[ 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: 63 KB, 750x600, 1308620824086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343891 No.3343891 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.3343899
File: 28 KB, 300x300, T100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343899

you
again...

>> No.3343901

*getting ready to agree*
*think over privleges of 4chan*
*quiet down*

>> No.3343903

its hilarious because atheists take things straight out of this book and repeat it as if it were the gospel truth.

one example: the gnostic-atheist agnostic-theist spectrum, popularized by this book and unquestioned and repeated by atheists ad-nauseam

>> No.3343910

>>3343903
That is an insult to Agnostic Nation.

>> No.3343914

>>3343910
Insulting flip-floppers is wrong?

>> No.3343924

>>3343903
Its hilarious because you posted this yesterday and are still repeating it despite refutation

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

no doubt you will continue to repeat this claim like gospel truth

>> No.3343926

>>3343914
how do agnostics flip-flop? id they their belief is pretty clear, clearer than both theists or atheists who have a lot of explaining to do and inconsistencies to account for. and i say this as a theist.

>> No.3343933
File: 8 KB, 417x429, agnostic=atheist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343933

>> No.3343934

>Because thinking for yourself means never reading a book.

>> No.3343938
File: 10 KB, 400x329, gate-of-hell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343938

>>3343903
you going heaven and i'm goin hell

I don't care, why would you?

Fuck, I don't give a fuck if god exist or not. I can't prove you are wrong just as much that you can't prove me wrong.

>> No.3343959
File: 3 KB, 209x215, 1283596521538.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343959

>>3343933
>be an agnostic
>skeptical but still willing to entertain the possibility of God
>get called an atheist because I'm not a strict theist
This is why I don't like discussing my beliefs.

>> No.3343961

>>3343933
agnostic = don't know if god exist
atheist = is sure that god doesn't exist

>> No.3343962

>>3343924
and ill say this again: your link backs my claim. can you specifically point out where or what it contradicts my post? here >>3343924

>> No.3343968

Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

Agnostics differ from atheists on only one position 'what should we call ourselves?'

And the only book a reasonable man should have to read in order to be an atheist is the bible.

>> No.3343972
File: 116 KB, 1330x545, nb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3343972

>> No.3343978

>>3343961

Bring me an agnostic who is unsure about every god any man believed in, and an atheist who is sure about every god conceivable; and we'll talk.

>> No.3343982

>>3343968
Didn't you get those line from that very same book? Holy shit I lol'd.

>> No.3343983

>>3343972

>implying agnostics aren't atheists

>> No.3343986

>>3343959
sound more like an apatheist. clearly the threat of eternal damn-nation in hellfire for picking the wrong religion isn't enough for you to change your view of "i'll entertain the idea but i'm not gonna do anything about it or do any religious practises"

>>3343961
by your definitions dawkins himself is an agnostic. he doesnt proclaim absolute knowedge of gods absense, and neitehr do i. but we are both strongly skeptical.

>> No.3343988

>>3343961
No you fucking hipster fucktard.
>atheism: I don't have faith in a God
>theism: I have faith in a God

You have faith in a God? You're theist. You don't? You're atheist. "But I consider that the existence of a God is possible! Thus I'm different!" You're just wanking off a technicality in order to feel different. Fuck off.

>> No.3343992

>>3343983
>implying you didnt get that idea from the dawkins book in the OP and arent repeating it like gospel truth

>> No.3343994

>>3343982

Even if atheists do follow the same book, and even if they were a religion; it would still be a better religion than any other invented by men.

>> No.3343999

>>3343994
Except when it killed 100 million people between 1917 and 1991.

>> No.3344004

>>3343999
>Except when it killed 100 million people between 1917 and 1991.

Troll or retard?

>> No.3344005
File: 18 KB, 334x500, COMMUNIST-MANIFESTO-COVER.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3344005

TGD wasn't the first atheist holy text ever written.

(pic related)

>> No.3344014

Atheist to any god or gods in particular; agnostic to any god or gods at all.

Why?

Legacy gods have all been thoroughly discredited. They are described as doing certain things, and they do not, they are described as having done certain things, and they did not, and they describe the world as being a certain way, and it is not. The end.

