einstein subscribed to Spinoza's idea of God, which is non-providential.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:42:01 2010 No.2214815

>>2214810
Again, no. A majority of the founding fathers were deist at best, or more likely atheist.

For example, Thomas Jefferson:
>Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:43:01 2010 No.2214822

>>2214812

Einstein:
>It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Yes, if you want to call that a god, or call that religious, then so be it. Most people would call that atheist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:44:01 2010 No.2214823 >>2214787 >Pick up a history book >salem witch trials, had nothing to do with the church >the feudal system had nothing to do with religion at all >french and russian revolutions both replaced something bad with something worse >Pick up a history book

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:44:01 2010 No.2214826

>>2214815
Sorry, missed full quote:

>Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them, and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:44:01 2010 No.2214827

>>2214810
If separation of church and state is a theistic value then I, as an atheist, support it.

HOWEVER, that was some 200+ years ago. Times have changed, and we now know that there is very little convincing evidence of the existence of a god.

Deal with it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:45:01 2010 No.2214828

>>2214787
Most of the nonsense that has happened was human made bullshit or monetary interests. You can claim that religion is the source of many ills, but humanity could find excuses to kill each other no problem without it.

Was religion used? Yes. Was religion truly the cause of it? No.

And the whole Salem Witches Trials are nothing more than drama. No one was executed for fucks sake.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:45:01 2010 No.2214832

>>2214810

I don't want to refute your point. I don't give a fuck what your founding fathers thought. Seperation of church and state is vital to our society. Giving people freedom of thought is antithetical to 'judeo christian values'. Going to war to crush fascism is antithetical to 'judeo christian values' (jesus was a pacifist). Possessing money is anthetical, so is any type of government other than theocracy.

Finally, the ten commandments are far too simplistic to be compatible with western society.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:46:01 2010 No.2214833

>>2214822
No educated person would call Einstein's beliefs atheist. There are more ideas of God than the personal idea. Einstein subscribed to Spinoza's idea of God which is a non-personal God with infinite properties, two of which are the material and mental, and those two constitute our universe as we experience it, and the experience of it itself.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:46:01 2010 No.2214834

>>2214716

Atheism and agnosticism are stances on two different things. The former is a lack of belief that theistic claims are true while the latter is the lack of knowledge of whether they are true.

in short, atheism = "I don't believe in it" while agnosticism = "I don't know if it's true"

Most non-religious people are a combination of both: "I don't believe in it because I don't know if it's true"

If you don't or cannot know whether a theistic claim is true, the only rational position towards it in this context is agnostic atheism.

Otherwise you're either claiming to believe without knowledge of the truth (either way) or claiming to disbelieve something you know to be true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:46:01 2010 No.2214835 >>2214823 my great great grandfather was a judge and the executioner at the Salem witch trials, one Nicholas Noyes by name. He was also a clergyman, so perhaps it did have something to do with the church after all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:47:01 2010 No.2214839 >>2214828 The feeling of infallibility that religion brings does wonders for the dictators. It is not the only cause of suffering but that doesn't prevent it from being something bad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:47:01 2010 No.2214840 >>2214834 ohgoodthiscanardagain.jpg Seriously, where do you people get this shit? I know Dawkins doesn't try to redefine words in this way. Is it one of the other atheist writers?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:47:01 2010 No.2214841 File: 29 KB, 399x395, 1292578182118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 4 Religion threads on the first page

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:47:01 2010 No.2214843 >>2214815 http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:48:01 2010 No.2214847

>>2214828
You're arguing with several different anons now.

All I can say if not for religion, then we wouldn't have a former Nazi youth and concentration camp guard, aka the current pope, shielding pedophiles from prosecution, and doing horrible ills to Africa by saying condom use spreads AIDS. (Well, up 'till a month ago.) Preventing access to early term abortions. Really, it's not all that hard to name good deeds committed by evil men because of religion.

