/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3034024]

Agnostics 1, everyone else 0

[Anonymous No.3034029]

Being open-minded is the only right answer.

[Anonymous No.3034033]

Who?

[Anonymous No.3034037]

By being agnostic, you are admitting you are too stupid to make a decision about what you believe.

[Anonymous No.3034042]

Null Hypothesis. If we can't prove it, don't believe in it.

[Anonymous No.3034043]

You can't be agnostic about God, yet not be agnostic about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, invisible unicorns, Cthulhu, and the flying spaghetti monster. Otherwise, by definition, you're not an agnostic.

Logic: 1, agnostics: 0

[Anonymous No.3034044]

Actually no. God has been proved not to exist. Just not the type of proof anyone who doesn't know science will understand.

Move along

[Anonymous No.3034034]

if god exists... why hasn't anyone seen him?

[Anonymous No.3034047]

>>3034024
>can't prove he doesn't exist

That's only true if you use the "God is undefined" argument, the God that is defined as an omnipotent being is easily disproven.

[Anonymous No.3034051]

>>3034044
Okay then, provide it.

[Anonymous No.3034057]

>obvious troll thread devoid of any value to the board

>250 posts and 45 image replies

[Anonymous No.3034075]

>>3034044
show us this proof

[Anonymous No.3034088]

You do realize that if God exists, he's more likely to throw agnostics into hell than atheists.

[Anonymous No.3034089]

Its really a stupid question, whether you believe in God or not. Its a dumb question to ask a scientist and an incredibly stupid question for scientists to try and answer

[Anonymous No.3034092]

>>3034034
>>3034037
>>3034042
>>3034043
>>3034044
>>3034047

OP Status:
[ ] Told
[x] Fukken told

[Anonymous No.3034102]

"Agnostics are just atheists without balls."

-- Stephen Colbert

[Anonymous No.3034103]

>>3034037
>By being agnostic, you are admitting you are too smart to make a decision without proof

FTFY

[Anonymous No.3034111]

>>3034102

Or closet Christians who think that by pretending to be agnostic, their opinions suddenly gain more significance.

[Anonymous No.3034118]

>Be Catholic
>Read thread
>Expect to get angry from the responses
>OP gets destroyed in a few posts
>Everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

[Anonymous No.3034127]

Unless you've searched every corner of the universe without finding God, you can't claim with a straight face that he doesn't exist.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3034138]

>>3034088

^This

[Anonymous No.3034140]

>>3034127
The universe doesn't have corners.

[Anonymous No.3034142]

>>3034127

>doesn't know the definition of god
>doesn't know that the same argument can be used for santa claus

[Anonymous No.3034149]

>>3034102
"Agnostics are just atheists that don't troll."

-- Anonymous

[Anonymous No.3034156]

>everything has to be true or false, disregard probability

You can't prove that there isn't an invisible, undetectable dick in your ass. You can't confirm it either. But we can say that it's highly improbable that such dicks exist let alone that one is located in your rectum.

[Anonymous No.3034159]

This is why atheism is as much a matter of faith as any religion. You can't disprove the existence of God (or anything for that matter), so you can only decide on faith what you do and don't believe in.

[Anonymous No.3034160]

>>3034029
>>3034051
>>3034075
>>3034103
>>3034127
>>3034149

"Agnostics sure love to samefag"
--Anonymous

[Anonymous No.3034166]

>>3034149
>agnostic
>don't troll

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3034169]

PSA EVERY THING IN THE UNIVERSE IS A MATTER OF FAITH, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CAUSALITY EXISTS, YET EVERY DAY WE TREAT IT AS THE GOSPEL WHEN WE DO ANYTHING IN OUR LIVES.

FUCK EVERYONE

>CHECK YOU EPISTEMOLOGY

[Anonymous No.3034173]

>assuming that simply because there are two possibilities, the probability of either being true is equal.

[Anonymous No.3034175]

>>3034160
That doesn't look like proof to me. Still waiting on that proof that God doesn't exist that you say science has.

[Anonymous No.3034183]

You can prove that plenty of gods don't exist. You can't prove that any god at all doesn't exist.

So atheist to any god in particular, agnostic to any god at all.

[Anonymous No.3034184]

>>3034159

No, we accept things on evidence. You don't disbelieve in Santa Claus on faith; you disbelieve in him because any fool can go to the North Pole and find nothing there but ice and polar bears

[Anonymous No.3034188]

>>3034024
>You can't prove God exists, but you also can't prove he doesn't exist.

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.3034198]

>>3034169

The assumption that the world we perceive through our senses is accurate to reality, and that this reality operates according to a set of comprehensible rules, IS an assumption which one cannot ever fully back up.

But the alternative is solipsism, and that has had no significant advances in ever.

[Anonymous No.3034213]

You're right OP.
You can't prove that anything does or does not exist if there's no evidence. For example, I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. So I guess I'm an agnostic about unicorns. Same with trolls, fairies, dragons, and underpants gnomes.

Yeah, no.

I can't prove or disprove the existence of unicorns, but I'm almost positive that they don't exist. There is very little doubt in my mind, so I don't believe that they do. Same with a god. There is very little doubt in my mind that gods don't exist, so I don't believe that they do.

[Anonymous No.3034221]

trolls: 1
/sci/: 0

[Anonymous No.3034225]

>>3034213
*that gods DO exist

[Anonymous No.3034234]

Thanks guys. Saving this thread in case I need to crush an agnostic in the future.

[Anonymous No.3034237]

[Anonymous No.3034256]

why cant i get cell service in Plato's cave?

[Anonymous No.3034276]

>>3034037
Which is, of course, what every single person alive should do in this case.

[Anonymous No.3034296]

Atheism (apatheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antitheism, deism, straight atheism)
>I don't know, you don't know, and I don't think anybody knows.

Theism (countless faiths, each with countless branches, each with countless sects)
>I do know, and everyone else who says they know doesn't know.

[Anonymous No.3034327]

[Anonymous No.3034343]

>Agnostics

[Anonymous No.3034357]

>>3034276
>Which is, of course, what every single person alive should do in this case.

Bullshit. Inability to prove that something doesn't exist does not imply that it is just as likely to exist as it is not to exist.

[Anonymous No.3034374]

>>3034357

Agnostic does not mean 'it's a fifty-fifty chance'. And if someone thinks that, and they call themselves an agnostic, maybe they should think about the image they are putting across.

Agnostic means you don't think we have data on the matter. For things like the 'god' which is described as the creator of the universe, but who has no additional traits, this is a fine position to have. For gods from the holy books or pantheons, it is not a reasonable position, since they have been conclusively disproven.

[Anonymous No.3034397]

>>3034024
ITT: Athiests hate anyone who doesn't believe as they do

[Anonymous No.3034425]

>time it takes agnostics to realize everyone is agnostic by default and human's can't "prove" anything

[Anonymous No.3034442]

>Agnostic does not mean 'it's a fifty-fifty chance' . . .

