[ 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: 8 KB, 191x200, question.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615286 No.2615286 [Reply] [Original]

I find it extremely hard to have religious friends.

Obviously, I'm an atheist. I've read pretty much all that hitchens wrote, and after I finished his "god is not great" book, I find really hard to have any form of respect for religious people.
I have quite a few atheist friends an I'm fine with them, and I meet new people frequently, but if somehow I find out that they have any type of religious belief, all of a sudden I simply can't take ANYTHING they say seriously.

I'm not ashamed of it. I mean, srsly, I'm profoundly intrigued by how someone can live in this world, be an intelligent, kind and lovable person and still believe in the sky wizard. How a sane mind can accomodate that is simply beyond me.

Is it just me?

>> No.2615295

You've filled yourself with the views of one side of the argument, that holds the other side as ignorant and irrational. Of course you'll hate them.

Now, if you want to be a truly intellectual person, you'd study both sides of the argument. Maybe if you understand their reasoning, then you'll respect them more for it. Or maybe you'll just think they're even more retarded.

>> No.2615303

As long as they don't shove the fact that they're religious down your throat, simply pretend they're aren't.

>> No.2615308

ur just arrogant.
Am a theist but i still believe in darwin and sciences.
You dont have to be atheist to do science or be logical.

Grow up kid.

>> No.2615312

you're being bigoted, bro

>> No.2615315

And before people come around "lol not /sci/ related gtfo"

I'm posting this here for two reasons, first of all, you are (mostly) very rational and critical thinking people. I have zero respect for anyone capable of taking homeopathy or faith healing for real.

But the biggest reason I'm posting this in /sci/ is to ask a broader question, how do you take on people that don't think critically?

I'm not talking about people that do arts or sports, because there are intelligent people in these fields, I mean people that willfully ignorant and happy about it, people that think that physics is "just another view of the universe" and modern medicine is "too cold".

inb4 ur a douche lol

>> No.2615320

i feel the same way about people who support the war on terror

>> No.2615321

>>2615308
>ur
Stopped reading right there.

>> No.2615325

>>2615303
i also like to pretend they're aren't religious.

but for all intensive purposes, pretending that they are are not religious is just pretentious.

>> No.2615326

i cant stand religious people either

if someone says they're religious no matter how smart they are i instantly lose all respect i may have had for them

>> No.2615331

>>2615315
There are people who are willfully ignorant, religious and atheist both. There are also critical thinkers on both sides.

One thing to remember is that theists have an easy way out. God is omnipotent, so he can make it so that things about him don't make sense to us. It's a catch-22 sort of. If you pin something that doesn't make sense, they say "God works in mysterious ways." and that's a legitimate argument from their perspective.

>> No.2615332

>>2615325
>intensive purposes

reported for trolling outside /b/.

>> No.2615335

I know people who believe in some sort of God and also fully accept science to the point where we have conversations about whether or not aliens will take us over or if we will be replaced by robots. I really don't care. It doesn't invalidate the other aspects of their personality for me.

>> No.2615339

>>2615332
report'd for posting illegal content

>> No.2615343
File: 364 KB, 446x600, what_the_fuck_am_a_reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615343

>>2615325
>for all intensive purposes

>> No.2615345

I don't find it difficult to have friends of any faith or lack thereof. I don't base my friendship upon whether or not that person thinks the same as I. In the real world, it's just not that pragmatically important.

>> No.2615348
File: 7 KB, 203x189, 1296968118671.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615348

>>2615308
>ur
>Am a theist
>Grow up

But that aside, so long as one's religious views do not bleed into factual evidence, I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

>> No.2615352

the only reason hitchens is an atheist is because he used to be a communist. do you really trust someone who once held a worldview that killed hundreds of millions of people? most chillingly of all, he says he still "thinks" like a marxist, whatever that means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c

>> No.2615357

>>2615295
First of all, they have no argument.
All of their pseudo-arguments have been taken down long ago and are disproven over 9000 times every hour.
When faced with facts, science and logic, religious people either give up, dodge the argument or simply stand ground and ignore everything.

I do understand them quite well, and I do not hate them, I just cannot bring myself to empathize with them. If a person has been presented with good arguments against religion (and nowdays it's nearly impossible for anyone in a civilizaed society to not have been presented to any) and turned from it, I cannot bring myself to respect such an empty mind.

>>2615303
Except that by definition, they must shove their religion on me. And if they don't, it means that they ignore the teachings of what should be the most important thing in the universe for them, and that ammount of passiveness is unforgivable.
In short, the biggest act of despize by a religious person is to not attempt to convert you.

>> No.2615358

>>2615345
>>2615348
Its not the faith itself that is the problem, its that the person, by believing in this faith, has shown themselves to be willfully ignorant and/or illogical.

Of course, if you don't mind people like this, that isn't a problem.

>> No.2615359

>>2615343
i don't mean to be the baron of bad news, but it's a doggy dog world bro

>> No.2615367

>>2615315

>How do you take on people that don't think critically?

Just go outside and have fun with your friends. If you judge a persons character on whether or not they have given their or your worldview any serious thought does not matter... and you'll have no friends.

>> No.2615380

>>2615331
And that is what most annoys me.
How the fuck can anoyone wrap their minds on "there is an omnipotent creator, and he can do whatever fuck he wants because he's so complex that we can't understand him, and he created us dumb and horny, but with every single person in mind and loves us unconditionally, except for half a metric ton of shit that we can't do otherwise we'll hate."