It is my belief based on evidence that this world would be better if there was no religion, and instead an embracing of the enlightenment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:48:01 2010 No.2214848 >>2214815 Jefferson called himself a Christian and a disciple of Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:50:01 2010 No.2214852 >>2214847 You're incredibly retarded. If not for religion, none of us would consider pedophilia wrong in the first place. The Christian religion made our society "prudish" about things like that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:50:01 2010 No.2214853 >>2214832 That's fine, but to say that many of the views we hold today in society did not come out of religious views is wrong. You may not see them as religious today, but that's where they got their start.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:52:01 2010 No.2214858 >>2214840 Don't get upset because clarifications prevent you from arguing semantics ad nausatum when you've been refuted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:52:01 2010 No.2214859 >>2214848 Uh, no. Please see: >>2214826 He was not a christian. He did not believe christ was god / the son of god.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:54:01 2010 No.2214864 >>2214843 So, not a single atheist or deist eh? That page is completely full of shit. Please try again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:54:01 2010 No.2214866 >>2214858 No, you're inviting getting schooled in the English, Greek and Latin languages, and an overall linguistic educational anal rape.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:55:01 2010 No.2214867 >>2214852 Then why did Ratzi cover for the kiddy-fuckers?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:56:01 2010 No.2214872 >>2214847 Ack, meant to say "evil deeds committed by good men because of religion".

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:57:01 2010 No.2214877

>Jefferson called himself a Christian and a disciple of Jesus.
true
>>2214859
>He was not a christian.
false
>He did not believe christ was god / the son of god.
true

He studied the teachings of Jesus Christ and modeled his life after them. I compiled and published a book of the teaching of Jesus and provided copies for the Library of Congress. He said that he is a Christian because he is a disciple of the teachings of Jesus Christ. You don't get to decide what qualifies someone to call themselves a Christian.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:58:01 2010 No.2214880 >>2214864 >This souce does not agree with my views, therefore it must be wrong. I'm assuming only sources which agree with you are fact then eh?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 04:59:01 2010 No.2214883 >>2214880 No, because I've done the actual research, read the federalist papers, and so on, and I know that several of them were out and out deist and/or atheists. Thus that page is full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:00:01 2010 No.2214886 >>2214864 There were no atheist founding fathers. The count includes deists with Unitarians.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:01:01 2010 No.2214889 >>2214886 So much stupid. I don't know what to say.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:03:01 2010 No.2214893 >>2214889 You're just bandying about insults. What am I supposed to say? "I'm not stupid?" I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:05:01 2010 No.2214898 >>2214883 You must have some Federalist Papers that haven't been released to the rest of us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:08:01 2010 No.2214906 >>2214864 If you actually looked at the break-down, there were 3 deists listed, Jefferson, Franklin, and Harnett. They would certainly agree with that characterization, but deism then didn't have its implication of a non-interfering God.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:15:01 2010 No.2214924

>>2214906
What do they count Franklin as? Such quotes include:

>Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.

>I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.

>The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.

>In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

Let me start doing some more re-research on the rest of them.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:17:01 2010 No.2214932

Madison

>What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.

>Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.

What's he listed as?

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:22:01 2010 No.2214936

>>2214924
So, Benjamin Franklin and Madison both listed as Episcopal eh? They're both pretty anti-organized religion, and those are just the first two I looked up. It's a disservice to call them Episcopal. I bet over half of the "Episcopal" are deist / atheist. It's basically the default church, the church of England in America after it split because the church of England people had to swear loyalty to the British crown. That's like saying anyone who was born in America and went to church at some point in their life is a christian. That site is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:29:01 2010 No.2214952 >>2214793 Samefag here. This guy really knows what he's talking about.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:29:01 2010 No.2214953