>>3034374 said that every single person alive should not have a belief in one direction or the other, which is wrong if you agree that beliefs should be founded on evidence and probability.

>Agnostic means you don't think we have data on the matter.

>For things like the 'god' which is described as the creator of the universe, but who has no additional traits, this is a fine position to have.

That's virtually never the case in real life. The "god" in question is always something anthropomorphic or otherwise highly improbable.

[Anonymous No.3034464]

I would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever that a God exists in any form, but a good deal of evidence which suggests but doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist. There are certain logical fallacies associated with the idea of omnipotence, and the concept of a deity, which can cause paradoxes and other problems, which logically suggests it's untrue. There are also many other explanations for more or less everything which needs an explanation which have supporting evidence ranging from speculation and theory to generally considered fact. Physics, in all its branches, can explain a great deal of the universe, with varying theories, most of which make a great deal more sense and are extrapolated from things we can prove, than a deity.
On top of that, as far as we know only humans worship the idea of a higher power, suggesting it's a man-made concept.
To be honest, how do you define a God?
If someone were to take a gun, a mobile phone and a kevlar vest back to the stone age, you'd probably be considered a deity. Likewise someone who can manipulate gravity to aid planet formation would appear godlike to us.
Where do you draw the line? When does something become a God, and when is it just a being more enlightened and advanced?
You cannot prove definitively either way, no. But there is a good bit of evidence one side, and very little/none on the other, generally speaking it is always better to go with the evidence, adapting as more comes, and admitting at each stage that you don't know for sure, but are fairly certain based on what you know so far. I.e, science.

[Anonymous No.3034486]

FUCK YOU,

RELIGION VS. SCIENCE THREADS

[Anonymous No.3034492]

You don't need proof that God doesn't exist if you feel that he doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.3034506]

t.o.e.

buddhists believe humans are god. i am god, you are god, he is god, she is god.

one day, humans will either die, or transcend space/time and practically BE god.

if humans die, end of universe, thats all folks.
if humans survive, transcend space/time, universe exists because humans exist. humans are the universe.

now replace "humans" with "life", and you have the correct theory of everything :)

tl;dr if you are alive, then you are god.

[Anonymous No.3034507]

>>3034442

This 'space-god', that god which is passively believed in by deists, passively disbelieved in by atheists, is only ever used by theists as a tool, a hook.

They use the solid arguments that exist to show that we cannot demonstrate this god to be false, and then they claim that their favorite god and this space-god are one and the same. Without doing the work to show that their favorite god exists, they still refuse to accept any evidence unless it would also disprove the space-god.

Image related.

[Anonymous No.3034508]

>>3034397

What's wrong with hating people who are objectively wrong? Ignorance is nothing to be proud of or respected.

[Anonymous No.3034510]

>>3034506

[Anonymous No.3034515]

>>3034442
as improbable as god playing dice?

[Anonymous No.3034516]

>You can't prove God exist
>Yeah, but you also can't prove God doesn't exist
>The fact that I can't pruve God exist's is not valdid (unihorn example)
Come on, this argument (discusion) is so lame and donesn't go anywhere. REAL intelectual man left that topic years (decades) ago.

[Anonymous No.3034521]

>>3034506
>buddhists believe humans are god

As a Buddhist I am insulted by this.

[Anonymous No.3034526]

>>3034516
>real intellectuals
>4chan

[Anonymous No.3034527]

>>3034516
>The fact that I can't pruve God exist's is not valdid as an argument for proving God's existance(unihorn example)
sry, my bad

[Anonymous No.3034531]

>>3034506
>tl;dr if you are alive, then you are god.

Except we've already established that god doesn't exist, so you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3034538]

>>3034516

And yet if one wants to argue with a theist, it must be said.

If you can't PROVE something exists, then, while you may have good reasons to believe in it, NOBODY ELSE has a good reason to believe in it.

[Anonymous No.3034533]

>>3034508
>when your arguments are based on what religion does to 'culture'

>moron?

[Anonymous No.3034541]

Why is /sci the most easily trolled board in existence?

[Anonymous No.3034544]

>>3034510
>>3034506
well lets say on a long enough time line there is some ultimate lifeform that transcends space/time. i mean shit, buddhists always said "we are the universe", and sure enough, scientists have agreed that we are made of basically star dust and other matter.

could life exist solely because of life?

[Anonymous No.3034548]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U&feature=share

[Anonymous No.3034549]

>>3034521
well what do you believe?

[Anonymous No.3034558]

and we don't care. lol

[Anonymous No.3034560]

>>3034521
>>3034521
as a buddhist i'm insulted/surprised you never knew this. ever listen to alan watts?

he was "christian/catholic", but was so intrigued by zen buddhism that he studied it for years. he claims this is what zen buddhists believe.

[Anonymous No.3034565]

>>3034544

I repeat, HumptyDumpty.jpg. Words don;t mean whatever you want them to mean, redefining 'god' to mean 'everything' or 'humanity' or w/e idiot idea you're espousing is a non-argument, you'e simply moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.3034569]

>>3034538
>If you can't PROVE something exists, then, while you may have good reasons to believe in it.
lol because of FAITH, which is not a fact or an explication to enithing; is an ATTITUDE to the fact of existance.
>I see a painting
>I find it's nice
That's an attitude, not a fact that the painting is nice.

[Anonymous No.3034576]

>>3034541
because "smart" (or thinking they´re smart) are the most common to argue

[Anonymous No.3034587]

>>3034521
>>3034521
>>3034521
>>3034521
as a buddhist i'm insulted/surprised you never knew this. ever listen to alan watts?

he was "christian/catholic", but was so intrigued by zen buddhism/hinduism that he studied it for years. he claims this is what zen buddhists/hinduists believe.

if they figured we came from the universe all those years ago, then we obviously haven't been productive in terms of science/universe

[Anonymous No.3034590]

>>3034526

He's saying that 4channers are not real intellectuals. and referring to actual scholars and philosphers who already passed this shit through their systems ages ago, and to pretend that a bunch of high school kids here could do what they couldn't is nonsense. Especially when they've been repeating the exact same carbon copy "arguments" since the first online atheist bulletin boards ever existed, day in, day out, through thousands of posts . It has never changed, it will never change, nothing will ever come of it, ever. This is not science, it's armchair bullshitting and proselytizing with the ego-stroking guise of "I'm just thinking rationally derp derp here's a shitty strawman comic I saved off /b/". It's intellectually worthless.

[Anonymous No.3034591]

>>3034051
>>3034075

not that guy, but he's right

From a scientific perspective, there's overwhelming EVIDENCE that the whole god story was made up ie is fiction. I mean cmon.. - it's more obvious than saying the moon goes around the earth.