Any sensible person would notice something sketchy in that, and if one cannot, he must be seriously damaged or something.

>>2615352
>Used to
>Has publically retracted from it
>Multiple times
>Jokes/mocks socialism
>Agrees that it is evil and borderline theocratic
Also, nice ad-hominem bro.
He thinks like a marxist in the way that we humans are special, should not be explored or enslaved and should have a fair chance at happiness. That is fundamentally against religion.

>> No.2615388

Are you talking about religion completely, or spirituality? Are you mixing the two or what?

Some people are deists, and others follow religion. If you're prejudiced against deists, then I'll be appalled. As another anon stated, you would be a bigot.

Furthermore, some people are agnostic/just don't know. Even if someone is religious, though, it shouldn't cast them in a different light. My Mathematics professor last semester was Indian, and he was a devout Muslim. I actually saw him pray on a mat outside of his office. He was also a phenomenal mathematician/professor.

>> No.2615389

like at least 90% of the world is religious

you can either cry about how ignorant they are and how you're so superior or you can get the fuck over it. Everyone has flaws and no one is perfectly rational. Everyone has a blind spot. Deal with it. Also, reported for trolling.

>> No.2615392

I also find it hard to have religious friends seriously, OP. Well, at least its hard for me to take their opinions about the world seriously. After all, someone who seriously believes a man lived in a fish for 3 days could hardly be accused of having critical thinking skills. Alas, my entire family (except for my father) are very religious, and my stepdad is a pastor. Talk about being the black sheep of the family.

>> No.2615395

>>2615380
the proletariat must unite and end the exploration of sweat shop workers

>> No.2615396

>>2615388
Deism has no argument. It's no better than any religion, or spirituality.

>> No.2615403

>>2615388

Also, what about Srinvasa Ramanujan? He was EXTREMELY religious himself and even believed that a God blessed him with knowledge. It just ~*SO HAPPENED*~ to be that he was one of the greatest mathematicians ever.

>> No.2615409
File: 36 KB, 378x512, 1258600807154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615409

>>2615389
>Also, reported for trolling.

>apparently not aware 4chan is founded on trolling

i just got trolled!

>> No.2615415

>>2615396

Yep, you're a bigot. You'd also take Ramanujan as a clown, despite his several contributions to Mathematics as a whole. You're also shitting on other religious/spiritual people who have exceedingly well in the sciences/mathematics.

I'm done. Good luck.

>> No.2615424

>>2615396
>Deism has no argument.
You're right about that. It all stems from either wishful thinking, or " Herp you cant get a something from a nothing, how did the universe get here???"

>> No.2615429

>>2615415

>who have done exceedingly well ..

God, my typing has become ferociously horrible lately.

>> No.2615432

>>2615388
Everytime I see a deist I think "So you got so close and stopped there?" It's like reading newton saying that god balances the universe after he just made calculus up after a cup of tea and 15 minutes of mild thinking.
I always try to reason with them, you know, give a little push towards the finish line, but nothing annoys me more than agnostics that say that "gods existance can't be proven by any way so I can be friends with everyone xD"

Lastly, I meant people that saw reason and turned from it. If you are born in the middle of nowherefuckinstan, Texas, had a bible shoved up your ass since three months old, is homeschooled and never turned a television on, I can't blame you.

>>2615389
I ain't even trolling. This is a board about rational thinking, I'm asking about how you deal with people that reject it.

>>2615392
My point exactly. How should I respect your world views when you either believe in everything in Deuteronimus or take a book that is supposed to be the unnerrant and infallible truth and then cherry pick things and take them metaforically?

>> No.2615434

OP is a stupid idiot. I am an authentic atheist and I have and respect friends of all religions lolololol umad?

>> No.2615437

>>2615415
You didn't even come close to attacking my argument, and, unless I'm hallucinating, your entire post was an ad hominem.

>> No.2615438

FU ALL.
RESPECT RELIGION, IS OLDER THAN YOUR NECKBEARD ASSES.
Fucking punks think they know shit cause they read Dawkins.
Gtfo.

>> No.2615449

If God doesn't exist, then who wrote the bible?

The religion of atheism is ridiculous, it's based on pure faith, faith, in nothing.

What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct.

>> No.2615454

>>2615380
Did you watch the video I linked? He's a Marxist in that he "still believes in the dialectic..." "...and in the materialist conception of history." Do you know what that means? It's a lot more than thinking that humans are special. Way to backpedal for him though, bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

>> No.2615456

>>2615449
>>2615438
3/10
0/10

>> No.2615458

>>2615403
And who the fucks knows what else he could have done if he had not wasted so much time praying. There is also the matter of his social behavior. Proust was a genious as well, but as a person he was a complete cunt.

Also, think of newton. Yes a genious and yes he was more interested in finding Noah's arc than he was in physics.
Now immagine what he could have done with all that wasted time, what he could achieve if he was not in fear of displeasing a sky wizard.

And lastly, the famous hitchens argument, can people be smart without religion? Yes. Does religion dump people up? Obviously yes.

>> No.2615461

>>2615437
I think his point is that if you don't respect some of the greatest minds in history simply because they were religious and for you that negates their intelligence and accomplishments, you're a faggot.

