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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 227x222, deep374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517021 No.2517021 [Reply] [Original]

What arguments do all you atheistfags have FOR atheism, which acts AGAINST deism?

>> No.2517065

nah, deists are cool, we like them.

all we got is "no evidence of god, burden of proof is on you, we stay sceptical untill evidence comes in, occams razor, etc etc"

fuck theists though...

>> No.2517071

>>2517065
elaborate

>> No.2517099
File: 3 KB, 125x126, za2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517099

>>2517071
erm...
well occams razor is 'the most simple explanation is the most likely"

'god' whatever he/she/it is supposed to be, would be a very complex organism, or consciousness, and such complexity is unlikely to just randomly exist.
also, it cant create itself, so the question of gods origin would still be unsolvable.

also, deists are cool because they live like atheists do, they believe that a god created the universe, earth etc, but then fucked off, and doesnt take interest in human affairs. no heaven, no hell, no judgement, no commandments, or dogma, or holy books.
so their belief is irrelevant because it does not lead them to commit atrocities, or act like asshats.
thists often do, if they think what they are doing is 'gods will'

>> No.2517107

>>2517099
>and such complexity is unlikely to just randomly exist.
No one is suggesting God happening "randomly".

>> No.2517112
File: 169 KB, 300x300, 1290402521481.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517112

Well if you are saying that a god or creator removed themselves after creation and cannot interact or be seen or proven, It is just one step further to say that the universe might have come about on its own. If God doesn't need a creator what is stopping you from saying that the universe needs one? Atheism is the default belief that doesn't require evidence, deism has a positive claim that must be supported by evidence. You are stating a positive claim for which you have no evidence.

>> No.2517119
File: 17 KB, 300x166, StevenisreadytokickyourassXDD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517119

>>2517099
>can't create itself
effect: Objection!

>> No.2517124
File: 2 KB, 126x115, za1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517124

>>2517107
erm, yeh they do.
its all like "god is timeless"
"god has always existed"
"god is outside of this universe/dimension"

a lot of geuss-work...but no evidence, or logical reasoning to come to such conclusions.

...and nobody ever gets anywhere by guessing.

>> No.2517137
File: 4 KB, 128x117, trollface..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517137

>>2517112

oh yeah, well wheres you're evidence that god doesn't exist?
the burdan of proof is on you!
prove god isn't real, or else he must be!

desits: 1
GAY-theists: 0

>> No.2517144
File: 138 KB, 431x427, 1297458006635.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517144

If something exists, it has to exist. Simple, ain't it? But quiet clever

>> No.2517164

>>2517112
It's possible that our creator was equally created

>> No.2517167

must be past 3:30pm. all the high school children are out, hence these threads

>> No.2517168

>>2517099
occam would like a word with you.
>deists are cool because they live like atheists
No they don't. They follow a moral code based on God-given rights and duties. Take Thomas Jefferson. He scrupulously followed the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, and compiled all his moral teachings into a volume which he published.
>but then fucked off, and doesnt take interest in human affairs.
Not true. Deists believe that God governs the human race by divine providence. The just don't believe in personal intersession on account of prayer, or miracles.
>no heaven, no hell, no judgement
also not true
>no commandments, or dogma, or holy books.
that much is true

>> No.2517176

>>2517124
On the contrary, all those things come about by logical necessity. Those who prefer atheism dismiss the logic because they don't like the results.

>> No.2517179

>>2517167
OP here, it's 22:00 and I'm a 23 year old engineer

Inb4 britfag

>> No.2517182

can god create a rock so big he cant lift it?

paradox. a paradox cant exist in reality. The notion of an all powerful being creates a shitload of paradoxes. Cant exist.

>> No.2517185
File: 3 KB, 83x125, zn3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517185

>>2517168
jesus = christianity = THEISM

not deism.
deists have nothing to do with jesus.

...

no, i think you are wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

"the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life. Deists believe in the existence of God without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books."

>> No.2517195

>>2517168

"">no commandments, or dogma, or holy books.
that much is true""

"">deists are cool because they live like atheists
No they don't. They follow a moral code based on God-given rights and duties. Take Thomas Jefferson. He scrupulously followed the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, and compiled all his moral teachings into a volume which he published.""

contradiction detected.

