/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2929374]

Before I begin I'd like to say that I'm not trolling, or trying to make anyone angry. I'm just saying what I think is a bit of real idiocy and it personally makes me angry.

Why do theists (specifically Christians and Muslims but I'll be dealing with Christians here as I know the most about them) pick and choose parts of the Bible to respect and follow? What makes "lying with another man as you would with a woman" more wrong than any of the other crazy stuff also said in that chapter that almost nobody cares about or obeys? Most "Christians" don't even obey the fucking 10 commandments, yet they still feel they're a part of their branch of Christianity and will go heaven. If you're of the view the Bible is not to be taken literally, how do you choose which parts are? Or are none? People just take the parts that are easy to follow.

Thanks for reading. I'll dump a few anti-religion images if anyone wants.

[Anonymous No.2929412]

Impossible to explain to anyone who's only knowledge of the Bible comes from richarddawkins.net

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.2929411]

Situation ethics. The fact that it was written 2,000 years ago. Yes, yes, its eternal and all that, but I'd rather have a bunch of Christians who aren't quite Christians than a bunch of actual Christians.

[Anonymous No.2929415]

Fixed for accuracy.

[Anonymous No.2929417]

>If you're of the view the Bible is not to be taken literally, how do you choose which parts are?
Pray. Choose parts that cohere into a whole that is adequately logically consistent. Ask your priests. Whatever.
And like >>2929411 said, some of that shit's just ridiculous. Christianity can get along just fine without stoning fags (apparently), so human decency -> they do

[Anonymous No.2929418]

>>2929412
Are you going to cry? I've never been to that website in my life. But don't let that stop you!

>Oh yeah; pic related: it's you

[Anonymous No.2929420]

But even in medieval times, they didn't stone gays and adulterers.

[Anonymous No.2929425]

>>2929417
>Choose parts that cohere into a whole that is adequately logically consistent.

Religion and things that are "logically consistent" don't really mesh well. You're not suggesting that the belief system most Christians follow is logically consistent?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929426]

>>2929415
wat?

[Anonymous No.2929436]

To be fair, atheists don't really care about the crazy religious fundamentalists. But they absolutely can't stand Christians who don't match their stereotype. When you tell them "Oh, I believe in evolution." or "I don't interpret Genesis literally.", their entire world falls apart.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929447]

>>2929436
no it doesn't, they are still incorrect about the whole god thing, but at least they are smart enough to accept evolution etc, which makes them better than fundies.

[Anonymous No.2929460]

>>2929447

See, by posting shitty reaction images, you played right into what I said in >>2929436.

Way to live up to _my_ stereotype.

[Anonymous No.2929469]

>i've noticed that most atheists are douche bags who fail at being witty or clever

[Anonymous No.2929476]

>>2929436
Evolution and science in general are incompatible with most religions, by very definition. Look up "religion" in a dictionary.

[Anonymous No.2929480]

>>2929469

They're not. And posting a thousand shitty reaction images isn't going to win anyone over or disavow them of their beliefs because all of them are laughable strawmen.

[Anonymous No.2929487]

>>2929476

>Evolution and science are incompatible with crazy fundie interpretations of religion

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.2929490]

>>2929480
>he claims things with no evidence whatsoever
>are you religious by any chance?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929494]

>>2929460
meh
the picture makes a good point anyway. If they don't believe in evolution, they are either willingly ignorant of the evidence, or are ignoring it.
if they DO believe in evolution, the core foundation of christianity falls apart.
either way, they cant justify choosing it as their religion if they think about reality for long enough.

[Anonymous No.2929495]

>>2929490

Deist. Why?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929498]

>>2929495

thats the one where your god magically exists from nowhere (somehow) and then magically made the universe out of nothing (somehow) and then fucked off and doesn't answer your prayers, rite?

...yeah, good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.2929499]

>>2929495
Who created God?

[Anonymous No.2929502]

>>2929494

>if they DO believe in evolution, the core foundation of christianity falls apart

No it doesn't. Else why does the RCC accept evolution? Pretty major denomination of Christianity, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.2929504]

>>2929498
I laughed.

Z-Z-Z-ZING!

[Anonymous No.2929511]

I've heard it said on here that deistic gods cannot be disproven, only theistic ones.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929512]

>>2929502
really?
okay, read this pic again please >>2929447

can you point out the exact line where the logic breaks down?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929518]

>>2929511
neither can be disproven, providing you are careful enough with the theistic god to say he is hiding for some reason (no burning bushes and booming cloud voices in this day and age...) and that if he does answer prayers, it is in a very random and arbitrary manner in such a way that it statisctically cant be backed up.