>>2214936
>>2214932
>>2214924

You're being disingenuous by quote mining, and those aren't even your own extractions. Franklin in particular left a bevy of pithy quotes for every occasion, to which there are entire collections dedicated. Many of them express contradictory principles. People are not obligated to be consistent on every view they express throughout their lives. None of the quotes you gave contain evidence of atheism, and nobody argues that none of the founding fathers were deists though often the deists maintained ties to particular denominations, muddying the issue.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:36:01 2010 No.2214972 >>2214953 Yes. Perhaps a lot of them were culturally religious, but they were not what we would call religious today. Most of those guys did not believe in a personal god who granted miracles. That's the important part.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:44:01 2010 No.2214987

>>2214972
Actually you're flat wrong and in denial of the facts. The founding fathers are a closed set, so we can take a sample consisting of *all of them* and examine their conduct and writings. They were at least as religious as an average sample of the American population of the time, which was pretty religious indeed. I find it amusing that you make claims about "a lot" and "most" even though the people who dispute the religiosity of the founders mostly point to only two or three examples, for each of which there are a dozen or more clearly devout.

It's impossible to argue this point further with you because you only make vague claims, and in the face of contrary evidence you merely reassert these claims.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:45:01 2010 No.2214990

>>2214924
>>2214932
If you want to learn the views of the founding fathers, don't just read the quotes from atheist websites, fucktards. That's not going to give you a complete picture. Many of the founding fathers were upset at what the church had done and how corrupt it had become... but they were also religious. Maybe that's too nuanced for the internet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:45:01 2010 No.2214991 They can, im a muslim and i frequent this board and love science, i believe in evolution too.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:47:01 2010 No.2214995

>>2214987
So, are Madison, and Benjamin Franklin religious. Were they Episcopalian using our modern sense of what it means to be a believer in a religion? I think no.

I apologize for using such vague claims, but that site is way tilted away from the deist and atheist side of the coin, which includes more than just 3 of the founders. I've named what, 5 now? And I haven't even tried.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:49:01 2010 No.2214997

>>2214987
This anon is correct. The closest thing to an atheist in the set of founding fathers was Ben Franklin. He was actually called an atheist by those who didn't like him. But he wasn't. He was a Deist. He believed in a God, and he believed that God was guiding America to become a great country.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:54:01 2010 No.2215007

>>2214995
Madison was EXTREMELY religious. He also believed strongly in the separation of church and state. I could give you many quotes from his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, but here's just one paragraph:

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage..Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe"

I can give you quotes out the anus from Madison, if you're going to continue in such retardation as to suggest he was not highly religious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:55:01 2010 No.2215008 >>2214991 Do you believe that the year is ~6000 years old? Do you believe in Noah's flood? How do determine which parts of your holy book are metaphor vs literal, or Aesop vs literal, or just inane like the merciless slaughter by your prophet?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:56:01 2010 No.2215011 >>2215007 Got any quotes that show he was a member of an organized religion? That's what I'm disputing now. I claimed that deist was a better word for more than 3 of them, with at least a couple atheists.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 05:57:01 2010 No.2215014

Another quote from Madison, "The belief in a God All Powerful was and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

worst. atheist. ever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:02:01 2010 No.2215024 >>2215011 I don't know of any records of actual church memberships. Nor do I understand why that matters. He was a very religious Christian man. He actually studied for the priesthood before studying law.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:03:01 2010 No.2215029 >>2215011 There were no atheists. Even by removing statements from their proper context, you cannot produce even one quote from any founder indicating atheism.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:03:01 2010 No.2215031

>>2215008
Do you believe that the year is ~6000 years old?

Fuck No

Do you believe in Noah's flood?

Yes to an extent of exageration.

How do determine which parts of your holy book are metaphor vs literal, or Aesop vs literal, or just inane like the merciless slaughter by your prophet?

Um well the tales and such i think are a bit twisted and changed and exagerated.
The most important bit to me is the Code of living in it.
I guess im not so big on the rest

Blasphemy!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:04:01 2010 No.2215032 >>2215024 Because believing in a god is very different than believing in a theist god.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:08:01 2010 No.2215046 WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WHEN 200+ YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS EVOLVED OUR CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS REAL AT THE TIME JESUS FUCK

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:11:01 2010 No.2215057 >>2215046 Yeah, I think this is way too pedantic. I'll just rest on the fact that atheism is the non-insane option.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:12:01 2010 No.2215061 >>2215046 This fallacy is called "chronological snobbery."