>implying all deists are the same

you cunt

>> No.2517196

Not this nonsense again...the only answer is "nobody knows". But that doesn't stop people who think they are fucking smart from convincing themselves they do know.

Truly smart people admit nobody knows.

>> No.2517198

>>2517179
lol, fucking britfag

go to the dentist you toothy fucker!

>> No.2517210

>>2517185
Yes they do. T.Jefferson was a deist who based his moral principles on the teachings of Jesus.

>> No.2517216

>>2517185
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
keep reading
>Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention.

>> No.2517217

>>2517182

this is the simplest answer.

Also the fact that deists add something extra that doesnt need to be there. There is no reason to believe in god when we can explain pretty much everything by natural processes. If you believe a god exists but doesnt intervene in human behavior or really do anything at all..... then whats the fucking point in believing in him?

Deism is the lazy answer. Its just filling in a gap in your knowledge with BS because it makes you feel better which people have done for centuries. Its the mark of the idiot and the intellectually dishonest.

>> No.2517221
File: 3 KB, 92x126, zn2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517221

>>2517196
its not a case of knowledge, it is about belief.
nobodys KNOWS for certain there is a god, and likewise ,atheists cant prove for certain that one doesnt exist
(providing you are careful enough to imagine a god with qualities that can not be disproved by logic alone, and you presume he hides/does not release evidence he exists...so no burning bush materialisations/ booming sky voice etc)

ilakir fd

>> No.2517223

>>2517198
Scotfag actually, so I don't have any teeth

>> No.2517230

The fact that most things deists ascribe to god (morals, ect.) can be explained better by other means.

>> No.2517233

>>2517221
It depends what passes for knowledge. Most people take for knowledge whatever is conventionally believed by their peer group. That is the reason most people "know" there is a God and people who live in academia "know" there isn't. People who actually think are rare in real life and rarer on 4chan.

>> No.2517235

>>2517210
fair enough, but he will have thought that jesus was just a man, not the son of god.

(also, i put my captcha in the wrong box in my last post...)

>> No.2517241

>>2517221
what's that slavic bitch's youtube account again?

>> No.2517244

>>2517182
Why would an all-powerful being be able to create a rock too big for him to lift. An all-powerful being can't do that. If you think that's a paradox or prevents him from being all-powerful, you need to graduate 4th grade and try thinking again next year.

>> No.2517245

>>2517235
Yes, that is true.

>> No.2517246

Atheists and Deists are all equally right, in that neither belief can be truly verified, but there is no evidence against it, unlike organized religions.

Atheists simply take the stand that assuming a God without any evidence for him is not a good philosophy. God of the gaps and whatnot.

>> No.2517254

>>2517217
OP here, I agree that it fills in the unknown void of understanding with a best guess, but what better guess do you have as to why the universe came into existence?

>> No.2517259

>>2517244


.... being all powerful means you can do anything.

There are further problems. Could an all powerful being kill itself? Could it create something it couldnt destroy? Logically no matter how powerful you are there are limits to your power. So now we've just proven a 'god' in the sense that most people think of the concept, an all powerful being, can't logically exist.

So your all powerful god does not exist /paradox end of discussion.

Now if you admit your god isnt all powerful then lets have some characteristics.

>> No.2517269

As far as I can tell atheists tend to be atheists not because they have particular arguments to disprove the infinitude of complementary propositions to theirs (possibly that could be any proposition that necessitates the existence of a god, depending on what we mean by atheism), but rather because they are confident there is no evidence for any of these propositions and no way to prove any of them to be correct.

Certain propositions such as those claiming the existence of a specific god might be disprovable if they are inconsistent with observable facts about the universe (or even with themselves) but that is not a reason to be an atheist because the number of possible gods we could consider the existence of is not finite. A general disproof that does not rely on specific properties of them would be necessary, and I doubt such a proof could be formulated.

Deism is just another set of beliefs that has no reasonable grounding in anything, empirical evidence or otherwise.
Of course, deists are cool and all, but that's not my point.

>> No.2517270

>>2517244
yeh its a flawed argument, its the same as
"hurr durr! can god create a triangle with 4 sides?? no? then he isn't all-powerful! atheists 1: faggots: 0"

what does 'lifting' the rock even mean it is in space?
i can imagine a god who can create a rock of any size... and move it in any direction with any speed.