[Anonymous No.2929521]

>>2929512

I don't know how the RCC juxtaposes evolution with Christianity, but unless you're a Baptist who thinks the Earth is 10,000 years old, there's no logical breakdown there.

[Anonymous No.2929527]

>>2929518

I'm not proposing the existence of a theistic god,

[Anonymous No.2929537]

>>2929498

Well, show me some evidence that there is a god that interacts with the universe and I shall become a theist.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929539]

>>2929521
the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as a large religious organisation trying to appeal to modern people in a modern time, they pretty much have to accept it.
if you DO follow the logic train far enough, you find lots of holes in their dogma merely spanning from their acceptance of evolution, which is why they just do not think about it; they accept evolution, and then they dont think about the consequences for the religion because it would be a total mindfuck for them.

[Anonymous No.2929544]

>>2929527
If something can't be disproved it can't be prove. Have fun with that. I believe in magical floating donut monsters that live outside the universe and whenever they take a dump a star explodes. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.2929545]

>>2929539

I've thought about it and I don't really see any significant theological holes there.

[Anonymous No.2929551]

>>2929544

>>2929495 here. Hold on a minute? Are you an atheist? And if so, are you an asshole atheist? Because if the answer to either of those is yes, then any possibility of rational discussion ends here.

[Anonymous No.2929560]

>>2929551

>Hold on a minute. Are you the "deist" that has had everyone of his arguments demolished? Thanks for the Ad Hominem bruv, but If you want to prove me wrong then _do_ it .

[Anonymous No.2929562]

>>2929544

>I believe in magical floating donut monsters that live outside the universe and whenever they take a dump a star explodes

Firstly, do you actually believe this or are you being sarcastic? Because seriously, I don't care if you believe in floating donut monsters as long as your beliefs are based around "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[Anonymous No.2929565]

>>2929560

Which arguments were demolished? I do not see any.

[Anonymous No.2929571]

>>2929565
You said that evolution and Christianity were compatible. Read the picture, if you can't show us an error in it then you're wrong.

You imply you're superior by claiming you're a "deist". That doesn't explain anything and while it can't be disproved it can't be proved either.

[Anonymous No.2929577]

>>2929571
>
You imply you're superior by claiming you're a "deist". That doesn't explain anything and while it can't be disproved it can't be proved either.


and I'll continue: you're wrong according to the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.2929580]

>>2929551

Agnosticfag here. I think it was pretty well implied that he's an asshole atheist.

Now, this is why atheists are hated by nearly everyone. Because they cannot tolerate dissent. And not only not tolerate it, but they feel the need to ridicule those who disagree with them. I as an agnostic find a deistic god quite plausible and I see no need to resort to smarmy remarks like >>2929499 and >>2929498

Also atheism is subject to the same rules as any other belief, which is that some degree of evidence is required before I believe in it.

For shame, atheists. I'm an oldfag who remembers /sci back before your kind took the place over.

[Anonymous No.2929581]

>>2929562
>implying any religion is based around that
In practice, do unto others is a lot harder to live by. I see religious people fail to do this consistently.

[Anonymous No.2929592]

>>2929580
Evidence of what? Before there were people, there were no concepts of gods. People had to exist first before the concept of a god could be proposed and either accepted or rejected. Atheism is the default. Just because some of the arguments theists put forth have semi-convinced you to the point where you think it's not totally crazy, doesn't mean it's any more likely.

[Anonymous No.2929594]

>>2929571

Firstly, I'm not the deist guy you were talking to. I fail to see where Christianity falls apart in large part because we are viewing it from entirely different perspectives. In short, you see it one way and I see it another. We have no common shared understanding here.

[Anonymous No.2929596]

>>2929581

>I see religious people fail to do this consistently.

They're only human, you know.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929597]

>>2929580
agnosticfag eh? please read this picture on a different thread >>2929453

[Anonymous No.2929598]

>>2929592

No, then they were agnostics, Atheism implies active rejection of religion. You cannot reject something you've never heard of.

[Anonymous No.2929607]

>>2929596
In that case, their air of moral superiority is entirely unjustified.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929611]

>>2929598
agnsoticfags actively reject the religion just as much as atheism. "go to church! praise jebus!"
agfag: "well, i don't know for certain that you are wrong, but i'm not going to waste my time doing any of that...but please dont lump me in the same group as those asshole atheists! i'm on your side!...kind of."

[Anonymous No.2929612]

>>2929580

>>2929495 here.

I agree that I can debate Christians without being subjected to a barrage of personal attacks and silly reaction pics. Why so mad, atheists? Were you molested by a priest as a child? I also challenge you to name anything bad us deistfags ever did. We never burned witches or killed infidels or tortured heretics, did we? If you can't name anything, there's no reason to hate us and you own me an apology.