Esoteric gods cannot be adequately described, never mind demonstrated. They may exist, or they may not. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. And if they claim to know that they exist, or what they are like, or what they want, they must show their work.

And trickster gods could not be proven or disproven anyway. Since they deliberately and capriciously hide themselves when certain people look for them. So even if you can know about them, you can never convince anyone else with reason.

>> No.3344018

>>3343994
A strong case can be made for Buddhism.

>> No.3344023

>>3343999

Are you talking about what communism did? Communism is exactly as atheistic as Confucianism or Buddhism, and they are considered religions.

No, we don't follow the religion of communism. They are a splinter group, no more similar to Unitarians than Muslims. We follow atheism, as taught by the four horsemen. It is a different religion entirely.

>> No.3344024

>mfw I have never read Dawkins' books
>mfw most people in my country are nonbelievers and don't know who Dawkins is

>> No.3344030

>>3344014
>Legacy gods have all been thoroughly discredited. They are described as doing certain things, and they do not, they are described as having done certain things, and they did not, and they describe the world as being a certain way, and it is not.

Ie. Zeus, Baal, Odin, Quetzacoatl, etc

>Esoteric gods cannot be adequately described, never mind demonstrated. They may exist, or they may not. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. And if they claim to know that they exist, or what they are like, or what they want, they must show their work.

Deistic gods.

>And trickster gods could not be proven or disproven anyway. Since they deliberately and capriciously hide themselves when certain people look for them. So even if you can know about them, you can never convince anyone else with reason.

The Christian god.

>> No.3344033

>>3344030

Not the Christian god as described by any of its sources. It belongs in the legacy category.

>> No.3344036 [DELETED] 

>>3344023
You made your first error when you said communism is a religion and it all spiralled downwards from there

>> No.3344040

>>3344033
Well, do you see the Christian god doing the kinds of things Zeus did? No, and thus it belongs in #3.

>> No.3344046

>>3344036

I thought we were arguing on the assumption that atheism is a religion?

If so, communism is a separate religion. So atheists today can be no more expected to answer for communist crimes than the Amish should be held to account for 9/11.

>> No.3344050

>>3344005
0/100

>> No.3344054
File: 826 KB, 903x1125, loki2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3344054

>>3344030
>The Christian god
>trickster
Oh my

>> No.3344067

>>3344054
Well, since God doesn't appear to do things that would make himself directly observable...

>> No.3344064 [DELETED] 

>>3344046
first, I'm not that guy you were arguing with.

second, atheism isn't a religion.

>> No.3344071

>>3344040

Nobody has seen it doing anything. It is described as doing certain things, such as answering prayers, and it does not. It is described as having done certain things, such as flooding the whole world, and it did not. And it describes the world as being a certain way, a flat Earth covered by the firmament, and it is not. This is the kind of god most people mean when they say the Christian god, and this god is a legacy god, and it does not exist.

A few people claim that the Christian god is a trickster god. You, explicitly, but many serious apologists do so as well, though not in as many words. This claim can be immediately dismissed, since any trickster god could be any trickster god. The exact same arguments can be used in favor of Loki or the Coyote, as this trickster Jehovah.

>> No.3344074

>>3344067
He also causes mischief

>> No.3344079

>>3344064

I realise that. I'm trying to show that even if you grant modern, new atheism as a religion, for the sake of argument, there is no way to lay the crimes of communism at its feet.

>> No.3344086

>Looking for an intelligent debate.

>remembers that this is 4chan.

>OH RIGHT. leaves

>> No.3344089

>>3344014
I would more correctly define legacy gods as:

Gods that are said to interact with the world in obvious ways, are physical beings, and which are tied to a particular nation or tribe. Also gods who's religion consists of sacrificing a goat and have no theology or moral code, and (often) no belief in an afterlife.

Esoteric gods:

Deistic gods

Trickster gods:

Do not interact with the universe in obvious or testable ways.

>> No.3344098

>>3344067
>Well, since God doesn't appear to do things that would make himself directly observable...

So appearing as a giant pillar of fire, resurrecting people from the dead, and flooding the entire planet are not directly observable?

The Christian god is a "legacy god" according to those categories.