>> No.2517273

The problem with this debate is that most atheists cannot seem to distinguish between the concept of God, the undefined creator who had a purpose for creating all of existence, from the Christian God. Any time they hear "God", they conjure up the Christian definition and then proceed to knock down that straw man.

>> No.2517276

>>2517269
erp. I did not mean "complementary positions", I meant "contradictory positions".

>> No.2517277

>>2517254

No. Physicists do but im a biofag.
But think about it like this, something breaks
you put on some tape

It works, so you just leave the tape on and never get around to fixing the problem

If you apply an intellectual band-aid you're going to stop looking at the problem and trying to find out the actual answer.

>> No.2517280

>>2517270
What's that slavic bitch's youtube account again?

>> No.2517283

>>2517273
I'm pretty sure it's okay to talk about God not being all-powerful when someone mentions a notion of God that involves being all powerful.

>> No.2517284

why would a good have to be ALL powerful, as opposed to just being MORE powerful

>> No.2517291

>>2517273

There are an infinite variety of personal gods. You could literally spend all day inventing beings with various characteristics and we could spend all day disproving them. Thats the problem, you people dont realize the burden of proof is ALL on you. PROVE your god exists, if it actually does it should be a self evident fact. go ahead, do it. oh wait you cant

>because your god is not real

>> No.2517296
File: 2 KB, 97x126, zx4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517296

>>2517246
atheism isn't a belief it is a LACK OF belief.

it is as much a belief as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.

>>2517254
big bang is the current scientific theory for that one.
we can't prove it...but it makes a helluva lot more sense than god.

>> No.2517303

>>2517221

But believing in something because you want it to be true or fear it is true....rather than believing in it because it is real and proven...is just stupid. Believe in what you know...and hope for what you want. The rest is lying to yourself...if people are ok with that it's their business as long as they keep their self deception out of politics which affect my life.

>> No.2517310

>>2517296
Most people use "atheist" to denote the belief in the lack of a god rather than the lack of a belief regarding the existence of god. These two are pretty different standpoints. I've heard the latter referred to as agnosticism but I don't want to start an argument on semantics.

>> No.2517313

>>2517296
The big bang, oh yes.

Why did it bang?

>> No.2517318
File: 3 KB, 126x124, zb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517318

>>2517241
>>2517280
i don't like you.

>>2517273
yes, that is why you have to have your opponent define the god that they believe in, and outlines any otehr beliefs that go along with it, otherwise you do not even know what you are arguing against, and you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

>> No.2517325

If atheism is not a religion, why do they worship Charles Dawkins?

>> No.2517329

>>2517313
your god, why does it exist? If it caused the big bang, then why? Why is there no evidence of it?

>IF IT ISNT ZEUS MAKING THE LIGHTNING THEN WHO IS GOD DAMN IT?!?!?!

you're a retard.

>>2517310
its not semantics when its relevant terminology
gnostic-knowing
agnostic-not knowing
theist/deist-believing
atheist-not believing

agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist
agnostic theist
gnostic theist

>> No.2517332

>>2517021
How about this one, OP?

There is no verifiable evidence for a god of any kind. That is to say, there is no empirical evidence, nor are there valid metaphysical arguments.

>> No.2517338

>>2517021
Deism is nothing but politically correct Atheism or Agnosticism... pick a side and grow a pair.

And stroke the shaft, and drink the gravy.

>> No.2517344
File: 2 KB, 209x212, ahhah.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517344

>>2517313
who made god?
who made the entity that made god?
etc. etc.
neither parties have solid evidence to support either claim yet, so it's stupid to discuss it instead of doing some fucking research for yourself.

>> No.2517345

>>2517280
>>2517241


ZOMGitsCriss

hawttttttttttttttttt

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss

>> No.2517346

>>2517329
Arguing relevant semantics is still arguing semantics.

Anyway, I disagree with those definitions, I know they have been popular on /sci/ and other boards and I can admire the fact that that they are very clear about what they mean. But unfortunately those are simply not what the words mean. I have not heard those words used in that manner in any of the literature I have read, and additionally those definitions cannot be found in most dictionaries.

>> No.2517350
File: 478 KB, 1000x1160, misconception.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517350

>>2517303
>as long as they keep their self deception out of politics which affect my life.
which deists do. ergo, they are fine by me.