[Anonymous No.2929616]

>>2929598
Without the concept of a god you can't say "I don't know if gods exist or not" You can't be agnostic about something you've never heard of. Early humans before the concept of gods are like infants. No innate understanding of the concept=atheism. Atheism is not active rejection. You start out not believing in gods and that's the way it should stay until solid evidence is presented.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929615]

>>2929607
indeed.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929619]

>>2929580
>thinks it is somehow possible to have a stance on religion which is neither belief nor active disbelief.
>laughing_faggots.jpg

[Anonymous No.2929618]

>>2929607

No, but at least you have the teachings of your religion to fall back on if you ever become a dirtbag. If you're an atheist, you have no restraints or any religious teachings to fall back on.

Remember: The Bible contains general moral guidelines, not absolute commands.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929624]

>>2929618
doing_it_wrong

and no it doesn't
the bibles morality is a fucking joke, and all of the 'good' morality in it such as 'love hy neighbor as yourself' etc was predated by jainism anyway.
christfags have nothing to add which is both new and good.

[Anonymous No.2929635]

>>2929618
If you need religious teachings as a crutch, you are a terrible human being. And as atheist, I have plenty of restraints based on reason and empathy that I self-impose because I realize that it's the only way to a mutually beneficial arrangement between humans.

[Anonymous No.2929639]

>>2929619

If atheism means the following:

*I have to act like an asswipe towards anyone who disagrees with me
*I demand standards of evidence for others' beliefs that I don't demand for my own
*I treat science as a cult rather than simply a means to an end
*I'm a hypocrite who follows the moral codes of religions I allegedly hate
*I rely on bad strawman arguments
*I call others childish names
*I think I know all the answers to the universe and human existence
*I ignore the huge cultural contributions religion has made to civilization while atheism has contributed nothing at all
*I accuse religions of genocide while atheists killed millions during the 20th century

Then I think I will just be an agnostic

>inb4 hurr durr Stalin didn't kill people in the name of atheism

No, but rejecting religion didn't make the communists better or more moral people.

[Anonymous No.2929642]

>>2929624

I don't think the Bible is ok with either, do you?

[Anonymous No.2929643]

>>2929642
How many cities did God destroy because they had slaves?

[Anonymous No.2929645]

>>2929624

>and all of the 'good' morality in it such as 'love hy neighbor as yourself' etc was predated by jainism anyway.

Hey, God is God regardless of the religion. And BTW, what "moral code" or teachings does atheism have? Doesn't see like a very inspiring or uplifting religion to me.

[Anonymous No.2929647]

>>2929639
It doesn't. Welcome aboard!

[Anonymous No.2929649]

>>2929639
No, but rejecting religion didn't make the communists worse or less moral people.

[Anonymous No.2929653]

>>2929643

I'm not saying this was God's hand, but the pictured city had slaves and got quite badly destroyed.

[Anonymous No.2929654]

>>2929653
That wasn't in the Bible...

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929655]

>>2929642
you think the bible isn't okay with slavery?

"Leviticus 25:44
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

not directly a god quote, but religious people claim the bible is the word of god, and he endorses everything written within it even if the author is man and not devine.

>>2929639
obviously atheism doesn't mean ay of that, there is no point ibventing your own definitions, just get a dictionary and look up what atheism means.

also you are a yellowbellied coward who is a bottom left agnostic atheist but who doesn't want to appear as such, so tries to take a middle ground which doesnt even exist.
see >>2929597
and >>2929611

[Anonymous No.2929657]

>>2929649

No, but no religious believers ever killed that many people in such a short space of time.

How many actually died in the Inquisition? A few hundred or thousand, I guess.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929661]

>>2929645
>best_be_trolling.jpg

[Anonymous No.2929665]

>>2929654

You didn't say anything about the Bible, just "Did God destroy a city with slaves?" And quite a lot of people in the Civil War-era US believed it was God's will to end slavery.

Also nowhere does it explicitly say "Thou shalt keep slaves."

[Anonymous No.2929668]

Since the rules actually state "no religion vs science threads", by all means do assist and report this fucking shit.

If you so clearly want to have this conversation in a civilized matter, make sure you don't fucking break the rules by posting it on /sci/, hell even /b/ would've been more suitable.

[Anonymous No.2929674]

>>2929661

Didn't answer the question. Does atheism have any moral code or teachings that are superior to those of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.2929676]

>>2929665
The post I was quoting did. I was referring to that post. Follow the thread.

[Anonymous No.2929679]

>>2929668

You admitting a civilized discussion is beyond your ability?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929680]

>>2929668
i'm not the OP, i just couldn't resist joining in. I think we are nearly done anyway.