>> No.2615465

dont be a dick OP. most people just dont think about it.

whats something that you just dont care about at all? my guess is sports or something. imagine someone had just read a bunch of books by their favorite sports author, and upon finding out that you like some team that they dont, they thought less of you as a person. the truth is you just dont care about sports. you dont think critically about which team you support because your busy thinking about other things. i sincerely believe that if people really think critically about their beliefs and read the popular atheist literature then they would become atheists. but to most people it just doesnt matter, and for you to act like its a big deal is ridiculous.

there are some people who take religion very seriously, bring it up all the time and try to force it on their friends. no one has time for these people, and its not because theyre religious, its because they are dicks.

>> No.2615469

/sci/ - cry baby atheist teen advice hotline

>> No.2615472

>>2615437

Ramanujan:
>Extremely spiritual, religious and adhered to a very strict diet/eating plan which coincided with his beliefs. Despite being exposed to Mathematics, the western world and collaborating with a westerner(G.H. Hardy) who was a die-hard atheist, he kept his beliefs.

>He also happened to be one of the greatest minds whoever lived.

You:
>I find out that they have any type of religious belief, all of a sudden I simply can't take ANYTHING they say seriously.

Guess Ramanujan wouldn't be taken seriously by you.

>> No.2615473

>>2615438
So everyone in Libya younger than Gaddafi should respect him on the sole basis that he inb4'd.
And then you want me to respect you for thinking like this? gtfo plz.

>> No.2615478

you are only an atheist because you have been raised that way.

if you were born 300 years ago people would have laughed at you and called you stupid for not believing in god.

seriously can you atleast not understand there viewpoint i mean string theory indicated 10 or 11 dimensions and some pretty ridiculous shit.

yes it is supported by science but can you not see how it is possible to believe crazy things? i mean i believe in string theory, i doubt any of you actually understand a lot about the maths behind string theory or are even developing the field yet we hold it as an acceptable world view even though we seem to have no knowledge of it?

I ask you how is this different from crazy religous BS?

inb4 mad rage atheists everywhere.

>> No.2615480

Science is by definition the study of natural phenomenon through objective observation and reproducible experimentation to create predictive models. Any supernatural phenomenon which may or may not exist cannot be assessed by the scientific method. Moreover even if supernatural phenomena could be observed objectively they could not be reproduced or used to create a predictive model, thereby making the attempted observation entirely pointless. When a scientist is utilizing the scientific method they do not spare a thought to the existence or nonexistence of supernatural phenomenon, because neither possibility has any impact on his observations. Science is not a worldview, it is not a philosophy. It has taken us too long to remove all philosophical and subjective content from the original Natural Philosophy to jeopardize the extremely effective tool that science has become.

Most of the christian sects today are actually partial deists and have been since 1700. According to the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Protestant Association of America, and the Church of England; any no phenomena can truly be determined to be supernatural and any supernatural phenomena that did occur will always appear to have a root cause in natural phenomena. Basically the attribution of supernatural status to any phenomena seen as possible since the supernatural would be by definition an alteration of causality, but the root physical phenomena should always be looked for and observed.

>> No.2615484

>>2615480
Likewise since 1800 the Catholic Church has specifically stated that religious texts, Christian or otherwise are personal revelations of individuals that are to be examined by an believer in order to create their own divination of the nature of the supernatural events in question. In other words almost nobody in any religion is a scriptual literalist other than some Evangelicals, Baptists, and Buddists. Also this issue of literal interpretation was brought up in the late 900s and has been endorsed off and on through the last thousand years within the Catholic Church.

Also evangelism usually just means they make texts openly available to anyone for free or offer them. Only some of the really heavy into it are the Evangelicals. Also the Protestant Association of America and the Church of England says you can convert after death.

tldr
OP is a faggot that reads "popular science" books but never took a research methodology course in his life.
You're an idiot OP, more over you're idiot who thinks he is smart. At least the vast majority of atheists and religious in the world understand that there belief or lack thereof is based an a subjective determination of supposed supernatural phenomena. Neither position is logical or illogical when it is impossible to ever collect any relevant data.

>> No.2615485

>>2615472
Notice I said "I find it very hard".
To be honest, I profondly grieve that such a great mind willfully shackles itself. But your argument is based on the exception, yes there are very intelligent people that also are religious and made contributions to humanity, but as said before, one could only wonder what such a mind would have achiever without the burden of an invisible heavenly dictatorship.

Ever saw that interview with the Vatican chief of astronomy? The guy is a fucking genious and yet one almost cries at his cop-outs.

>> No.2615486
File: 63 KB, 720x540, scene girls are questioning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615486

>>2615458

>who the fucks knows what else he could have done if

See that word? That "if?"

You don't know shit at all; you don't know what the fuck he could have or could not have done. For all you know, religion was probably the guiding force behind his creation; it could've completely motivated him or it could've held him back. We don't know the answers to those questions and it's idiotic for me, or you, to assume otherwise. Same with the other if's you provided.

>And lastly, the famous hitchens argument, can people be smart without religion? Yes. Does religion dumb people up? Obviously yes.

Yes. Ramanujan was stupefied a bit because of his religious choice, despite soaring high above all other mathematicians in his era.

Thank you, based God.

>> No.2615492

>>2615449
My RE teacher told me Saint Philip wrote the bible

There is so much evidence, but creationist are too closed mined to listen

>> No.2615498

>>2615465
>>2615465
Except a person basing their worldview on an ancient piece of literature is a hell of alot different than liking a sports team. It is also these beliefs which drive people to push for intelligent design to be taught in schools, or for gays to be denied the right to marry.