[Anonymous No.3034596]

>>3034544
If by that you mean, would the universe exist if life didn't, then no. Life didn't arise at the same time as the universe, there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for this. That means at some point in the history of the universe, there was no life whatsoever, and yet it obviously still existed. Likewise after life ceases to exist, the universe will continue on as usual. There is so much evidence for everything which has happened since the big bang that it's only really worth discussing whether a Deity started things up then vanished, or if things happened naturally. And before someone posts that image which says something like "First there was nothing, then nothing exploded.", there are perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for how the universe could have spontaneously generated itself which don't rely on magical, omnipotent beings that themselves came from nothing. The thing I find most amusing is that a lot of theists claim that God has always existed, but find it impossible to believe a universal constant like energy could have always existed, it must have come from somewhere.

[Anonymous No.3034600]

>>3034569

It is, however, a fact that you like the painting.

[Anonymous No.3034602]

>>3034591

.>From a scientific perspective, there's overwhelming EVIDENCE that the whole god story was made up ie is fiction. I mean cmon.. - it's more obvious than saying the moon goes around the earth.

Really there is no evidence to support this theory.

[Anonymous No.3034604]

This debate belongs on another board. OP please fuck off, the true intellectuals here have other things to think about.

[Anonymous No.3034608]

>>3034565
>>3034565
>>implying people from the past never pondered the universe
>>implying people from the past didn't say that humans came from the stars

newsflash buddy: they did.
we proved it recently, but they always said we are part of the universe, and OH WHATS THIS, everything on the earth is the same as shit in the universe.

your lack of faith is really disturbing, go lurk Hinduism/Buddhism websites til you find this answer

[Anonymous No.3034614]

>>3034591
Sure, the same way that witnesses lie about actual events because they can't remember exactly what happened.

[Anonymous No.3034618]

>You can't prove unicorns exist, but you also can't prove they don't exist
/thread
sage because agnostics are idiots, Theists are smarter.

[Anonymous No.3034627]

>>3034608

Newsflash, moon: We're talking about god, you don't get to just redefine words to suit your ancient aliums agenda. Even if people in the past DID claim we came from the stars, and even if that implies that the truth behind stories about god are actually about aliums, that is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND.

[Anonymous No.3034631]

>>3034591
>From a scientific perspective, there's overwhelming EVIDENCE that the whole god story
Which one?

>was made up ie is fiction.
Made up fiction? Are you implying the early believers didn't actually believe in their religions, and made it up as a lie?

>I mean cmon.. - it's more obvious than saying the moon goes around the earth.
Compelling evidence you have there, I'm convinced

[Anonymous No.3034634]

>>3034596
>>3034596
eh i guess thats the pot speaking, but yeah i figured that it couldn't be right as soon as i hit submit.

unless there's more than 1 universe out there. DUN DUN DUN.

lol jk ill lurk moar

[Anonymous No.3034654]

>>3034602

If one could trace the stories about the source of knowledge on god, to the prophets, for example, then we can actually examine them. If we can't trace the source, it is up to modern believers to show how it is different from fiction.

If we have access to the source, we can examine whether there was compelling evidence to suggest that this person was speaking with divine authority. The simple expansion of a cult of personality, or other temporal power, is not enough. It would have to be shown beyond doubt that something supernatural occurred to prove they were speaking with divine authority.

This has not been so. And in fact, the prophets describe god as doing things that it doesn't do, they describe the world as being certain ways that it is not, and so they contradict reality as well.

[Anonymous No.3034657]

>>3034024
Athiests are just mad when you point out that:

>intellectual mediocrity is arguing with baseless assumptions

[Anonymous No.3034658]

>>3034627
>>3034627
god = religion
hinduism/buddhism = religion
hinduists/buddhists believe god is inherent in everything, or:
god = the universe
the universe = god
there is no god, only the universe

do i have to simplify that any further? are you that fucking retarded? looks to me like you just got pissy like a 14 year old girl because i used the phrase "newsflash" and you wanted to be cool, so you changed what you were harassing me for.

[Anonymous No.3034663]

>>3034631
>Are you implying the early believers didn't actually believe in their religions, and made it up as a lie?

Is there any other possible solution? No one could seriously believe in the sort of obviously unscientific crap in the Bible. If you don't believe there was an obvious ulterior motive for the authors writing it and making it up, you're a blind fool.

[Anonymous No.3034665]

>>3034631
>>From a scientific perspective, there's overwhelming EVIDENCE that the whole god story
>Which one?

All of them. The only 'god' that can't be disproved is the non-interfering deist god, about whom nothing can ever be known and in whom nobody actually believes.

[Anonymous No.3034666]

>>3034590
Last weak Einstein was explaining some theorical phisics bullshit to some guys (didn't read cuz didn't care), and there's some complicated math problems here and there. It's (almost) valid to think SOMEOBODY will come with something new.
also pic (it's an image bord you know)

[Anonymous No.3034694]

>>3034590
I've discussed real science on /sci/, and I'm a working scientist. Doubt anything of supreme import will come out of it, but /sci/ is an awesome place to bounce ideas around. There are some really clever people on here sometimes.

[Anonymous No.3034696]

>>3034658

Nope, still the same criticism. You're simply redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

[Anonymous No.3034689]

>>3034666

Physics and math problems =/= Talking about religion

This is a fruitless discussion that will never go anywhere. Ever. It's sole purpose is to stroke people's egos.

[Anonymous No.3034703]

>>3034631
>>3034602

If you guys really can't get why stone-age attempts at "how the world works" are fiction then I'm not interested in debating it.

[Anonymous No.3034707]

>>3034627
>>3034627
and i never said this had to do anything with "aliums" which I will assume is retard for "alien" or "extraterrestrial life"

if anything the reason hindu's regarded cows as holy is because of the mushrooms they ate from cow shit. where do you think "thats good shit" and "holy shit" came from?

do some mushrooms, you won't need to know the scientific reasoning behind why humans are made up of particles found in the universe. you just sound butthurt because we haven't discovered anything about universal/deictic/human relation since the first "religion" was around

[Anonymous No.3034713]

>>3034634
According to one theory there are infinite possible universes, we only occupy one, but because our universe happened to be one in which life arose out of infinite possible universes where it might or might not have, we assume it's a rare occurrence and is unique or special. Chances are, life isn't just not unique to earth, but not unique to our universe. It's sort of like one of the evolution fallacies- people and most animals get along brilliantly in their normal environments, and people assume the environment was tailored to them, when in fact they evolved so that they suit the environment. The universe might seem perfect and designed to us, but in reality it may well just be that if it weren't this way, in all those infinite possible universes where life didn't arise and get to the point we have, we wouldn't be around to wonder in the first place.
Honestly though, physics does a far better job of explaining the universe than any religion ever will.

[Anonymous No.3034717]

>>3034631
>>3034602

If you guys really can't get why stone-age attempts at "how the world works" have no basis in reality then I'm not interested in debating it.

[Anonymous No.3034732]

>>3034102
Stupidest statement around

[Anonymous No.3034735]

>>3034663

No, I think people really did believe in their religions with great intensity.