>>2517310
well yeh...theres strong atheism and weak atheism.
the arrogant "herp derp i KNOW for definite that god isn't real, and you are stupid for believing in god" is the strong atheism everybody hates.

the weak atheism is just. i lack belief... i'll live my life presuming god isnt real, but im always open to new evidence if any of you ever have any.

agnosticism and atheism arn't mutually exclusive. pic related.

>>2517313
nobody knows. but evidence suggest that it did happen.
(background radiation, red shift, universe appears to be expanding, implying it was smaller and smaller the further back you go in time...etc)

>> No.2517354
File: 40 KB, 357x356, nootnootmotherfucker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517354

D O
Y O U
K N O W

W H A T
T H I S
I S N ' T ?

S C I E N C E.

GET BACK TO /b/.

>> No.2517357

>>2517346

these are the correct definitions used by intelligent people when discussing the terms. What the masses of idiots mean when they use them is irrelevant when we are having a discussion on the topic.

>> No.2517364

>>2517346
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

it can mean either, that is why one should distinguish between strong and weak atheism to avoid confusion.

>> No.2517367
File: 8 KB, 417x429, agnostic=atheist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517367

>>2517357
yep

>> No.2517369

Lets be real. If you believe in god you are deluding yourself. You are INSANE. I think religious people are extremely dangerous. (its only like they've caused millions of deaths for their religious wars)

They're batshit crazy. If you delude yourself into thinking there is some kind of giant all powerful sky daddy.... i just dont feel comfortable being around you.

>> No.2517373

who is this whore, and why is she not making sammiches?

>> No.2517374

>>2517338
>make an assumption and grow a pair

I see even atheists need a bit of delusion to feel comfortable.

>> No.2517378

>>2517369
I prefer to think of it as a Sky Wizard. Praying is really just casting incantations of protection. Superstition is fun. Religious people also tend to be terrified of death, it's nice to secure yourself in the delusion that you'll see everyone else in heaven, once again.

>> No.2517388

>>2517374
Pick a side. Not assume.

>> No.2517391

OP here, this all fairly escalated.

I'm simply curious as to how atheists can lack belief in something which they have no reasonable argument to disbelieve.

>> No.2517405

>>2517391
Science provides the argument, theism provides a temporary / easy solution.

>> No.2517413

>>2517391

Russel's Teapot, FSM, et cetera.

>> No.2517415

>>2517373


ZOMGitsCriss

hawttttttttttttttttt

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss

>> No.2517417

>>2517318

Why do you use so many youtube account screens?

>> No.2517425

>>2517350

Even though it seems to be most popular among reactionary adolescents, I think strong atheism is not a very hard viewpoint to hold.

Suppose we consider, by analogy, someone who believes in the strong sense that some entity P does not exist. P can be anything absurd, the favorite among people who spend too much time arguing about these things seems to be a magical teacup orbiting Saturn. Most people would in fact agree that P does not exist. It is true that you cannot disprove the possibility of P's existence, but despite this we have the strong intuition that it is not inaccurate to believe strongly in P's lack of existence. Likewise you may believe there are no regular teacups on your desk just by looking at it and seeing none; in this case you have direct empirical evidence but you can still be wrong if you are hallucinating and thus cannot "prove", in the strong sense, anything. Now how about a regular teacup a few solar systems over? You would believe with some certainty that no such things exist; while aware of the possibility that an alien civilization also created a teacup, you would probably consider this relatively unlikely. God is, I believe, a similar case. The empirical evidence is not direct as seeing no teacups on your table, but we have a common sense understanding of the universe that lets us hold these views that are not provable in the strong sense. And, ultimately, it is not a matter of believing or disbelieving a proposition 100%. It is possible there is a teacup on my table right now and I am hallucinating but I consider this very unlikely, and it is possible that there are teacups on alpha centauri but this too is very unlikely. I would say in both cases that I strongly disbelieve in those propositions, and I would tell anyone who complained that I could not prove these propositions to shove it.

>> No.2517430
File: 5 KB, 240x195, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517430

>>2517329
>they think "knowing" and "believing" are two different things

>> No.2517435

>>2517391
see
>>2517332

>> No.2517436

>>2517391


what reasonable argument do you have to not believe in an invisible transcendental bear with magic powers that makes itself completely unobservable living inside the center of the sun casting spells down on the faithful?