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:13:01 2010 No.2215066 >>2215061 And this fallacy is called "giving jobs to political science majors instead of real scientists."

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:16:01 2010 No.2215073 >>2215066 Look out, he's brought out the big guns now. It's full-on ad hominem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:19:01 2010 No.2215078 >>2215073 Maybe so but I got a big fat LOL.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:21:01 2010 No.2215088 >>2215032 No it's not. Theism literally means belief in God. Theistic God is redundant.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:21:01 2010 No.2215089

Basically the Judeo-Christian god doesn't hold up to historical fact. There's very little evidence that most of the things in the Old Testament actually happened. No evidence of the 12 tribes wandering for 40 years in the desert, no evidence for the kingdom of David ever being anything other than a minor power (even in the Bible it only lasts a few generations), no evidence for basically most of the stuff it claims.

With the Romans, the Greeks (Myceneans, Creteans), the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Babylonians and just about any other major power of the time, we have quite a few chunks of historical evidence. Burial sites, artifacts, evidence of farms, cities, forts etc.

So what it boils down to is Jesus. Did he exist? Quite possibly. There's evidence that Pontius Pilate was a governor in Judea, evidence that Herod was the name of a tetrarch in roughly the same period (there were a few of them). Did he create miracles? Pretty much impossible to say.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:22:01 2010 No.2215092 >>2215089 Well, we can pick a couple of miracles in particular and call bullshit on those, such as Noah's Flood and Genesis. Those are the two easiest to call bullshit on.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:27:01 2010 No.2215107

>>2215089
The evidence for the events in Exodus is pretty much the same as the evidence for any other events we know about from similar times. Someone wrote down a history of it a long time ago. That that history got included in what we now call the bible doesn't make it less credible. Add to that we have several battles described in Exodus that we have no found accounts of from the other side. We have discovered several of the since-abandoned cities described in Exodus.

@771CU5 !0OXtFINCHM Fri Dec 17 06:29:01 2010 No.2215111
File: 173 KB, 552x640, 1291690757089.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

People believe in god because they want to believe something more interesting happens after they die, they want to believe in a sould and universal good and evil.

People cast away god in favor of science because their curiosity about the universe is more important than the concept of death, and when the story ends at 'god did it' they feel robbed and want to learn more.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:34:01 2010 No.2215119

>>2215089

Continuing on...
The thing about Jesus is that most of the sources Christians use (and just about everyone else) are the gospels. Now, it's quite likely that there was an oral tradition about the early Christian sect until they got some of there stuff down. This shouldn't be surprising as a lot of the early Christians were from the lower classes (fishermen, prostitutes, beggars etc).

The book of Mark, which is considered the earliest of the gospels is dated at around 50AD at the earliest, which is roughly 20 years after Jesus died. If you look at Matthew, it's quite clear that he follows the same sequence of events as outlined in Mark. John and Luke are definitely written after Mark, John quite likely last and at around 120AD.

Now, consider that the story becomes taller and taller. In John, miracles are plainly miracles. Jesus clearly and unambiguously walks on water (none of this 'epi/by' the water stuff). No Jesus goes to his home town and can't do any miracles. No Jesus goes some place for no particular reason.

So, like a game of Chinese whispers or telephone, things get distorted here and there and the small thing that a few people have vague recollections of become a clear myth.

We have a few examples of this happening in modern times. Where people make stuff up and it becomes an accepted truth.

Look at the Paul is Dead meme, or the Elvis is alive meme or the 911 was a CIA job thing. Paul McCartney is still clearly alive and Elvis is clearly dead. However, we do have modern media and medicine now. This didn't exist in 0-100AD.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:34:01 2010 No.2215120

>>2215111
>People believe in god because they want to believe something more interesting happens after they die, they want to believe in a sould and universal good and evil.
And it's a real shame they can't appreciate the world for what it is while they're here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:35:01 2010 No.2215124 >>2215111 People disbelieve in God because they fear being judged, and they fear what horrors may await after this life, so they indulge in the fantasy of their life fading into oblivion as a defense mechanism.