>> No.2615500

>>2615485
>>2615485

>one could only wonder what such a mind would have achiever without the burden of an invisible heavenly dictatorship.

There's that IF again, but concealed. You're asserting a possibility which you don't know exists at all. For Ramanujan, he could've been better .. or he could've been worse. You're making the assertion that his belief(s) held him down when, in fact, it could've pushed him higher. You can't see that because you're an atheist and a bigot. A bigot = prejudiced against other opinions, people, et cetera.

Your bigotry is so ingrained that you literally can't see it enshrouding your rational thought process.

>> No.2615501

>>2615315
>I have zero respect for anyone capable of taking homeopathy or faith healing for real.

>He doesn't know about the placebo effect

>>>/x/

>> No.2615504

>>2615478
Born roman catholic, baptized, first communion'd.
300 years ago I would have no intelectual basis to be an atheist, and also, by your logic, there could be no first atheist because everyone was religious and would bring up their kids in religion.

Also, your argument is exactly mine: People are only religious because they are ignorant about things. Altough you made a nice aesthetic argument against one theory amongst many in the science field, it's still not an argument.

But rly, 6/10, nice attempt.

>> No.2615530

>>2615498
you completely missed the point. YOU CARE ABOUT RELIGION. YOU DONT CARE ABOUT SPORTS. THEY DONT CARE ABOUT RELIGION. THEY CARE ABOUT SPORTS.

most religious people i know just havent thought about it. if they really thought about it, if they really did the research, i believe they would be atheists. but its just not one of there interests. you might as well be mad at someone for not taking high level math and physics courses, or not being an expert on comic books. different people care about different things. most religious people DONT CARE about religion, because if they did then they would see what a crock it is.

unless were talking about fundamentalists/evangelists. in which case there is no problem with not befriending them.

>> No.2615547

For the record, this is the kind of ridiculous bullshit you get when religious people come up with laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-mis
carriages/?test=latestnews

>> No.2615552

To be honest, finding out someone believes in the superstition of religion should be no different from finding out someone has any other kind of superstition, whether it's belief in astrology, or Elvis lives, or homeopathy, or whatever. And finding out someone believes in the ideology of religion should be no different from finding out they believe in any ideology, whether it be communism or christianity, and simply argued on the merits of it's temporal teachings and practices, the spiritual or superstitious side ignored.


OP is out of line in one way, you can't assume that just because someone is smart should mean they always come to the right conclusions, and you can't assume that all of your conclusions are true. For example, Newton was certainly smarter than any of us, and he believed in all kinds of nonsense. The same for da Vinci, or Socrates, or any number of great thinkers.

>> No.2615562

>>2615547
hate to break it to you but half of /sci/ thinks the law is a great idea. The American half. See? Its not just religion, culture can make you retarded too!

>> No.2615563
File: 264 KB, 1200x1600, datass - 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615563

This is just degenerating into a "LET'S ALL HATE RELIGUN TGETHA xD" thread.

Datass to calm niggas down. Also, peace.

>> No.2615565

>>2615504
And other people have been born into and atheistic household and converted based on a subjective interpretation existence of the supernatural. So what's your point, other that that you made the subjective determination that there are not supernatural phenomena. Neither position is intelligent because they are both drawing conclusions without the ability to collect data. Even agnostics have draw the conclusion that they don't know whether the supernatural exists.

The only objective position would be someone who never gave the idea even a passing thought, and who's only response to the arguments is "no data available.

There is a difference logical, rational, and objective.

A logical man has internally consistent ideas, woopty fuckin doo.

A rational man expects that there is a route physical cause to all observed phenomena that he can see. This is still drawing a conclusion without data.

An objective man records data than can be substantiated by all other observers, uses it to create predictive model, then tests the model. If he can find no data he does not conjecture even to the extent a rationalist does. He simply accepts that there currently is no applicable data and will come back to the question when and if data is found. When a man is being truly objective he does not attempt to confirm or discredit the existence of the supernatural, he simply discounts it because it can provide no relevant data.

OP is the worst kind of rationalist, while not being objective at all.

>> No.2615573

>>2615562

How could that law be tenable in any way to any degree? Every single period would have to be investigated. Unless, that is, the proponents are not really serious about life starting at conception.

>> No.2615580

>>2615530
IMO fundies should be considered legally retarded. But I must say, anyone who would claim a worldview without thinking about is stupid, as well. Religion mostly attempts to answer the biggest questions we can ask. To think that anyone just accepts Religious claims as truth without even pausing to consider the plausibility of it all disgusts me.

>> No.2615590

>>2615562
Religiousity is not needed to have a bad opinion of abortion. Some do it for secular moral reasons. I do it because I want to see this planet teem with humans. I want our species to crush all things under our boots, and for that we need more people. So for the moment I would discourage abortion unless the child is going to be invalid or retarded.

>> No.2615599

>>2615565

>personal experience

I am an atheist. Personal experience is the only valid reason I can think of for believing in the supernatural. I don't think taking someones word on having a personal experience is good enough, since it is no more compelling than an honest mistake or deliberate lie on the matter, and so obviously I consider taking the word of people who lived generations ago, that word transferred through dozens of intermediaries, to be nowhere near good enough.

For me, I would not consider this one time experience of the supernatural to trump my continuous, verified experience of the natural world. But I can understand why someone would, and I don't have a problem with that.