Argument against? we've listed a bunch. Want another? there seems to be no net benifit in believing in a god. the elite, the smart, the upper class tend to be atheists. The bible belt is one of the most religious and poorest section of the united states. The state with the highest church attendance has the highest murder rate. almost like god doesnt exist.....

>> No.2517440
File: 29 KB, 425x301, attackofthegiantfaggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517440

This sort of thing isn't even what this board is about, you know. Some of us come here to talk about science and get bored when this sort of thing dominates the front page.

tl;dr I'm reporting your thread, go fuck your very own self.

>> No.2517442

>>2517430

They see me trollin', they hatin..

>> No.2517443

>>2517357
Except that is wrong. Like I said these are not the definitions used in the literature so the masses of people smarter than you certainly do not agree with your definitions. Additionally what the masses use is in fact relevant because words have definitions based only on convention.

Troll harder bro.

>> No.2517446

>>2517430


I believe my mother is still alive. I have not seen her in 5 days. Do i know she is still alive? am i currently seeing her? no. but i believe she is due to no evidence presented to me that would challenge that status quo.

>> No.2517451

>>2517440
>your

You think you're funny but you're not.

>> No.2517454

Is EK the Romanian chick or is he/she just posting her pics.

>> No.2517458

>>2517388
Any position except agnosticism requires an assumption. Oh, I suppose you see this as some sort of political war where we all need to pick a side.

>> No.2517465

I find it funny that most of the greatest scientists are indeed theists.

>> No.2517467

>>2517465
0/10

>> No.2517471
File: 2 KB, 126x88, zw1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517471

>>2517440
cry me a river, garcon.

shut the fuck up and lurk a different thread then!
...are you too lazy to use a scrollwheel for .3 of a second?

stupid thick cunt...

>> No.2517472

>>2517465
HA HA!

no

>> No.2517491
File: 2 KB, 126x117, zw3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517491

>>2517454
she isn't me. i am just posting the pics :)

>>2517458
agnosticism isn't a position of belief!
>facepalm.jpg

>> No.2517493

>>2517472
>Isaac Newton
>Einstein
>Darwin
>Faraday

Yep. The four most important scientists ever.

>> No.2517507

>>2517440

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science

hmm?

>> No.2517520

>>2517021
I think you mean adeists

>> No.2517547

>>2517021
Here's a better idea, OP:
How about we not waste any more time debating useless shit like this, and discuss things that actually MATTER instead, k?

>> No.2517567
File: 49 KB, 500x553, simoncowell21_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517567

>>2517493

>mfw 3 of these are English

>> No.2517574

>>2517547

And what do you consider to MATTER?

>> No.2517583

>>2517196
Just like nobody knows whether there is an orbital teapot.
If an idea is sufficiently improbable and has no evidence for it, it can be dismissed as very likely to be untrue until evidence for it is brought forth. The correct answer is not simply "I don't know," but "I'm not sure, but it seems very, very unlikely."

>> No.2517588

>>2517491
>agnosticism isn't a position of belief!
It actually is. It's the position that you don't know enough to embrace either a theistic belief or an atheistic belief.

>> No.2517590

>>2517491

Isn't she Greek not Romanian? I can't remember her YouTube alias though.

>> No.2517605

>>2517583
It's only like an orbital teapot if you have never thought about it before or have not reasoned about the existence or nonexistence of purpose, or if you are autistic and are not capable of non-empirical forms of reasoning or belief-building.

>> No.2517608

>>2517588
see: >>2517367

>> No.2517611
File: 165 KB, 800x800, 25_radigan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517611

Hey everybody, let's respond to obvious troll threads and shit up the boards! Isn't that just the greatest plan?

>> No.2517613

>>2517583

Actually, the correct answer is "I don't know". For something like an orbital teapot we can claim it's very unlikely because of the evidence we have gathered that shows that a teapot is very unlikely to form without intervention, and even if it did, it would be very unlikely to be in orbit around the Sun.

For something like a God, however, we haven't even defined the properties of such a being, if "being" is even the correct word to describe it. On top of that, the usual descriptions depict a God in such a way that it is currently impossible for us to gather any empirical evidence for or against its existence.

>> No.2517639

There were quite a few posts I wanted to respond to, but I'm tired so I'll just respond to them in a big wall of text.