>>	@771CU5 !0OXtFINCHM Fri Dec 17 06:40:01 2010 No.2215128 File: 31 KB, 143x125, 1285267384045.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2215124 oh u

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:40:01 2010 No.2215129

>>2215119
But it's not like that at all. Luke thoroughly researched his gospel, and wrote it like a history. John and Matthew were most likely eyewitnesses. (Though many years passed before John wrote his down, and Matthew was probably a translation from an aramaic or hebrew original) Mark was written down from an oral form, but it wasn't an "oral tradition". Mark was Peter's translator, and he wrote down the version of the gospel that he'd hear Peter tell over and over for years.

"Oral tradition" implies something is handed from one person to the next to the next. That's not what happened with any of the gospels.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:40:01 2010 No.2215130 >>2215124 Wrong, people BELIEVE in god because they're scared of being judged - for not believing in god. After you get rid of the celestial dictator, human beings judge themselves harshly. Then there's their family, friends, society, the law etc...

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:41:01 2010 No.2215134 >>2215128 it's as reasonable as yours

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:41:01 2010 No.2215135

>>2215124
No, most people disbelief in a theist god because that hypothesis is falsified by available evidence, such as no confirmed miracles, ever. This is especially true of the more popular faiths which have clearly demarked miracles which are completely full of shit, like Noah's Flood and Genesis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:41:01 2010 No.2215137 >>2215130 Nope, they DISBELIEVE in God for fear of being judged by God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:43:01 2010 No.2215142 YOU'RE ALL WRONG I AMRITE THAT IS ALL

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:44:01 2010 No.2215144

>>2215130
family, friends, society, the law can't judge you for things you hide. You can get away with almost anything if you try. The only one people are really scared of is a judgement by one that is omniscient.

People are also scared of the unknown in general, which is why, despite overwhelming evidence, some prefer to believe there is no afterlife.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:45:01 2010 No.2215148 >>2215137 And I suppose prayer being useless has nothing to do with it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:46:01 2010 No.2215151 >>2215148 Prayer is useful. It makes me feel better about myself.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:46:01 2010 No.2215152

>>2215107
Well, we don't accept Herodotus' Histories as being fact. A lot of what he said was entirely wrong (giant ants big enough to eat camels). So, I think that oral traditions later moved into books can be taken with a huge grain of salt because the original sources are unreliable. This is why primary evidence (burial sites, cities, artifacts etc) are real evidence that things happened in a way (and hence historians can work out how they made things and what they ate) and histories are secondary evidence, which we use to work out what people believed in those times.

Sure, we have found some of the places in the Bible (Jericho springs to mind). But that doesn't mean what was written in the Bible is 100% true. For example, we discovered Troy (aka Hisarlik), but we don't believe that Helen of troy launched a thousand ships or that Ulysses spent 10+ years trying to get home.

Certainly, you don't see people going to schools protesting how we should teach the Illiad as historical fact or that we should ban golden apples from being served to girls (or something) based on this being an accepted truth.

There is no primary evidence of a great flood (and in fact that story may have been stolen from a Babylonian story, the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the oldest bible manuscript by at least 300 years), and no evidence of God destoying the world with fire (and Lot and his 2 daughters repopulating the world) and no tower of Babel.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:47:01 2010 No.2215154

>>2215144

People judge themselves.

Also, why are you using an argument that can be turned around and used against you? Theists are scared of the unknown, that's why they need an afterlife.

And evidence? For an afterlife? An unfalsifiable concept? No.

@771CU5 !0OXtFINCHM Fri Dec 17 06:48:01 2010 No.2215156

>>2215134
I still want to believe you're a troll.