[Anonymous No.3034743]

>>3034694

The point is that this discussion is not real science.

[Anonymous No.3034746]

>>3034707
>where do you think "thats good shit" and "holy shit" came from?

You are truly, truly stupid if this is what you believe. Also

>do some mushrooms

AH! That explains why you're talking such unadulterated crap.

[Anonymous No.3034751]

>>3034703

/sci/ "intellectuals" in a nutshell

give yourselves a pat on the back

[Anonymous No.3034759]

>>3034663

I don't really see anything unscientific in there. Maybe some minor things, but nothing huge.

[Anonymous No.3034774]

>>3034759

People cannot live inside whales.

[Anonymous No.3034777]

>>3034024
I'm sure you've heard this one: "If god is omnipotent, can he create a rock that he himself would be unable to lift?" The omnipotence paradox disproves any possibility of omnipotence, just as the temporal paradox (although debatable) disproves the possibility of backwards time travel.

[Anonymous No.3034781]

You just had to bump this shit, you motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.3034785]

With this, we've reached 100 posts in here. For shame, /sci/

[Anonymous No.3034798]

>>3034774

But how do you know that the story of Jonah actually happened and wasn't simply written to teach a moral lesson?

It's when we become Biblical literalists that we get in trouble.

[Anonymous No.3034804]

>>3034777

Holy shit, you just blew my fucking mind! How did you think of that?

This will turn the whole world on it's ear if you get the world out

[Anonymous No.3034827]

>>3034798

If you claim to believe in Jehova and you're not a biblical literalist, then I have nothing but contempt for you.

[Anonymous No.3034837]

>>3034759
No unscientific things in the bible? are you shitting me?
A flood on a global scale is not only impossible but would have left massive amounts of evidence that would still exist today.
Noah somehow managed to save one of every species on the planet, including the millions we're still discovering now which were previously unheard of, by fitting them into a wooden boat. Never mind the territorial instincts and care-requirements of some larger animals, or the pitiful genetic diversity that would result from only two individuals repopulating, but how did he get all those animals from across the planet to his boat?
Jesus can turn water into wine.
Moses parted the red sea.
Jesus managed to multiply matter from bread and fish.
I haven't even read much of it, shall I dig one out and point out more or is that enough?
The entire thing is a fantastic work of fiction.

[Anonymous No.3034839]

>>3034798

If they wanted to teach a "moral lesson", why didn't they use a real story instead like a rational person would have done? No, the Bible is obsessed with impossible unscientific horseshit. Nobody should ever have to listen to something which is not explicitly scientifically accurate. Otherwise, it just feeds into the massive anti-intellualism culture we have growing in the world now. Especially when we teach children these made up fictional "moral lessons", ie. LIES.

[Anonymous No.3034846]

You can't prove God exists, but you also can't prove he doesn't exist, but it's more likely he doesn't.

Agnostic Atheist: 1
Theists: 0
People who call themselves 'agnostic': -9001

[Anonymous No.3034851]

[Anonymous No.3034855]

>>3034837
Whoops, forgot my sage

[Anonymous No.3034858]

>>3034839

It's quite possible a lot of Biblical stories were partially based on real events.

[Anonymous No.3034865]

>>3034798

If you're not a literalist, then your source for knowledge about god is not the bible. It is some form of personal revelation, interpreting scripture through the holy spirit or something.

But, no. Parts of the bible say it is all true. Other parts say people live in whales. Other parts say the world took six days to make. Another part says you should be killed for picking up sticks. I would love it, absolutely love it, if someone who was properly equipped, those who have the personal revelation required to properly interpret this tome would edit out the parts that are wrong, clearly mark the parts that are just stories, and then in big letters mark the parts that are literally true. In fact, I'd love it if everyone who thought they knew the bible did this, and then we could compare the versions.

[Anonymous No.3034867]

>>3034837
>ice age
>island mountain
>sociable jesus
>knew when tides were low
>created a good stew to banish hunger

[Anonymous No.3034870]

>>3034846
>but it's more likely he doesn't.

How can you have any significant sign of likelyhood without any actual proof or evidence one way or the other

[Anonymous No.3034871]

[Anonymous No.3034882]

1. God can't be explained by science.
2. Everything can be explained by science.
3. Therefore, god doesn't exist.

Well, that was easy.

[Anonymous No.3034886]

>>3034858

Sure, and unicorns exist.

People. Don't. Live. In. Whales. Period, end of story.

[Anonymous No.3034887]

[Anonymous No.3034888]

>>3034865

And plenty of people claim to have had just such a personal revelation.

[atheist No.3034890]

"agnostic" isnt a position. i you dont actively believe in god, you are an atheist. bottom line.

atheists 1, people who dont know what they are talking about 0

[Anonymous No.3034892]

>>3034870
>Large collection of mutually exclusive gods exists.
>Assume any set is real
>Other sets must be false

>Odds!

[atheist No.3034904]

>>3034888


and plenty of people also claim they were abducted by aliens. both groups of people are mistaken, unless then can provide objective evidence.

[Anonymous No.3034905]

>>3034886
>People. Don't. Live. In. Whales.

Sure they do. 2,999,300 people, in fact.

[Anonymous No.3034914]

>>3034905
Whales are uninhabitable.
Wales is a whale.
Wales in uninhabitable.

[atheist No.3034916]

>>3034905

whales vs. wales

[Anonymous No.3034917]

The fact that there's no way a person can multiply bread and fish proves everything about every religion is a giant fabrication, a lie, a hoax, including the existence of god. This is an indisputable, undebatable fact of life and of science.

[Anonymous No.3034924]

[atheist No.3034928]

>>3034924

and just about everywhere else too unfourtunately

[Anonymous No.3034929]

>>3034886

>Sure, and unicorns exist

[Anonymous No.3034946]

>>3034882
Explain the best path to a government that values democracy and capitalism, science?

[Anonymous No.3034947]

>>3034929
>Implying unicorns are goats

[Anonymous No.3034945]

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
-William K. Clifford

Faith is inherently anti-intellectual and a plague upon society. You might as well believe in a big red dog.

[Anonymous No.3034949]

[Anonymous No.3034958]

>>3034949

Metaphors are just as bad as religion. Unscientific fictional schlock.

[Anonymous No.3034959]

>>3034867
I'm not sure what some of your points are.
If you're claiming the flood was a metaphor for the ice age, then Noah didn't do a very good job of rescuing mammoths, did he?
A mountainous island still wouldn't be able to contain two of every species on earth. The food requirements alone would be staggering, let alone sorting out territorial boundaries. That, and the genetic diversity present today in all species would be impossible to re-create in a few thousand years from two individuals. Genetics takes a massive shit on both creationism and the flood story, no matter how you interpret them.
Sociable Jesus makes no sense and isn't an argument.
Knowing when tides were low wouldn't explain how they crossed the entire sea, given that if they'd been crossing in the shallows when the tide went out, the pursuers wouldn't have been swept away when it came back in, and could have easily gone around and still caught them.
Tides in the red sea only drop the sea level at the shores by a maximum of 0.9 meters which is wading height.
So from four loaves of bread and four fish, he fed a thousand people? Either the story is massively exaggerated and thus irrelevant and not proof that Jesus was anything other than a good cook, or is literally impossible.
This thread is full of stupid.