Atheists don't need to prove their Atheism, first off, you cannot disprove somethings existence, classic argument being I have an invisible elf on my shoulder. If you tried to detect it by weighing it, I could say it has no mass, and counteracts gravity. If you wanted to fire electrons at it, then you would expect some form of Rutherford Scattering, but I could say electrons just pass through it.

Basically, according to my definition there is no way you could disprove my assertion. It is non-falsifiable, which philosophically speaking, means it's meaningless to even talk about.

Secondly, the specific definition of Atheism is simply 'not a Theist'. We do not assert there is no God, we simply think Theism is wrong, therefore all we have to do to prove Atheism is to disprove Theism. I know some Atheists say 'there is no God', but they would technically be Antitheists. They get confused.

Also someone else said something about how the Big Bang might have started as some kind of condescending question which could lead on to 'WELL GOD TRIGGERED THE BIG BANG'. Frankly that's a God of the Gaps attitude, and besides, Stephen Hawking's new book 'The Grand Design' apparently suggests how the Big Bang could have caused itself. I've not read it, but there are alternate theories.

And finally for those saying these arguments belong on /b/, well /sci/ is probably the best board for philosophical discussion until /ph/ comes along.

>> No.2517646
File: 8 KB, 222x203, hammond.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2517646

>>2517611
keep posting faggot.
you're rage sustains me.

>> No.2517653

>>2517605

I'm sorry, what other forms of reasoning are there that use evidence and not desire, greed or selfishness?

>> No.2517654

>>2517611

OP here,

You seem angry. Is it too much trouble for you to ignore a thread which doesn't interest you, but obviously interests others.

If you don't wish to ponder your existence and how it came about, what sort of scientist are you?

>> No.2517662

>>2517653
I'm on your side, but come on. Using Logic and Mathematics.

>> No.2517663

>>2517099
I would call myself a deist, or skeptical theist, something like that, but I found something interesting in your post.

You made these two comments concerning God but...

>'god' whatever he/she/it is supposed to be, would be a very complex organism, or consciousness, and such complexity is unlikely to just randomly exist.

>also, it cant create itself, so the question of gods origin would still be unsolvable.


Both of those apply to the universe itself if you remove god entirely from the situation.

Not trying to prove a point or be all "gotcha", it just struck me while reading your comment and I found it interesting.

>> No.2517665

>>2517611
this
>>2517471

>> No.2517676

>>2517663
well the universe isnt an organism or consciousness, but i'll grant you that it cant have created itself.

>> No.2517678

>>2517639

The big bang created itself?

Could the big bang create a rock so big that it could not move it?

>> No.2517685

>>2517662

Which stem from the evidence given.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough - I meant concerning the natural world. Mathematics is a specific form of logic, and can only prove things within itself, which is important but not relevant to this situation; in science it is a tool to often notate logic. Logic is deductive reasoning based on certain axioms - in this case they're decided by the evidence observed.

I was assuming that those two came under the umbrella of "empirical evidence" in this context.

>> No.2517686

>>2517676
Of course.
If anything I think I'm demonstrating just how difficult the question of origin is when discussing the universe's beginnings and how thoroughly our concept of physics and its laws collapse the closer you arrive at the origin point.

>> No.2517693

>>2517663
That is an interesting point. However two counterpoints.

1. We know the Universe exists.

2. Using Occam's Razor, is it simpler to say two complex entities exists? Or just one, the universe.

Also notice that I'm arguing in a reasonable debate style, and have yet to call anyone a faggot. I just wish more philosophical discussions would be like this.

>> No.2517705

>>2517693
faggot

>> No.2517708

>>2517678
Well, like I said, I haven't read it so I don't know the details, but apparently the book presents a convincing argument, probably backed up by mathematics, that claims the Universe didn't require a trigger.

>> No.2517721

>>2517693
>2. Using Occam's Razor, is it simpler to say two complex entities exists? Or just one, the universe.
Very good rebuttal.

I suppose I would respond that the existence of one complex entity neither precludes nor proves the existence of another. For instance, I am a complex entity, as you are you, and we both exist. My existence only demonstrates that it is possible for you to exist, but it neither proves nor disproves it.

So I suppose my overall point would be that it's possible for a very complex system (if you wish to put "god" under that category) to exist, but it is still impossible to directly prove or disprove.


>I just wish more philosophical discussions would be like this.
That would be nice, wouldn't it? Although I find that in person, with reasonable people, they usually are.