But that is the most fucked thing I've read tonight. Using science as a comfort for knowing I'm going to burn in a lake of fire? Even if I don't believe in a lake of fire?

I really hope you're a troll.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:48:01 2010 No.2215158 >>2215151 But that's not its function. Its supposed to do magic, and it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:50:01 2010 No.2215162 >>2215158 My prayers are my own. Who are you to tell me what I'm praying for? I'm praying for unending sex with hot women right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:50:01 2010 No.2215163 Because religion actively NEEDS for people to dismiss evidence and close their eyes to truths. And science actively NEEDS for people to seek evidence and open their eyes to truths. ▲ ▲▲

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:51:01 2010 No.2215165 >>2215162 And is it working? Are you having sex with hot women?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:52:01 2010 No.2215166 >>2215165 I'll be damned it is!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:54:01 2010 No.2215170 >>2215166 You forgot to say "halleluja."

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:54:01 2010 No.2215171 >>2215166 Cool. Let me know how the 'unending' clause works out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:55:01 2010 No.2215173 >>2215170 How dare you assume I'm Christian?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:56:01 2010 No.2215178 >>2215171 My dick is in her pooper, does that count?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:56:01 2010 No.2215183 >>2215178 Nope. As soon as you stop having sex, you can be sure your prayer has failed.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:57:01 2010 No.2215184

>>2215129
>But it's not like that at all. Luke thoroughly researched his gospel, and wrote it like a history. John and Matthew were most likely eyewitnesses.

Well, "Mark" was probably written by someone who was there at the time. The language is quite simple and fits the model of the early Christian sect.

Matthew clearly follows Mark's narrative structure (read them both and see) and was written with a particular bias (converting Jews to the new faith).

Luke was definitely a later writer. He (or possibly she) borrows elements from Mark and another source (which is lost to time sadly).

Admittedly all of this theory is fairly tenuous, but taking the gospels at face value is also dangerous. The writers clearly had an agenda (get people to join their sect), so you have to take this into account when reading what they say.

Luke also has an agenda (covert Gentiles). This is what was so heretical about the early Christians. They said that the god of the Jews, who until this point was exclusively a Jewish god (for the Jews only) was actually a universal god for all humanity. That's why they shared meals with people who were not "good people" or even Jews. This is also why early Christians allowed Gentiles not to be circumcised and to not necessarily follow Jewish dietary laws.

It really is a rich and interesting area of history to look into. However, you're not going to get this from Bible study or people who have preconceived ideas about Christianity that they would like to impress onto you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 06:58:01 2010 No.2215185 >>2215183 God damn genies and their semantic analysis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 07:00:01 2010 No.2215189 >>2215185 I wouldn't pray to one of those without a lawyer on hand.

Anonymous Fri Dec 17 07:04:01 2010 No.2215196

>>2215129
>But it's not like that at all. Luke thoroughly researched his gospel, and wrote it like a history. John and Matthew were most likely eyewitnesses.

I'd also like to add that Matthew and John *never* say that they were eye witnesses. This is an assumption. A very broad one that affects how you read their gospels.

Luke questioned people who claimed that they were there. You have to rely then on Luke being an excellent judge of character interviewing people with perfect memories or having some sort of Iron Age polygraph machine. Again, he has no evidence of the truth.

All of the gospels contradict each other in different ways. Some small and some fairly large. For example, who found Jesus first after the Ressurection? Who visited the tomb? What did he say when he was on the cross? All of the gospels say different things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 07:06:01 2010 No.2215198 >>2215196 Not to mention some gospels omit miracles that others include - with John being the most supernatural. I'd say this is a fair indication that people 'embellished' (ie added bullshit to) the story over time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 07:19:01 2010 No.2215224 >298 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. /sci/, I'm dissapoint

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 10:35:01 2010 No.2215736 >>2215224 /sci/ claims fro salvation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 17 16:29:01 2010 No.2216710 >>2213857 There's no "trust" involved. It's verifiable fact.

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

/sci/ - Science & Math