>> No.3344108

>>3344079
sure there is, have you ever read the communist manifesto, writing by lenin mao or stalin? they all spoke about atheism, how great it was, how evil religion was, and how necessary and central atheism was to their plans

stop crying, the facts are clear: atheism has killed over 100 million people in just a few decades, more than all of religious history combined

>> No.3344110

>>3344071
>Nobody has seen it doing anything.

What do you think a trickster god is? It does things that look like part of the natural world to test one's faith. Not disprovable.

>It is described as doing certain things, such as answering prayers, and it does not. It is described as having done certain things, such as flooding the whole world, and it did not. And it describes the world as being a certain way, a flat Earth covered by the firmament, and it is not. This is the kind of god most people mean when they say the Christian god, and this god is a legacy god, and it does not exist.

That kind of god only exists if you live in Alabama.

>This claim can be immediately dismissed

As I said, not disprovable.

>> No.3344116

>>3344098
Assuming those events actually happened, they were one-off things thousands of years ago that would not be testable anyway.

>> No.3344122

>>3344098
>So appearing as a giant pillar of fire, resurrecting people from the dead, and flooding the entire planet are not directly observable?

Right, because those events can be verified; and, not only verified, but, attributed to a god.

>> No.3344132

>>3344089

The Christian god is indisputably a legacy god. It would not be the Christian god unless it was the same that sent its son to die on Earth. This didn't happen, but it's the claim.

And any trickster god is as good as any other. Seeing evidence for a trickster god is just evidence that one is out there. Nothing you see about its traits or wishes can be trusted, by definition, since it obviously gives incomplete and incompatible information to different people.

>> No.3344139

>>3344132
>And any trickster god is as good as any other. Seeing evidence for a trickster god is just evidence that one is out there.

Since most of the gods in history were not like that, we can assume Zeus et al aren't the ones doing the tricking.

>> No.3344141

>>3344108

Is Christianity responsible for the crimes of Islam?

>> No.3344149

>>3344116
>>3344122

Flooding the world is quite testable: it never happened. As for the other stuff, it's no less verifiable than Zeus turning into a swan or whatever.

Zeus and the Yahweh fall into the same category, no matter how you look at it.

>> No.3344151

>>3344149
I never said the world got flooded.

>> No.3344152
File: 22 KB, 335x365, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3344152

I'll always be reminded of the Southpark episode Go God Go when Richard Dawkins comes up.

>> No.3344153

>>3344149
actually great floods did happen. youre just being a nit picker by claiming it has to be "flooding of the whole world" when you know very well they were simply documenting what they experienced

>> No.3344160

I suppose that the early Israelites worshiped something similar to a legacy god, but by the post-Exilic period they believed in something similar to the modern Judeo-Christian god.

>> No.3344161

>>3344110

I certainly implied that a trickster god is not disprovable. And indeed it is not. It is just as irrelevant as an esoteric god, however. No reasonable has any good reason to believe in one, or any cause to follow the orders of one.

>>3344139

That's just it. Zeus is compatible with being a trickster god. If one is willing to stretch the definition of the Christian god to fit being a trickster, then any god can fit.

>> No.3344166

>>3344161
Then what is a legacy god defined as? You seem to be changing the argument.

>> No.3344172

>>3344161
>or any cause to follow the orders of one

Unless it holds the fate of your existence in its hands, but...

>> No.3344173

>>3344153

We know very well that the bible was written by men who did not know anywhere near as much as us about the world. We aren't the ones who claim an alternate scribe for certain parts of that book. Or claim the exclusive wisdom to know which is which.

>> No.3344184

People say buddhism was never involved in wars. That is not entirely true. Read up on the corruption of Zen schools from the time of 1866 to the japanese militarism in world war II. Even anti-curruption can be corrupted.

Other than that, I think buddhism is the best choice when it comes to religious behaviour.

>> No.3344193

>>3344166

It describes the gods of history. Any of those gods that were once described as being physically involved in the world, and which we now know were not. We can be as sure of their non-existence as we are sure of anything.

If one goes further to say that they did interact with the world, and they now do, but they have deliberately hidden the evidence for this; we are dealing with a trickster god. And that is the end of the discussion, for reasons I have stated.