>> No.2615613

if the universe is created my first thought would be it is an amazing ant farm, full of wars, love stories, drama, and both good and bad things. All our major religions claim God wants goodness and love. Religions throughout our history haven't had these standards, many even involving sacrificial and bloody rituals. It would appear that as societies have matured, so have our religions? But see, see how we are just scratching at the surface of things far beyond us: anything could be true, any unknown variables could exist. As I see it is fools who strongly embrace little notions about what is or what isn't. However, even as I have explained our ignorance, I would suggest more questions about faith. We are not just intellectual creatures but spiritual. To the true thinker there therefore remains only a question: Is faith vallid? Perhaps intellectuals that reject trying faith are merely afraid.

>> No.2615615

>>2615590

I consider abortion to be morally equivalent to pulling the plug on a brain-dead relative. There is certainly no person being murdered, no person still, or yet, exists, but there was, or there could be, so it is not something to be taken lightly.

>> No.2615617

>if they really thought about it, if they really did the research, i believe they would be atheists

Classic bullshit stance for any philosophical, economic, or religous person that thinks they are smarter than everybody else.

"If only they saw it there is no way they could disagree with me. I mean it's not like it's a subjective opinion or anything, partially routed in emotionality and subjective divination."

"There's no way they could be religious if they read the religious texts"
"There's no capitalist if they just read Marx."
"There's no way they'd be liberal on budget if they realized that Nixon was actually a very good fiscal president, he was just a dick personnally."

Sound familiar shit head.

>> No.2615620

>>2615580
there are plenty of truths that you accept and havent thought about critically, too, just in other areas of life aside from religion. its just that you find the topic of religion/science interesting and important, so you are more liable to find out the truth.

and seriously, think about what you wrote for a second. the people you are talking about are spoon fed religion since the day they were born. if you grow up thinking some lie is the truth, the only way you will ever find out its a lie is if you take an active interest in it. these people didnt grow up with a neutral background and suddenly claim to be christian, theyve been christian ever since they came out of their mommy and the only way that changes is by taking an active interest, something that you cant expect everyone to do

>> No.2615627

>>2615615
Gotta disagree, that old and braindead have no prospective use. The child could prove useful.

You value the mind, sapience, and self awarness. I only value fuctionality.

And I'm religious. Yeah, a religious guy that hates moralism and only cares about the survival of the species.

>> No.2615645

>>2615617
studies show that atheists know more about religion than religious people. when taking a survey about religion and religious facts, atheists scored much higher than the average religious person.

>> No.2615650

>>2615645

Didn't the Mormons score higher than the atheists or am I remembering this incorrectly?

>> No.2615653

>>2615617
besides, i didnt say "everyone who knows anything is an atheist," i just think that people are more likely to become an atheist when they know more about religion. and this is true.

>> No.2615664

>>2615650
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/us-religion-survey-idUSTRE68R43320100928

jews and mormons came very close behind them. but this is just one side of my argument, the other side is the more a person knows about science the more likely they are to be an atheist, and for this i cite the disproportionately great amount of atheists in the scientific community

>> No.2615700

>>2615599
Well accorded to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, you're supposed to read the religious texts about others divinations and attempt to make your one. The texts are supposed to induce at state of mind in the reader conducive to them forming their own opinions on the nature of the supernatural such as the existence of a certain God, the divinity of a certain messianic figure, or whether a specific prophet actually had divine inspiration. The personal experience you are looking for occurs whenever you think on the nature of the divine, even if you conclusion is that the supernatural does not exist.
And most people actually do that by the way but they recognize it as a personal thing that has no relevance to anyone esle and as such don't often talk about it.

If you did that and didn't believe because you didn't believe, since that was your subjective divination, then no one would have a problem. You are pissing people off because you are couching your subjective opinion as objective and codifiable rather than just admitting it is subjective and there is no relevant data that supports or discredits your opinion.

When you do that you sound just as stupid as some really hardline evangelical literalist.

>> No.2615715

I am an Anglican Christian. I don't believe God is some sort of omnipotent sky god passing judgment on all of us. I see God as the universal good of humanity. I can't speak for all of Christianity, of course.

>> No.2615719

>>2615664
You don't talk much to graduate students these days do you?

>> No.2615736

>>2615715
And I have an MS in Stratigraphy but see him as a inhuman Daemon Sultan abomination beyond human ken that just wants humanity to buttfuck the universe for laughs.

But then it's impossible to determine the accuracy of any interpretation of supernatural phenomena, so either one could be correct, or both, or neither. You know whatever.

>> No.2615737

>>2615700
this is the first person i've seen that knows what they're talking about in terms of theology on /sci/

>> No.2615761

>>2615736
Did I say I know?
I see God as the good in humanity, surely you can't refute the fact that there is some good in humanity.

>> No.2615760

The very, very simple fact is, that people who believe in a god, with NO proof to back it up, are stupid.

Doesnt matter if that person is a professor, doctor, whatever.

That person is stupid, and i can not take that person seriously in anything he says, because he has demonstrated that he completely lacks critical thought.

>> No.2615779

>>2615715
I don't trust surveys like this ever since one said that 58% of Americans surveyed didn't know which side(North or Sourth) we were allied with durring the Vietnam war. But I have yet to talk to a single person from any background or social standing who did not correctly say "South".

According to reuters surveys evangelicals that don't think evolution happens account for 50% of the US despite the entire Clergy of the Protestant Accossication of America making a statement that evolution was confirmed back in 1909 and advocating it to this day.