[Anonymous No.3034960]

>>3034917

Aren't we told that God can do anything?

[Anonymous No.3034971]

It's pretty straightforward, guys.

1. Religion claims the world is 6,000 years old.
2. Science proves that statement is wrong.
3. Therefore, religion is wrong.

[atheist No.3034972]

>>3034946

the answer: rational inquiry and critical thought. the enlightenment, a response to and a rejection of a religio-centric world view is what lead to democracy and the creation of the modern western word.

[Anonymous No.3034979]

>>3034960

Yes. And yet he doesn't.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Anonymous No.3034980]

>>3034960

That's irrelevant, as god doesn't exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3034984]

>>3034958

[Anonymous No.3034992]

>>3034979

Yup, this pretty much proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt

[atheist No.3035003]

>>3034960

man kind has been TOLD a lot of things. where is the evidence god is actually real? not to mention being capable of suspending natural law, as if this was possible.

(and only the modern abrahamic conception of god claim he can do anything. there have been plenty of gods in plenty of cultures who weren't omnipotent. to say nothing of the fact that omnipotence itself is a paradox.

[Anonymous No.3035005]

>>3034979

He can do everything, but that doesn't say he has to.

[Anonymous No.3035008]

[Anonymous No.3035012]

Myths, fables, stories, novels, plays, movies, are all complicit with religion in their aim to spread ignorance and anti-science beliefs amongst the populace.

>captcha: people! testifi

[Anonymous No.3035016]

>>3035008
>mfw what you're trying to mock is the proper scientific attitude
Having a better alternative at hand is not necessary to disprove a hypothesis.

[atheist No.3035020]

>>3035005

how do you know this? where is the evidence even of his mere existance?

and again, omnipotence is a paradox. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRULY BE OMNIPOTENT.

[Anonymous No.3035024]

[Anonymous No.3035025]

Seriously screw this, arguing about this is pointless. Faith is the denial of evidence, people who have it are incapable of accepting evidence as a basis for belief and no amount of arguing will change that.
Also pretty much everything which has been said in this thread on both sides is complete and utter shit.
Goodnight, /sci/

[Anonymous No.3035028]

It just completely boggles my mind that allegedly intelligent, educated people can go their entire lives genuinely believing in a magical sky fairy of some sort. It is fucking goddamn scary that people who believe that they're doing what god wants have the ability to start wars, hold an elected office, or are even allowed to vote. I look forward to the inevitable day when religion finally fades away, and the few believers left are given the help they so desperately need, and the condition is treated just like schizophrenia or any other serious, dangerous dehabilitating mental disorder. I probably won't live to see it, sure, but it's coming. You can bet on it.

[Anonymous No.3035044]

I can't prove to you God exists, because you only accept as proof things that fall within the paradigm you require, even though your paradigm is stupid and wrong.

Me: 1
Told Atheists: -1

[atheist No.3035047]

>>3035024

it depends why you are an atheist. plenty of people are atehists for the wrong reasons. but the vast majority of members of the national academy of science are atheists.

the result of rational thought and skepticism IS atheism. but all atheists arent necessarily rational or skeptical

[Anonymous No.3035048]

[Anonymous No.3035078]

>>3035020
>omnipotence is a paradox

no it isn;t

[Anonymous No.3035079]

[Anonymous No.3035086]

>>3035047

There is no such thing as atheism for the wrong reasons. If you don't believe in a supernatural deity, you are just as atheistic as any other atheist. That is the only qualification.

Unless you want to make a hierarchal cult out of it.

[atheist No.3035087]

>>3035078

unfortunately it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[Anonymous No.3035088]

>>3035028
It genuinely boggles my mind that allegedly intelligent people can spend so much time arguing with people who present no evidence for a belief.

>intellectual mediocrity

[Anonymous No.3035090]

>>3035078

Yes it is

A god can't create a stone it couldn't lift

It's really quite a novel mental experiment.

[Anonymous No.3035098]

>>3035086

There is one wrong reason.

Because someone else tells you to.

If you arrive at a conclusion of your own behest, all well and fine. But if you believe something just because someone else tells you it is so, you're an ass.

No matter which side of coin you land on.

[atheist No.3035102]

>>3035086

and no. while i want everyone to be atheists, i woant them to come to that position based on skepticism and reason because of what it represents for other aspects of their worldview. for instance buddhists are technically atheists, as are raelians, but that still believe in things for which there is no evidence. this is just as bad as theism

[Anonymous No.3035112]

Atheism is simply the act of abstaining from having a superstitous belief system. There is no reason to believe in a God, no evidence of one or multiple ones, existing. Occam's razor teaches us that the most likely answer is the simplest. Also, on the topic of insecurity. Religion is often used as a way for people to cope with their own mortality. If religion is challenged, so is said person's claim to afterlife, reincarnation, or whatever other hoodoo they may believe in. this is frightening to most people, and so they have an emotional, primitive, hostile response.

The simple fact is that atheists are smarter and better educated than the superstitious types. As a result, the religious feel inferior, as they are quite capable of perceiving that gulf of intellect between them and the atheist. It makes them insecure. Because of this insecurity, they perceive atheists as somehow being "smug", when actually, they are just being logical and using their intelligence and not falling back on old storybooks for morality. But rather than simply accept that basic fact of reality, they have an emotional reaction to losing an argument, and find the need to make ad hominem type attacks and character assassination. It's quite pathetic, really. Being the more mature class of humanity, it's a shame we have to witness so much of their own foolishness. But alas, thus is the curse of genius. Sigh, what a world it is...

[Anonymous No.3035117]

>>3035090
>>3035087
It's not novel, it's really fucking old.

And the logical contradiction is irrelevant. Logical contradictions clearly do not apply to omnipotence, because otherwise it wouldn't be omni, would it?

[Anonymous No.3035120]

[atheist No.3035137]

>>3035044

wrong. if god is a meaningful entity to pray to and worship, he would effect the natural world, and those effects would be measurable. so if god exists and takes an interest in human affairs and intercedes, those intercessions can be identified by science. so a theistic god SHOULD be recognizable even in purely materialistic ways, if he exists. (for instance the effectiveness of prayer would be demonstrable)

[Anonymous No.3035141]

>>3035088

They oftentimes do present evidence, but it gets dismissed as nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3035144]

>>3035102
technically buddhists are told not to believe in anything they are told without seeing the evidence for it and figuring out the argument for it for themselves.

[Anonymous No.3035148]

>>3035098
>>3035102

Too bad you don't get to choose who is atheist and who isn't. You are not the gatekeepers of your little private club. Trying to redefine it as "TRUE atheists are rational intellectuals!" is bullshit emotional ego-stroking, nothing less.