[Anonymous No.2929681]

>>2929668
Don't. Mods will ban you if you report something they don't consider reportable.

[Anonymous No.2929684]

how could we know right from wrong without believing in eternal celestial surveillance?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929685]

>>2929674
atheism has no moral code. atheists simply dont believe in god(s). thats it.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929686]

>>2929681
sup scientist.
you can put the trip back on, you know.
i'll never tell... ;)

[Anonymous No.2929687]

>>2929676

That's the same fallacious argument Mormons used to justify polygamy.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929689]

>>2929687
i dont think they do that anymore.
...i believe they informed me of that just before i asked them how magnets work. :D

[Anonymous No.2929690]

>>2929687
They used sticking to the thread and not going off-topic to justify polygamy? Damn, that was sneaky,

[Anonymous No.2929691]

>>2929679

A religion thread on /b is hardly "civilized", but I think what he means is that there's a greater diversity of opinion there while /sci threads tend to be 20 atheists beating up on one agnostic or whatever.

Don't worry though; we'll soon drive the Dawkins brigade from here. Scientist was just our first victim...

[Anonymous No.2929694]

>>2929689

No, but they said "The Bible has polygamy so God must approve of it." Well, by that logic God must approve of all kinds of various awful things that people did in the OT.

Just because it was mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean God approves of it. Much of those stories were moral lessons of people who did stupid things and paid the price for them.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929697]

>>2929691
and yet it is always the religiousfags starting the debate here, despite rule 3.

the 20 or so atheistfags you mentioned are just shouting the guy down because that shit is retarded and it doesnt belong here anyway!
science is about evidence, you bring anything here based solely on faith and you will swiftly be informed that you should GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2929702]

>>2929691
>there's a greater diversity of opinion there while /sci threads tend to be 20 atheists beating up on one agnostic or whatever.
Actually, /b/ is "atheists vs atheists pretending to be theists".

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929705]

>>2929694
most of those awful things are done by god himself
1. gee, i think i'll flood the world and kill every single living fucker downthere, because in my omniscience i somehow didn't realise i would fuck up creation.
enjoy drowning, earthling! trollface.jpg
2. *satan trolls god* oh yeah!? i'll show you *god trolls a very very faithful man and ruins his life* "yeh! alpha and omega, baby! take that!"
3. "oh hai, abraham, can you murder your son in my name? k-thnx-bai >trollface.jpg

god is a cunt...

[Anonymous No.2929706]

>>2929697

I believe there's sufficient evidence some kind of god exists, but I have no idea which one it is. Also atheism requires faith to believe as well.

Remember that as long as idiots keep turning this board into /dawkins, the religion threads will never stop. You provoke believers and get what you deserve.

[Anonymous No.2929708]

>>2929706
>I believe there's sufficient evidence some kind of god exists
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.2929709]

>>2929706
> I have no idea which one it is

You smuggled in quite an assumption there, champ.

[Anonymous No.2929712]

>>2929702

I've had some very good religion discussions there actually.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929717]

>>2929706
>I believe there's sufficient evidence some kind of god exists
what evidence do you think there is?
>atheism requires faith to believe as well
no, its just logical to disbelieve in the supernatural until evidence comes in.
>You provoke believers and get what you deserve.
and then we own them with logical, rational arguments.

gee, i really guess we are 'getting what we deserve'

[Anonymous No.2929719]

>>2929708

I've had many weird things occur in my life that were not exactly explainable by science, although the evidence is (as I said) inconclusive and so I do not identify with any particular religion.

Guess you could call me an agnostic theist. But I've got to be going to bed, so I will only reply to one more post after this.

[Anonymous No.2929729]

>>2929717

Don't flatter yourself. Remember that "rational" arguments are purely subjective. One man's ration and logic is another man's nonsense, which is why philosophy can never be agreed on.

[Anonymous No.2929740]

>>2929717

>and then we own them

Well, now just you own them since Scientist got the boot. His banning alone should raise the collective IQ of this board.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2929748]

>>2929729
no. fucking evidence, how does it work?
also, logic is objective, not subjective.

>>2929740
I like scientist. shame he got banned...

[Anonymous No.2929757]

HEY GUYS!

>>>/b/

Kindly get the fuck out of my /sci/ence and maths board. This is not only neither, it's against the rules.

[Anonymous No.2929769]

The best you can do is not believe something until sufficient evidence is presented to the contrary. Being a "deist" is pretty much the worst position you are believing something without any evidence, believing in something that cannot be disproved and just shifting the question to who made your god.

I agree wholeheartedly with every who says being an Atheist is the default position and that if you don't believe in God the only thing you can be is an Atheist.