Basically my point being that only people with an interest in the survey will pay attention to when filling it out. Or will fill out weird shit for the lulz.

>> No.2615781

>>2615700

Well sir, I haven't read every religious text in existence. I have read the bible, I have studied more about the koran than I have read of the actual thing (I understand a translation is not nearly so compelling), and I have studied on other religions.

No such revelation was forthcoming, or in all my time as a catholic growing up.

I have experienced odd happenings, but nothing so shattering or denominational to make me think they were anything more than tricks of the mind on my part. These one off experience that some would describe as supernatural do not trump the continuous, verified existence of the natural, like I say.


I do genuinely try to keep an open mind about these things. But must I study each religion in turn before I discount them? Should I limit myself to only extant religions? In which order should I study them, chronological by the date of their founding? In descending order of adherents? And once I experience a revelation from one of them, do I stop there or keep going to see if I get a better one from another religion?

These questions are somewhat flippant, but they really must be asked. And if they are to be expected of an atheist, they are also expected of any religious person who is serious about knowing the truth. For now, I will simply apply rationality to any claims made about the supernatural, or the nature of the universe.

>> No.2615806

>>2615761

There is no problem with that. I can agree that there is good in humanity.

But how does god differ from the good in humanity? If not at all, then why call it god? And if it has other traits, then it is these traits that must be backed up.

>> No.2615837
File: 31 KB, 498x322, 12760383157ccc56.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2615837

>>2615286
WTF is wrong with you?
Why would you want to have retards for friends?

KEEP BETTER COMPANY!

>> No.2615852

>>2615806
these are good questions that i will think about

>> No.2615858

>>2615286

Stop being a bigot cunt. by thinking you're superior t someone else because of your beliefs you have become exactly like the religious people. I was born Muslim, I was not allowed to have atheist friends when I was a kid. Am currently atheist, I have plenty of friends from many religious.

>> No.2615861

>>2615781
Well of course you always assume that all observed phenomena are not supernatural even if you belief in the supernatural. For that matter assumed that the current theological doctrine is correct and supernatural phenomena are alterations of causality, ie that thing was always meant to happen, then supernatual shit would always look like natural phenomena regardless. Some people never experience anything that could in anyway be construed as supernatural but still believe in supernaturalism.

The lack of divination while reading cananonical texts is a valid personal determination. The only thing I can suggest is maybe some of the Shangdi/Confucianist or Hindu stuff. Which would further help determine whether you believe in nothing or something thesitic. The Buddist stuff to is religious, for all that some of them call it a philosophy. If their belief is that Buddas escape Saṃsāra then that is a supernatural process, and as such it is a religion.

But if your ultimate divination is that that their as a lack of any supernatural phenomena occuring that is as valid a conclusion as any. So long as it is not portrayed as objectively codifiable.

>> No.2615904

>>2615861

I have read Confucius. He's my kind of dude. Secularity is the only issue that really bothers me in real life, I only argue atheism online or when challenged on it, I will argue secularism at the drop of a hat. And he seemed to agree, though obviously the language of the time was somewhat different. If people just listened to Buddha, Socrates, Jesus and Confucius, (to take some ancient philosophers) and took even that with a grain of salt, we'd all be a lot better off.

I certainly believe in nothing. Or rather, only that which my eyes see. At a certain point trying to follow every spirituality you can down to find the one you can believe in becomes perverse.

And I consider the claims of those who do profess a spiritual experience, or a personal revelation, to be perfectly valid as well. So long as it is not portrayed as some compelling truth, or used as an authority to support arguments that cannot be made on merit alone.

>> No.2615999

>PhD. Student in Physics
>Attend Mass regularly
>u mad bro

>> No.2616018

>>2615286
I thought this was science and mathematics, not religions and absence of board.

>> No.2616063

>>2615904
Well Confucius was a worshiper of Shangdi, or at least professed to be a Monotheist. So far as I know he was most similar to Luther arguing for a seperation of Church and state in China and causing a schism in the process.

I'll say that philosophy is just a subjective as religion and frankly I always felt more derision towards it. Since religion at least admits that it could be complete bullshit. Philosophies tend to make blanket statements and moralize as much as any religion, but without admitting that it is totally subjective.

My whole problem with philosophy is this: I know that the internal logic or emotionality of another human does not directly effect me. If someone made a supernatural claim I might not believe it, but the supernatural phenomena in quest could conceivably effect me is some way unobservable by me.

It always weirds me out when someone who is irreligious makes a moral statement and acts as though it has more weight because it does not involve the supernatural. Morality is always subjective and should not be the basis of law, rather it should be based on brutal efficiency and the self interests of the individuals that make up the group.

Almost no one in the mainstream religious communities today argues against secularism, because secularism does not mean irreligiousity, just that religion and law are seperate because one is subjective and the other is to applied to everyone. Hell the Catholic Church argued for secularism back in the day to distance itself from the throne of France.

>> No.2616068

>>2615286

I would consider myself as an atheist. If you want to know how the universe was formed, science does not realy know, so it could be, in theory, be a sky wizard, but not likely.
For humans it is alot easier to belive that there was someone that created all this, because the universe is so big it is not easy to understand how big it actualy is.
I do understand that it is a relief to have some sort of connection with "God".