The internet just brings out the best in all of us, doesn't it?

>> No.2517734

I'm >>2517721 >>2517663 and am about to go to work, or I'd love to continue the discussion.

Final thought, though: Isn't it kind of amazing/beautiful and somewhat pathetic at the same time that our little monkey brains meant for picking fruit and chasing rabbits are grappling with the complexities of the origins of the universe, even as we sit on our Pale Blue Dot?

>> No.2517755

>>2517721
Well that's true too. Obviously Occam's Razor isn't definitive proof, it's just a good rule of thumb that works in pretty much all cases, especially the laws of Physics.

Also, I guess complexity is something that's hard to define quantitatively, but couldn't you say that an entity that contains us complex beings, plus everything we know to exist, be more complex? And God, who may or may not have created this Universe necessarily be even more complex still?

>> No.2517770

>>2517755
>but couldn't you say that an entity that contains us complex beings, plus everything we know to exist, be more complex? And God, who may or may not have created this Universe necessarily be even more complex still?

Well said!

>> No.2517841

There's no reason to discuss anything, the misconception you make is that atheism means "There absolutely cannot be a god" when in reality it means "If there is a god prove it and I will believe you" and as it stands today there's an equal amount of evidence for a god as there is for any other "supernatural" phenomena. Thus atheism.

>> No.2517854

>>2517021
The deists could be asked the same question.
What arguments do they have FOR deism and AGAINST atheism. Usually both groups are buddy buddy along with the agnostics.

>> No.2517855

>>2517841

True dat.

>> No.2517883

nothing wrong with deists. Religion without personal gods aren't too bad; A personal god has it's mythological fingers in all sorts of random aspects of it's followers lives. Most (all?) of which require their followers to "convert the heathen masses" which tends to piss people off more than it does "help" them.

There really isn't anything inherently wrong with a believe in a god. When it goes beyond that to become a system of believes they will adamantly adhere to despite any conflicting evidence, no matter how accurate it is. And then they try to spread their belief system to those who don't want it.

>>2517185
Jesus doesn't imply christianity. Jesus is mentioned in the qur'an. Although in islam he is called isa, not jesus but is the same person. He's considered a prophet and his miracles were all given by gods' power.
Also there was a person named jesus who was referred to as the christ in palestine 19 centuries ago. Whether or not he is the son of god or not is a different matter.

>> No.2517892

>>2517755
Occam's razor is a means of eliminating unneeded components from explanatory hypotheses. While Occam himself said it pointed to God's existence, God isn't an explanatory hypotheses, but an ontological one. Using it for or against is not good reason.

>> No.2517899

>>2517841
That is not what atheism means. Saying "prove it and i will believe you" is not taking a position. Atheism is a position.

>> No.2517919

>>2517854
The argument for deism and against atheism is the incredible wonderous order and beauty of the universe. It is an overwhelming argument. As far as I am concerned it is an insurmountable one.

>> No.2517921

>>2517899

And this is why stating just "atheism" or "agnoticism" is stupid. They're two separate scales - one of belief and one of certainty. If you're an agnostic atheist you lack belief and certainity, which is the logic position at the moment.

Atheism on its own is not a position, but if you're a gnostic (certain) atheist, then you're taking a position.

>> No.2517923

>>2517899
Yes that is exactly what it means, but since institutionalized religion have had so much power during a long time. Atheism has become a sort of anti-movement to religious groups, and sure at present time we can comfortably say "I don't believe there is a god, and no evidence has of yet been presented to prove me otherwise. The only reason applying the scientific method to evaluate ALL claims religious or no has to be called atheism is because religion has been and is so prevalent in our culture.

>> No.2517926

>>2517919

That's an opinion if I ever saw one. An ass-backwards "SCIENCE CAN NEVER EXPLAIN EVERYTHING HURR DURR" one, too.

>> No.2517977

>>2517919
Order and beauty are both subjective attributes we assign to something, they can't be used to prove or disprove anything.

>> No.2518184

BAMPU, I wish this discussion to continue.

>> No.2518209

>>2517185
We see Jesus not as a Messiah, the son of God, or anything super-natural, but instead as a great moral teacher. Has nothing to do with Christianity.

>> No.2518289

>>2518209
Yes I think most educated Atheists will admit that Jesus did exist, the evidence says he does, and that he was a great moral teacher. But he was not any kind of divine being.

