/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2610006]

why are religious people so willfully stupid ?

are they afraid of education and intelligence ?

[Anonymous No.2610034]

Many religious people are well educated and highly intelligent. Stop lumping all religious people in with the bad apples.

[Anonymous No.2610042]

>>2610034
confirmed for religious fag.

[Anonymous No.2610046]

sigh

[Anonymous No.2610055]

>>2610042

Nope atheist you just failed

[Anonymous No.2610064]

Herein is God’s law, and one is reading it by choice; and thus, believing in its content is entirely up to you. Man is subject to this law and will be until he is over the last crossing where is no longer something to fire music out of. He will weep at the recital of a tale in which is mentioned the stone of which the builders reject, and is firm in his belief that it was all so; and yet, when he is confronted with the reality which the cycle of time always brings about, he would rather believe that it was once so, but never to be again. He would rather continue to worship the same old images formed in his mind according to his interpretation of iron and brass than to take the trouble to find the foundation for his belief. Consider the following a message from someone who cares about the world and those that inhabit it.

Every single being that exists encompasses a certain structure that has remained since the dawn of time, planets, stars, galaxies, humans, animals and so forth, none are exempt. This specific blueprint is the basis to all creation and architecture that one sees in their everyday lives; a top and bottom, a front and back, a pair of sides and an inside and outside. If one was to look around he might see these very dimensions present in all objects, and if he does not, then his mind is not astute enough. The underlying principle to this law is that neither component can exist without its opposing counterpart, and that they do not hold any significance over the other. Ergo, the top is reliant on the presence of the bottom, and together they equate to zero, but can be considered one zero as they are united.

[Anonymous No.2610068]

The planet Earth is a perfect example to demonstrate the law. Its topmost and bottommost regions can be indicated by the North Pole and South Pole, they are antipodes or directly opposite from each other. Furthermore, one half of the Earth is always enlightened whilst the other is in shadows from absence of luminosity – accounting for the foremost and rearmost sectors. The precise points in between the topmost and bottommost regions and where the light meets the dark is the dwelling of the two sides; there are only two possible locations so there shouldn’t be any confusion. Both the inner-core and outer-mantle are self-explanatory (See Fig. 2).

One is permitted to determine more subtle properties through his own observance. For example, one half of anything cannot be seen without the other half unseen. If one was to take an object such as a house and stand away at a far enough distance where it would be in full-view, he would see the face of it, but not the other side. This is a primary truth, and therefore a law of God, one which cannot be broken. If one was to take a mirror and place it behind an item in an attempt to bend these regulations, you would become stuck, as the image depicted in the reflection is an illusion, one is still looking at the front side of a mirror.

[Anonymous No.2610070]

Yeah, that Descartes guy was such an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2610075]

With this current understanding, that something cannot be visible without an opposing invisible aspect; one may take it a step further. Prior to this we had annotated the planet Earth with various dimensions, and we did this through wording. This language we used to communicate our wisdom is a fabrication; it is not really there. We cannot literally see the properties we had laid down, and can only imagine their presence; but how exactly did we apply words to something that isn’t there? It’s simple, through an unseen layer that is hidden from our view yet a part of our experience.

Upon further examination; if we were to abolish Earth entirely and keep only the wording, then we would be in possession of a blueprint for a cubit. It is the most simplistic shape or form that contains these very properties. This being so, then surrounding the spherical planet must be a, to scale, imaginary cube, one which can receive our worded input. It cannot be an abstract polygon because that would not be opposite to an orb, and thus would break the rule of opposites.

[Anonymous No.2610085]

Problem, Perpetual Motion?

[Anonymous No.2610087]

>>2610055

funny how you religious faggots will renounce your beliefs just to prove your retarded point

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2610165]

NO, you are the ones lowering yourself to 11 dimensional zombies, in the name of logic and sceince. Stop disregarding anyone who choses not to do so.
It`s as if you guys are jalours in some way, And desperately try to invalidate any legitimate emotions we experience, but you can`t have. Because the atheism has fragmentated parts of the natural mind and depersonalized it.

The greed for informative superiourity (we all know that information == power) and the lack of interest for the world around you has transformed you guys into a bunch of inbalanced sub-humans.

Anyway you are all sick in the head and atheism should be diagnosed as a dissociative personality disorder.
i wish you all the best and thanks for listening.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2610212]

>>2610165
thiss

[Anonymous No.2610216]

>>2610165
>>2610212
Hmm .. yeah. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.2610230]

srsly, this is /sci/ not /x/ why aren't these fags banned yet?

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2610240]

>>2610216
Some one can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s own experience, extreme-scepticism, sceince, etc etc...
All of these aspects are reasonable things to rely on depending on your (philosophical) view on life.

People can see one or a combination of these aspects as fundemental and therefor must belief in a god or not, in order to fallow his/her own logic.

And this precisely why atheism is a belief rather than a lack of belief.
It is not the question of God existing or not which they lack belief in, it is the reasons for God existing or not which they believe in.

Note that being religious is just as reasonable as atheism.

[Scientist No.2610245]

>>2610230
>implying /sci/ has mods or janitors, or that they pay attention to the numerous reports which I've done and the rest of the /sci/ usuals

[Anonymous No.2610268]

>OP is just as ignorant as an ignorant religious person.

[Anonymous No.2610283]

>>2610240

I can't take this seriously

[Anonymous No.2610329]

>>2610240

You are the same kind of faggot that you accuse atheists of being. That being, a person that has a limiting world-view. Not all atheists think the way you think they do, and you are clearly more gullible than open-minded. (little evidence to support this, but I'm going out on a limb)

[Anonymous No.2610341]

Awful lot of samefagging in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2610443]

>>2610240
I do not think you are an intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.2610451]

bump

[Anonymous No.2610463]

>>2610165
>>2610212

Worst samefag ever.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2610478]

>>2610443
i`m sure you`re an idiot

[ΑΒΛΑΝΑΘΑΝΑΛΒΑ !VELES0KOXY No.2611371]

>>2610478