>> No.2616071

The Western man who claims consciousness of oneness with God or the universe thus clashes with his society's concept of religion. In most Asian cultures, however, such a man will be congratulated as having penetrated the true secret of life. He has arrived, by chance or by some such discipline as Yoga or Zen meditation, at a state of consciousness in which he experiences directly and vividly what our own scientists know to be true in theory. For the ecologist, the biologist, and the physicist know (but seldom feel) that every organism constitutes a single field of behavior, or process, with its environment. There is no way of separating what any given organism is doing from what its environment is doing, for which reason ecologists speak not of organisms in environments but of organism-environments. Thus the words "I" and "self" should properly mean what the whole universe is doing at this particular "here-and-now" called John Doe.

The kingly concept of God makes identity of self and God, or self and universe, inconceivable in Western religious terms. The difference between Eastern and Western concepts of man and his universe, however, extends beyond strictly religious concepts. The Western scientist may rationally perceive the idea of organism-environment, but he does not ordinarily feel this to be true. By cultural and social conditioning, he has been hypnotized into experiencing himself as an ego-as an isolated center of consciousness and will inside a bag of skin, confronting an external and alien world. We say, "I came into this world." But we did nothing of the kind. We came out of it in just the same way that fruit comes out of trees. Our galaxy, our cosmos, "peoples" in the same way that an apple tree "apples."

>> No.2616081

>>2615286
Threads such as these are the reason I leave 4chan like clockwork. OP, you are a fool if you feel your religious views are above another. I don't believe in god, and I don't give a fuck if one of my friends do, because their my goddamn friend. I pity you.

>> No.2616089
File: 26 KB, 378x478, beautifularse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2616089

>>2616071

Such a vision of the universe clashes with the idea of a monarchical God, with the concept of the separate ego, and even with the secular, atheist/agnostic mentality, which derives its common sense from the mythology of nineteenth-century scientist. According to this view, the universe is a mindless mechanism and man a sort of accidental microorganism infesting a minute globular rock that revolves about an unimportant star on the outer fringe of one of the minor galaxies. This "put-down" theory of man is extremely common among such quasi scientists as sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists, most of whom are still thinking of the world in terms of Newtonian mechanics, and have never really caught up with the ideas of Einstein and Bohr, Oppenheimer and Schrodinger. Thus to the ordinary institutional-type psychiatrist, any patient who gives the least hint of mystical or religious experience is automatically diagnosed as deranged. From the standpoint of the mechanistic religion, he is a heretic and is given electroshock therapy as an up-to-date form of thumbscrew and rack. And, incidentally, it is just this kind of quasi scientist who, as consultant to government and law-enforcement agencies, dictates official policies on the use of psychedelic chemicals.

>> No.2616097

>>2615286
I'm in a university and I know that feel, bro.

>> No.2616112

I can't stand anyone whose opinions on anything differ from mine, either.

But, being a decent person, I avoid making a big deal out of it and simply refrain from having social interactions.

>> No.2616126

>>2616063

From my readings, admittedly over two years ago, Confucius said a lot more about how the divine or the spiritual was none of his business than he did about how great Shangdi was.

Religion, and science, are branches of philosophy. I ain't even trolling. You maybe dislike philosophy that is not grounded in anything solid, but then that is how I feel about religions.

When the irreligious make a moral statement it is almost always based on merit, not on authority. The ten commandments may be right about not killing, but they are wrong in the implication that the ultimate reason you shouldn't do it because a powerful ruler decrees it. So any argument against killing that stems from merit, that killing is wrong because no human wants to be killed and we all agree on this, is better than any which stems from authority, that killing is wrong because god doesn't like it.

Secularism means (ideally) no religious laws can be forced on someone. Any who want to, say, abstain from eating pork, are free to do so. But it is not to be binding on anyone not of that faith. In the modern world, this mostly arises in terms of religious opposition to the findings of modern science or the developments of modern ethics that contradict their texts. Any who do not want to marry someone of the same sex are free to abstain from that act, but in absence of an irreligious reason to prevent it, nobody else should be bound by that law.

Ironically, in places like Europe, where state churches are official and ubiquitous, the secular tradition is now far stronger. I liken the churches in Europe to cowpox, while in the USA churches are more like smallpox (if you can ignore the unfortunate implication that all religion is a disease).

>> No.2616192
File: 30 KB, 400x290, god listens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2616192

>>2616071
Does know about Chinese Heaven Worship or that Brahman in Hindu sects is usually described similarly to the Abrahamic God. All these beings are stated in their respective texts to both encompass the universe and somehow stand beyond all existence as a separate and eternal force.

They are all technically pan theistic and monotheistic just differently emphasized.

Also
>"We're one with the universe and God so be nice to the trees, don't purge all alien life with berserker probes, don't tear apart all planets with lofstrom loops to get mass to make dyson swarms out of. Respect other things, bla bla bla.
tldr:faggot

Science is the spear tip of Man the hardened force of his power in the physical world through the understanding and prediction of physical phenomena. But the shaft of that spear is Man's belief in his Gods and in himself. His absolute surity that he is or will become the apex of creation. That it is his destiny, right, and obligation to himself and to his Dark Gods to conquer and burn and rape and maim until the entire cosmos is ground beneath his iron heel.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

>> No.2616194
File: 25 KB, 440x401, datass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2616194

>>2616089

>> No.2616205 [DELETED] 

Everyone who believes in any form of religion is a fuckwad and should be burned at the stake. I only talk to my atheist friends and we constantly argue over how religion is destroying the world as we know it. It just so happens that one of my co-workers is heavily devout in Christianity and I make sure to personally degrade him every day. I spit in his lunch when I'm in the breakroom, key his car when he's not nearby, and try to agitate him as often as possible. I understand that he hates me, but what is he going to do? Pray to his god that I be smote down?
If you're not doing justice like this to

>> No.2616209

>>2615295
Ex-Christian chiming in. "Even more retarded" is the correct answer.