An atheist is anyone who does not believe in a supernatural deity, and that's it. It's really not up for debate.

[Anonymous No.3035157]

>>3035117

If it's so old, then how come religion hasn't realized how wrong it is yet?

Clearly they haven't seen the light.

[Anonymous No.3035166]

>>3035137
No, science is too limited to grasp the subject.

>>3035157
Because it's not wrong.

[Anonymous No.3035178]

What a terrible topic, but I'll bite out of boredom.

It's possible a god exists, anything is possible. What is probable on the other hand, no such luck. Possible yes, probable no. I'm open to the possibility but I only deal in probability, of course I'm atheist.

[Anonymous No.3035180]

[Anonymous No.3035183]

>>3035137
>wrong. if god is a meaningful entity to pray to and worship, he would effect the natural world
Neither you nor science decides what is "meaningful" to worship or not.

All you're saying is "My belief in what god 'should be' is one that answers prayers and affects our world in a specific way that I SAY HE SHOULD, and since it doesn't, no god of any kind exists."

[atheist No.3035190]

>>3035117

of course logical contradictions apply. logic is true always and forever. thats the whole point.

" Logical contradictions clearly do not apply to omnipotence, because otherwise it wouldn't be omni, would it?"

but thats exactly the point. it is not possible for something to be omnipotent. it is a hypothetical notion, that cant exist in existent reality. thats why its a paradox. and you saying "logic doesnt apply" does not resolve the paradox, unfortunately

[Anonymous No.3035192]

>>3035180

You don't need to know anything about religion to know it's wrong. It's called using common sense.

[Anonymous No.3035210]

>>3035190

Exactly.

God can't exist because it goes against the rules of science and logic. Nothing can go against the rules of science and logic. Therefore, god doesn't exist. Period.

[Anonymous No.3035213]

>>3035141
really, why would you still debate with them if you already know the answer?

>intellectual mediocrity

[atheist No.3035217]

>>3035148

i never used the phrase "true atheists". i would never say something that obviously wrong. its the no true Scotsman fallacy. the point is being a atheist in name but being just as credulous as a theist hasn't actually solved the dire problem or belief w/o evidence represented by theism

[Anonymous No.3035218]

>>3035166
>No, science is too limited to grasp the subject.

There is nothing science doesn't grasp. Science grasps all that exists and ever will exist. If something cannot be understood by science, then it simply doesn't exist at all. That's the whole point of science.

[atheist No.3035229]

>>3035183

if god can intercede in the world, we would be able to discern his existence. if he cant, why pray to him? theres nothing he can do.

thats the point

[Anonymous No.3035235]

>>3035148

Atheism: Claim to not believe in religion. Claim to be the sole authority on how religions are supposed to be practiced.

[Anonymous No.3035239]

>>3035190
>of course logical contradictions apply. logic is true always and forever.

You're delegating ultimate power over the possibilities of reality to logic. That's a divine power you're delegating. Logic, therefore, is one part of your God.

But it doesn't matter, because just because logic is your God doesn't make logic God. Classically, God is greater than the Logos.

>>3035210
>Nothing can go against the rules of science and logic.
>>3035218
>There is nothing science doesn't grasp. Science grasps all that exists and ever will exist. If something cannot be understood by science, then it simply doesn't exist at all.

The name of your religion is Scientism. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.3035242]

>>3035192
>yet they still feel the need to argue.

[Anonymous No.3035249]

>>3035229
>if god can intercede in the world, we would be able to discern his existence.

The second clause does not follow from the first.

[Anonymous No.3035252]

>185 posts and 35 image replies

why.jpg

[Anonymous No.3035253]

God is perfect and all powerful.
To not exist is to be imperfect and/or powerless.
Therefore God exists.

St. Augustine logic is really weird.

[atheist No.3035257]

>>3035183

so youre a deist then? because you cant be a theist, not to mention a Christian unless you believe god intercedes in human affairs.

[Anonymous No.3035247]

>>3035210
Hrm.

Prove that you have a penis.

[Anonymous No.3035259]

>>3035044

This, laddies and gentlewomen, is why no scientific paradigm has ever been overturned.

Imagine if the Einsteinian's got their way! We'd be limited to travelling at less than the speed of light, for fucks sake. But the existing Newtonian paradigm remained. Because when you're right, you're right. And no amount of evidence can change something that has been proven to BE RIGHT.

[Anonymous No.3035261]

>>3035217
>i never used the phrase "true atheists". i

I don't care if you used the exact term if that's exactly what you meant. You said you don't want people to be atheists for the wrong reasons, like Buddhists, who are just as bad as theists in your mind. You don't think they are as true an atheist as the truly skeptic people.

You are creating your own definition of atheist out of thin air. In your mind, some atheists are more truer than others, when in reality there is no such distinction. It is your own emotionally driven need for community based on closed categorizations of people, because you love dancing around in these intellectually bankrupt atheist circlejerks with people exactly like you.

[Anonymous No.3035270]

>>3035259
Paradigm *of* science. Not paradigms *within* science. Nice try.

[Anonymous No.3035273]

>>3035229

A meaningless god that doesn't affect us does not mean such a god does not exist.

[Anonymous No.3035279]

>>3035047

Men of science are mostly deists and pantheists.

[Anonymous No.3035282]

Most educated thiests don't accept god because its logical or proven to them on any rational level. Theologians and Philosophers who accept him do so because it makes their life better. There is no logic about it--its entirely pragmatic.

Mind you, these aren't the people who force their idea of god on others, kill people for not accepting god, etc... but those people are hardly "educated", "theologians" or "philosophers" ...

[Anonymous No.3035284]

>>3035270

Irrelevant. Either the evidence is enough to convince someone who is hostile to the idea, or it isn't.

[atheist No.3035292]

>>3035239

lol. "atheists have faith just like theists". CLASSIC. but o so wrong. science is about questioning and adapting to new evidence. religion is a giant argument from authority

please watch this video and tell me what you think at the end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg

[Anonymous No.3035299]

>>3035282

Anyone who believes in anything without explicit scientific evidence, pragmatically or not, cannot call themselves a true intellectual.

[Anonymous No.3035303]

>>3035284
>Either the evidence is enough to convince someone who is hostile to the idea, or it isn't.

Or people who have a dogma problem don't get convinced either way. If your proposal were true, no one in the world would disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.3035308]

Atheism is based on facts, science, and logic.
Theism is based on emotion, fairy tales, and sky wizards.

It doesn't take a genius, fellas.

[Anonymous No.3035309]

>>3034024

nothowscienceorlogicworks.jpg

[atheist No.3035310]

>>3035279

nope. there actually mostly atheistic. and pantheism is basically atheism

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences (sometimes considered to be the world's leading scientists) only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[81]

[Anonymous No.3035314]

>>3035282
>educated
>theist

almost got me there!