That nothing they say can be trusted, since they offer incomplete and inconsistent information to different people, and there is no way to know if they are giving you accurate information now.

>> No.3344196

>>3344173
oh youre so great because you "know" so much based on the discoveries of others (most of which, by the way, was founded by religious folks and funded by churches and religious organizations)

a few decades ago atheists like you were ridiculing the big bang theory (also founded by a priest and funded by the church) claiming you "know" so much, religious people knew more than you. i suspect in the near future more of what you "know" is true, that you think religious folks are wrong about, will be proven in their favor (as usual)

>> No.3344200

>>3344173
>We know very well that the bible was written by men who did not know anywhere near as much as us about the world

Correct.

>We aren't the ones who claim an alternate scribe for certain parts of that book.

Wut?

>Or claim the exclusive wisdom to know which is which.

Nor do I.

>> No.3344202
File: 65 KB, 794x598, 1309284187055.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3344202

>come back to 4chan after a week
>visit /sci/
>there's still troll threads

>> No.3344205

>>3344172

Might makes right is not a good precedent to set.

Being more powerful does not grant it the right to order other beings of free will around. It only grants it the ability to.

>> No.3344215

>>3344193
>And that is the end of the discussion, because I lost the argument.

Fixed.

>That nothing they say can be trusted, since they offer incomplete and inconsistent information to different people, and there is no way to know if they are giving you accurate information now.

If you can understand an incomprehensible being better than me, I should like to see it.

>> No.3344221

>>3344196
I do not dispute the role Christian thinkers played and still play in the development of science.

>>3344200
Some people say that parts of the bible are the divinely inspired word of god. I apologise if this is not your position, I just assumed you were some flavor of Christian.

Some of these people then claim to know which parts are meant to be taken seriously, and which are just the opinions of men.

>> No.3344226

>>3344205
Then you would not punish your child if he smeared feces on the wall because that would be ordering another being of free will around, amirite?

>> No.3344234

>>3344221
>Some of these people then claim to know which parts are meant to be taken seriously, and which are just the opinions of men

1 Thessalonians 5:21

>> No.3344238

>>3344215

Nobody can understand an incomprehensible being. That's the point. The people who say they do are wrong. The things they say about what this being is like, and what this being wants, are untrustworthy and unsubstantiated.

If such a trickster god exists, accounts of it's nature are unreliable. By definition. So when one claims that the Christian god is such a being, they have to admit that they know nothing about it bar that it exists.

I said at the start I am atheistic towards gods in particular, and agnostic towards gods in general. One can only be agnostic towards gods of the trickster and esoteric varieties, since we cannot know anything about them. The trickster is a special case since individuals CAN know it exists, but even then cannot comment on it's nature, or provide compelling arguments to others.

>> No.3344245

>>3344226

I would not punish it years after the fact having never met the child.

>>3344234

This allows one to discard almost all of the bible. Is this one of the parts that was divinely inspired, or is it one that men invented?

>> No.3344252

>>3344108

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

-- Lenin

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

-- Marx

"Religion is poison"

-- Mao

>> No.3344259

>>3344245
Explained in more detail here.

http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

>> No.3344267

>>3344245
>This allows one to discard almost all of the bible. Is this one of the parts that was divinely inspired, or is it one that men invented?

Belief in relativism is one of the philosophical pitfalls of atheism. Because if everything is relative and manmade, and there's no absolutes, then you could claim that 2+2=6.

It also makes the use of logic impossible because if logic is a manmade invention, then everyone can have different rules of logic, all of which are as valid as any other.

>> No.3344275

>>3344259
0/10. The commentary on that made me rage a little.

>> No.3344290

>>3344275
In what way?

>> No.3344298

>>3344234
>Some of these people then claim to know which parts are meant to be taken seriously, and which are just the opinions of men
>1 Thessalonians 5:21
>but test them all; hold on to what is good
by what criteria do you judge what is good? oh i know god is good, the bible is the word of god therefore we use the bible to determine what is good ....back to square one


so thats why 16 centurys of slavery whichhunts misogamy homophobia superstition lasted so long ...and still continues

>> No.3344305

>>3344290
This. The commentator took this straight from an atheist website and twisted it to support his religion.