>> No.2616218

Everyone who believes in any form of religion is a fuckwad and should be burned at the stake. I only talk to my atheist friends and we constantly argue over how religion is destroying the world as we know it. It just so happens that one of my co-workers is heavily devout in Christianity and I make sure to personally degrade him every day. I spit in his lunch when I'm in the breakroom, key his car when he's not nearby, and try to agitate him as often as possible. I understand that he hates me, but what is he going to do? Pray to his god that I be smote down?
Besides, Christianity is only a cult. A two billion person cult, but a cult nonetheless. It'll only be a matter of time until the pope and archbishops break out the cyanide-laced punch and tells everyone to drink.

>> No.2616220

>>2615326
>>2615325
>>2615320
Idiotic use of "i" indicates samefaggotry.

>> No.2616319

>>2616126
In the USA it's more that religion it is more popular hence more laws can have religious connotations, though someone may vote against gay marriage because they just don't like "tehgay" for some reason and want do discourage it. Though in the case of the angainst gay marriage laws it's not that they can't get a civil union(which is done by the judge) but rather that their is mistaken conclusion that a priest could be forced to ordain a marriage(homosexual or otherwise that his sect doesn't agree with) thereby violating the separation of church and state. In reality they have some laws to prevent that already, for example the state can't force a rabbi to ordain a protestant couple. I can't think of any state that doesn't allow civil unions since that is a purely monetary and proterty based transaction.

That said I don't think ethics have a place in science or law. Science may have originated in natural philosophy but has become something very different from what it was. For example animal welfare is a farce, those things have no function that should give them protection from torture. Why protect that which is not worth protecting? Not saying that they should force someone to burn kittens, but they shouldn't keep anyone from doing it either so long as it doesn't violate the fire or noise codes of the area. Similarly I wish the that everybody was reproducing because I think we need more humans, but since homosexuals can raise children I'll allow it. At least until we can manufacture people, at which point the distraction of sexual behavior in general should really be removed. Hell remove love too, unless some people need it to reinforce loyalty or something.

For me laws aren't about rights, justice, ethics, or morality. Efficiency is my only concern.
"You may say, it is impossible for a man to become like the Machine. And I would reply, that only the smallest mind strives to comprehend its limits."

>> No.2616360
File: 37 KB, 600x400, from this point on, all of your opinions are rejected.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2616360

>>2615286
>>2615315
I have a very christian friend, though he just recently accepted evolution (just before I met him several years ago), so he's not as bad as some people.

How do I handle the real nuts? I don't know. I've never really known any. I suspect that if I had a reason to be around them that I might try to explain the evidence why homeopathy is bullshit, and if it doesn't take I'd either ignore the issue if there's other reasons to be around this person, and ignore the person's opinions, or I would simply not hang around the person.

pic related

>> No.2616374

>>2616319

I don't think any law should ever be enacted to force any religious institution to marry anyone. Even inter-racial. Even same-sex. But the courthouse should marry anyone to anyone. This is if we must insists on having 'official' marriage at all.


And so far as I am concerned, animal rights are lesser than human rights. But the way people treat animals is a good indicator of how they might treat any person who gets in their way or who they have power over. So mistreatment of animals does not need to be illegal per se, though depending on the exact circumstance it could certainly be a sign of an unstable individual who would not be a good neighbor, or friend, or colleague.


If you have the strength of your conviction, and would submit yourself for extermination or sterilisation if a board concerned with maximising efficiency demanded it, then fair enough.

But if you were to argue your case for survival, what means could you use to hold off this fate but argument from ethics.


If laws are only about efficiency, where do these fire or noise codes come from? By my lights, laws should only ever need to be soft, and should only ever need to be based on ethics alone.

>> No.2616421

>>2616374
Ethics aren't really needed for fire or noise codes.

To much noise makes it hard to work, if people aren't working well it is slightly detrimental to society and by extention your self interests.

Fire codes are important because fires can spread leading to the destruction of you or your property or that of others. Both of which can decrease your chances of survival.

Same thing with murder and theft their are more chances for you to materially lose in a society with them than to gain so it's best to not to allow either. Killing people outside of conditions like war where territorial or trade gains can compensate for losses is generally inefficient since you lose humans that could provide goods or services to you and increase your chances for survival.

I don't have a problem with people basing their personal behavior on religion, emotionality, or subjective philosophical stuff, but I always thought legality should be completely objective and devoid of ethics so that we could reduce legal arguments to what is basically a fancy material balance equation.

>> No.2616454

>>2616421

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement, then.

I think that getting more and better stuff will improve the human condition and satisfy human curiosity, and that is why we must do it.

You think that getting more and better stuff is the point, and that it will improve the human condition as a happy side-effect.

>> No.2616509

I don't respect religion because it assumes that God's needs outweigh your own. To me, it is a moral sin to put anyone before you own ego. To say that you live for God is to say that you don't value your life; you literally have no worth except that defined by God. Religious people see themselves as mindless automatons, they have no sense of self. They exist for the benefit of someone other than themselves, devaluing everything they accomplish.