[Anonymous No.3035320]

Greed is self-interest. It's only harmful when a person behaves irrationally and greedily: a person who is greedy but rational won't do anything that could harm them in the long run, and that includes screwing too many people over, violating safety rules, etc. It's only when greedy people put short-term gains over long-term gains, or harm not just individual competitors but the general public in their pursuit of wealth, that greed becomes harmful.

Faith, however, is inherently harmful. It teaches that this world is not the one that matters. It makes martyrdom the one's highest possible goal, and teaches that vast swathes of the world are all evil people because they worship the wrong imaginary friend or do so in the wrong way. Look at all the stupid sectarian divisions within the world's major religions and all the blood that's been spilled over them: transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, the supremacy of Rome or the Archbishop of Canterbury, twelver Shia vs. Fiver Shia, Sunni vs. Shiite, Sunni and Shiite vs. Druze, etc.

It's downright shameful. Evil, even.

[atheist No.3035321]

>>3035273

i agree
so are you a deist then?

[Anonymous No.3035322]

>>3035292

> Atheist Experience

Brofist!

[Anonymous No.3035323]

>>3035292
Incorrect. Religion does not necessitate argument from authority.

And atheism is not a religion unto itself, but it is an aspect of a religion. But they do have faith.

And I've seen some of that guy's videos before. His stuff is all the same stupid atheist crap that gets spewed over and over again, despite it's always being wrong. I'm not going to waste my time on it.

>>3035310
>and pantheism is basically atheism

No it isn't. And now you're gobbling up other worldviews to lend legitimacy to your own.

[Anonymous No.3035324]

>>3035308
then explain psychology.

[Anonymous No.3035325]

>>3035303

Is there a special reason why 99% of scientists agree that the current paradigm of their field is the most comprehensive, consistent explanation for the observations?

And why 99% of religious people disagree over the nature of the divine, or the afterlife, or whatever?


Scientific claims converge, as though they are honing in on essential truths.

Religious claims diverge, as though they are wholly determined by expediency or preference.

[Anonymous No.3035330]

I always figured it would be a neat iudea, like how christians send around pamphlets to houses, we should go door to door to send atheist-approved science textbooks instead. You know, something actually useful for humanity.

[Anonymous No.3035338]

>>3035321

Utterly irrelevant. We are not discussing the nature of god's alleged existence. We are discussing whether it exists or not in any way, or whether it's possible to prove such a thing. Stick to the discussion.

[atheist No.3035343]

>>3035261

no its not about "true atheists" Buddhists and raelians ARE atheists. i never siad these people arent atheists. all atheist means is to lack belief in a god. and they dont

the point is that the underlying problem hasnt been resolved. and that problem is credulity.

[Anonymous No.3035346]

>>3035323

Religion DOES necessitate argument from authority, I'm afraid.

It is, at its core, a means to settle disputes about what god wants. But everybody doesn't have the direct line to god, and god doesn't seem to tell everyone who claims to have this line the same thing. So most people accept the authority of one prophet or some sect or another. They must accept the word of this person about what the nature of god is like, in absence of a personal revelation of their own.

[Anonymous No.3035350]

>>3035325
Your argument is only particularly meaningful if you assume that reality is purely objective and therefore that explanations of it must converge rather than diverge. This is an expedient assumption in the pursuit of science, but it is also a tenant of scientism. I see no reason to accept it is given.

[Anonymous No.3035355]

Essential reading for all skeptics of atheism

[Anonymous No.3035357]

> Front page of /sci/
> religion thread
> Over 200 posts, Over 20 image replies

Fuck you /sci/
If you just can't stop yourself from posting, how hard is it to sage the thread so it won't get bumped?

and no, I'm not mad

I disappoint

[Anonymous No.3035361]

>>3035330

>atheism
>science

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3035363]

>>3035346
>Religion DOES necessitate argument from authority, I'm afraid.

>It is, at its core, a means to settle disputes about what god wants. But everybody doesn't have the direct line to god, and god doesn't seem to tell everyone who claims to have this line the same thing. So most people accept the authority of one prophet or some sect or another. They must accept the word of this person about what the nature of god is like, in absence of a personal revelation of their own.

You retard. You just wrote contradictory claims. People may choose to accept other people's opinions as authority if they wish. Doesn't make religion an authoritarian thing. Buddhism, Sufism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Shamanism, etc... no central authorities in any of them.

[Anonymous No.3035368]

>>3035343

You said those people are just as bad as theists. because they lack the aspect of skepticism. Therefore you believe they are lesser atheists than the skeptic atheists. The ideal atheist for you is the skeptic atheist, and only the skeptic atheist,

Tell me how that is so radically different from saying "true atheist".

[Anonymous No.3035371]

There are lots of educated Thiests. Including extremely distinguished scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. They have to keep their belief in God hidden now-a-days or they are immediately discredited. And when they come out of the religious "closet", so to speak, they always admit their belief is not founded in logic or evidence, but pragmatism as to keep themselves happier and make their life easier.

Most of them are considered agnostics by most--they simply acknowledge that they can't know whether or not a god exists so they'd rather assume one does. They don't practice a faith and generally don't believe in any particular god/God/diety or religious belief system. Just in the idea of a perfect being who is all good, all powerful and all loving.

And no, they don't have anyway of really absolutely dealing with the Eurphrades (sp) argument or the evil's-of-the-world argument...

But calling them stupid because they prefer to choose to passively believe in the unexplainable supernatural is itself a very irrational thing to do. We should try to accept those who are willing to accept others and understand that we cannot function purely on logic and facts. They are very important--but the human condition of not-being-in-a-hivemind unfortunately leads itself to a state in which its impractical and dangerous to assume that cold-hard-facts determine everything. It also tends to lead to dehumanizing, unethical and immoral decisions.

As for me: I don't think I'm qualified to determine if a god exists or not. I've only studied theology and philosophy for about 8 years. Empirically I'll assume he doesn't exist until its proven otherwise. But I haven't decided whether or not to live entirely empirically or not...

[atheist No.3035373]

>>3035338

its completely relevant. because if you didnt think the Christian god exists, you would be Christian (or whatever theism you are).

you have to argue in favor of the conception of god YOU PERSONALLY believe in. because otherwise, proving gods mere existence still leaves you with all your work still ahead of you to justify your position

and you still haven't argued the existence of god anyway

[Anonymous No.3035375]

>>3035361

They are essentially one and the same. The greatest modern scientists are always atheists or close to.

[atheist No.3035381]

>>3035368

they arent lesser atheists. there isnt some gradation of atheism. you either are or you arent. but they are lesser intellects. theres a difference.

what i care about honestly is whether you are a skeptic or not, not whether you are an atheist.

[Anonymous No.3035383]

>>3035371
>They have to keep their belief in God hidden now-a-days or they are immediately discredited.