I'm of the opinion that while Christianity and the Bible was a good way of bringing morals to the mass, even though it wasn't a particularly moral book, but because we do have an inherent moral sense and are able to pick and choose what we thought moral. But now we've grown as a species, and can disregard this book that now causes more harm than good.

Oh and I generalize this to all mainstream religions.

>> No.2518325

>>2518289
Pretty sure that's how Jefferson thought, too. That's why he cut out most of the bullshit, and just printed that from which man could benefit. None of that herp derp destroy all nonbelievers with fire shit.

>> No.2518365

the bible is actually pretty cool if you aren't a total fag who just gets buttmad from readin Deutoromony and angry gaytheist fagnostic websites.

Judges, Kings, Eccelisastes, Psalms, Genesis are all smashing good reads and they definately are interesting if you have even a passing interest in western history/aesthic/moral traditions.

>> No.2518634

prove your positive claim. stop trying to reel suckers in by telling them that they should be responsible for proving a negative.

full-retard-tard

>> No.2518739

>>2518289
We don't have an inherent moral sense. What feels like an inherent moral sense is what society inscribes on us from an early age. Religion in turn modifies society's laws and mores to shape the moral sense society inscribes on children. Whether you realize it or not, your morality has its origins in Christianity and the things Christianity is in turn based on. For example, it's not a random freak of nature that you think it's wrong to kill a newborn if you have it and don't feel like raising it. That would make you a laughing stock in 98% of the world in 1 AD. That feels "natural" to you because that was a part of early Christianity, which was inscribed on western society, and after European dominance, on the rest of the world.

>> No.2519326

>>2518739

it also held back women's rights, was used to justify slavery, impede scientific progress, and is now stopping homosexuals from getting equal rights. Its led to the killing of millions if not billions of people.

So yea.

>> No.2519342

>>2518289

the purpose of the bible wasnt and isnt morality its to justify whatever belief is currently being held by the rich white men on top. lolnohomo

As for the jesus thing, a lot of evidence says he never existed. look it up newfag

>> No.2519384
File: 96 KB, 627x474, hate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2519384

>Religion vs. atheism thread
>131 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>mfw

God damn you guys are gullible. Every day /sci/ falls for the same trolls. I wish the mods would delete these threads.

>> No.2519399

>>2519384

>implying we didnt know what kind of thread we were posting in

>implying its not fun

>as if disproving ignorant christfucks isnt worth the time

>mfw you post in a thread you claim to hate

smd

>> No.2519419
File: 23 KB, 565x546, 1287609912393.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2519419

>> No.2519435

>>2519419

science isnt a fucking thing. its a methodology. This methodology is concerned with the natural world. If something exists in nature (nature=anything that exists) then it falls within the purview of science

you stupid cunt

If a god existed science would surely have something to say on the matter. The concept of a god could even invalidate science.

>> No.2519557

>>2519435
You must be the asshole who managed to keep the trolling going. Congratulations on a successful heist.

>> No.2519693
File: 6 KB, 227x222, temp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2519693

>>2517021
> What arguments do all you atheistfags have FOR atheism, which acts AGAINST deism?
This one.

>> No.2519809

>>2519435
>(nature=anything that exists)
0/10

>> No.2519831

<span class="math">
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
\def \a #1{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}}
\def \b {\triangle} \b[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \c {\a{\b}} \c[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \d {\a{\c}} \d[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \e {\a{\d}} \e[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \f {\a{\e}} \f[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \g {\a{\f}} \g[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \h {\a{\g}} \h[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \i {\a{\h}} \i[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \j {\a{\i}} \j[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \k {\a{\j}} \k[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \l {\a{\k}} \l[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \m {\a{\l}} \m[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \n {\a{\m}} \n[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \o {\a{\n}} \o[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \p {\a{\o}} \p[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \q {\a{\p}} \q[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \r {\a{\q}} \r[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \s {\a{\r}} \s[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \t {\a{\s}} \t[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \u {\a{\t}} \u[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \v {\a{\u}} \v[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \w {\a{\v}} \w[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \x {\a{\w}} \x[/spoiler]<span class="math">\def \y {\a{\x}} \y[/spoiler]<span class="math">
\def \z {\a{\y}} \z[/spoiler]