I just jumped in glee

Thank goodness the world is finally changing or the better

[Anonymous No.3035387]

[Anonymous No.3035390]

>>3035355
Not to pick it apart, but from a purely logical perspective I see nothing wrong with abstinence. There's emotional reasons why its not healthy to fuck 'because I might as well'...

[atheist No.3035392]

>>3035363

god is the central authority. god said it, so its true. thus an argument from authority

[Anonymous No.3035394]

>>3035381

Atheistic + More intellect = Better Atheist overall
Atheistic + Less intellect = Lower Atheist overall

This is what is going through your head when you compare an atheistic buddhist and an atheistic nonreligious person.

[Anonymous No.3035395]

>>3035363

Hardly. The authority in Buddhism, for example, are the teachings of the Buddha. True, he says some stuff about 'think about it for yourself', but in practice, most accept his words as true to start with, and the words of various of followers or reincarnations as true on top of that.

There are those who claim special knowledge. This is knowledge that I cannot get by following the same techniques they used. So I have to take their word on it if I am to believe it. And once I accept that they are just right, and don't need further explanation, every other part of their philosophy, regardless of coincidental merit it may hold, is accepted on the basis of that authority.

[Anonymous No.3035397]

>>3035375
>The greatest modern scientists are always atheists or close to.

Much like a few centuries back, they were Christians of one stripe or another. IE - they're following the trendy religion du jour.

[Anonymous No.3035400]

>>3035350

That is fair enough. In that case, our viewpoints are so different that my attempting to convince you that science gives us an accurate representation of reality would be fruitless; and your attempt to convince me of your god would also be pointless.

But you do realise that your views veer close to solipsism?

[Anonymous No.3035401]

>>3035375

Heck, Carl Sagan didn't even like to refer to himself as an atheist because he said that it sounded too much like a belief.

[Anonymous No.3035403]

>>3035387
This. Shut up, you guys.

[Anonymous No.3035408]

>>3035371
>have to keep their belief in God hidden now-a-days or they are immediately discredited
>implying atheists aren't the most mistrusted minority in America
>implying non-religious candidates can get elected
>implying this isn't the United States of Jesusland

[Anonymous No.3035419]

>>3035383
Yeah because fuck their proven advances in science, medicine and technology!

...

This is the problem with science. Humans are too inclined towards prejudices. On one extreme, people's life work get rejected because of something like "I believe in God in my spare time because it cured my clinical depression better than pills" (I'm too lazy to look up the citation; mathematics puzzle writer for 40+ years for Scientific America I think). On the other extreme, we have...well I'll ignore it lest-a-rule-be-invoked-that-invalidates-my-argument-for-discussing-sensative-topics.

[Anonymous No.3035425]

>242 replies 28 images
>just another night on /sci/

[atheist No.3035426]

>>3035397

yea thats it. its because scientists like to be trendy. its not that we hadnt developed evolutionary theory, or the big bang theory or explored space, or any of the other discoveries that made atheism rational. or even that they would be persecuted and/or killed for expressing contray beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3035431]

religionfag: HE'S THERE I'M TELLING YOU
atheistfag: THERE'S NO GOD BEUCASE I'M HOMO
agnostics: well you are entitled to your opinions guys. cheers *sip tea*

[Anonymous No.3035433]

>>3035338
I'm agnostic though skeptical to the concept of something outside of reality. If there is something, it's either not all-powerful or not interested in or aware of humanity.

I am an atheist for every every religion I've studied. For example, I *know* the Abrahamic god doesn't exist because an all-loving God who commits genocide and causes natural disasters cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.3035435]

>>3035426

>atheism
>rational

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3035436]

>>3035371
>But calling them stupid because they prefer to choose to passively believe in the unexplainable supernatural is itself a very irrational thing to do.
Why is it irrational to call someone who believes in something without any scientific evidence, stupid? That's the very definition of stupidity. Theistic is synonymous with ignorance.

>We should try to accept those who are willing to accept others and understand that we cannot function purely on logic and facts. They are very important--but the human condition of not-being-in-a-hivemind unfortunately leads itself to a state in which its impractical and dangerous to assume that cold-hard-facts determine everything.
But they do determine everything. Particles do not run on emotions, they run on the cold hard facts of the universe and the laws of physics. Humans are nothing special in comparison. Why not work towards the notion that trusting in facts (what a radical notion!) does not need to be dangerous or impractical?

>It also tends to lead to dehumanizing, unethical and immoral decisions.
So do emotions, moreso than facts and logic because they are so unpredictable and never based on any justified reality. Look at the strife religion has caused throughout history for your record of what good human emotions has done.

[atheist No.3035438]

>>3035394

did you miss the part where i said i dont actually care whether one is an atheist or not, and that i only care if they are skeptical?

[Anonymous No.3035443]

>>3035392
God is no more makes religion an argument from authority than "the laws of physics" makes science an argument from authority.

>>3035395
>Hardly. The authority in Buddhism, for example, are the teachings of the Buddha. True, he says some stuff about 'think about it for yourself', but in practice, most accept his words as true to start with, and the words of various of followers or reincarnations as true on top of that.

Irrelevant. A bunch of lazy idiots who can't be bothered to think for themselves do not make Buddhism authoritarian, since as you said Buddha specifically warns against that. You're conflating Buddha-fans with Buddhists, as science fans are conflated with scientists.

>There are those who claim special knowledge. This is knowledge that I cannot get by following the same techniques they used.

That is precisely wrong according to the traditions involved. That's why they have those techniques, so you can learn them and see for yourself.

Not that people like you ever do so.

>>3035400
I don't consider my views solipsistic. Though I do agree that it's generally pointless to try to convince each other of anything. I have tried off and on for fifteen years to talk about the least little philosophical points I felt were wrong in mainstream religion and atheism, and never does an atheist seem to understand the smallest problem. I knew the Christians weren't worth talking to, but I was surprised by the atheists.

[Anonymous No.3035451]

>>3035431

More like;

Religiousfags: Hey guys, I have a horse in the garage.

Atheistfags: Lets go see it!

Religiousfags: You get to see it after you give me a hundred dollars.

Atheistfags: Just let me see it for a second, then I'll give you a hundred dollars to see it all day.

Religionfags: NO. You have to pay first.

[Anonymous No.3035454]

>>3035431

Atheist: I believe God doesn't exist
Theist: I believe God does exist
Agnostic: YAY WE WORSHIP UNCERTAINTY! XD

[Anonymous No.3035457]

>>3035451
never been to circus freakshow. step right up

[atheist No.3035458]

>>3035443

the laws of physics arent an entity. the claim to truth doesn't come from Who "they" are. the laws of physics are true because repeated testing of them under every possible situation have proved them to be true. they are true because there is evidence to support their objective truth.

[Anonymous No.3035470]

Fact: Agnostics are atheists who simply want to appear open-minded.

[atheist No.3035474]

>>3035470

or who haven't look up the relevant definitions

[Anonymous No.3035478]

>>3034024
No proof god exists; all of the proof I need to be able to say, with confidence, he does not exist
/thread