"Error, superstition, bigotry, and fanaticism attempt to repress free discussion, by saying that there are certain things which are too sacred in their nature, or which have been too long held, or which are sanctioned by too many great and holy names, to permit their being subjected to the scrutiny of common eyes, or to be handled by common hands. In opposition to all this, Christianity requires us to examine everything - no matter by whom held; by what councils ordained; by what venerableness of antiquity sustained; or by what sacredness it may be invested. We are to receive no opinion until we are convinced that it is true; we are to be subjected to no pains or penalties for not believing what we do not perceive to be true; we are to be prohibited from examining no opinion which our fellow-men regard as true, and which they seek to make others believe. No popular current in favor of any doctrine; no influence which name and rank and learning can give it, is to commend it to us as certainly worthy of our belief."

>> No.3344310

>>3344298
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality

>> No.3344314

>>3344267
So, in essence, being an Atheist means abandoning logic and math because "everything would be relative," but, believing in a deity somehow affirms logic and math.

>> No.3344318

>>3344298
>by what criteria do you judge what is good?

Well, how would you judge it?

>> No.3344320

>>3344310
>http://carm.org/
bwahahahahahahaha pitiful

>> No.3344322

>>3344320
Ok, let's see you refute that link I gave you.

>> No.3344325

http://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-rationality

>> No.3344326

>>3344314
Logic can't exist in an atheist world where everything is relative.

>> No.3344330

http://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

>> No.3344333

>implying most nonbelievers have read that book

>> No.3344338

>>3344322
>>3344318
>>3344322
all moral concerns reduce to factual claims about the well-being of conscious creatures

>> No.3344341

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/why-would-god-order-destruction-men-women-and-child
ren

This one also answers the question of why God would kill apparently innocent people in the Bible.

>> No.3344349

>>3344298

You have this backwards. You know what is good, you read the bible, you find the parts that are good, and you then attribute those parts to god.

You must account for how you tell the truly inspired from the merely delusional, when it comes to claims about god. Attributing only those claims about god that you find match your own prejudices is not a sufficient answer.

I do not have a full account for how I know good from bad, or right from wrong, but neither does the religious person.

>> No.3344348 [DELETED] 

>>3344341
"page not found"

>> No.3344352

>>3344338
But why does the well-being of creatures matter if they're molecules with no soul? By this logic, a human being is no different from an amoeba.

>> No.3344353 [DELETED] 

>>3344341
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/why-would-god-order-destruction-men-women-and-child
ren
FIX'D

>> No.3344361

>>3344267
>Belief in relativism is one of the philosophical pitfalls of atheism

lolwat

Atheism means you don't think there exists any being that could justifiably be called "god." That's it. Some kind of absolute metaphysical relativism is just a ridiculous straw man, and has nothing to do with anything.

>> No.3344368

>>3344267

Your beliefs are relative to god. What's to stop god from saying 2+2=6? Socrates dealt with this centuries ago. If it's true, it's true whether god says so or not. And if it's only true if god says so, then it is arbitrary.

>>3344341

The problem of evil is a silly problem. I do not need to see detailed explanation and excuses for why god did evil things, or why god allows evil to continue. There is simply nothing in the source material on this being to suggest that it ever had a problem visiting evil on people, or injustice. I wish everybody would stop discussing the problem of evil because it is a silly problem.

>> No.3344369

>>3344349
If you can't figure out right from wrong by yourself, then you're totally devoid of logic and rationality.

>> No.3344370

>>3344352
>But why does the well-being of creatures matter if they're molecules with no soul?

What does one have to do with the other?

>By this logic, a human being is no different from an amoeba.

Not even slightly. A human is a conscious being. An amoeba isn't.

>> No.3344375

>>3344370
Not if consciousness is just the result of chemical processes.

>> No.3344377

>>3344369

I can and do figure out right and wrong for myself. I cannot clearly explain how I come to every conclusion, but then again I don't claim that my every conclusion on the matter has divine approval.

>> No.3344380

>>3344368
Assuming God does things arbitrarily.

>> No.3344381

>>3344352
why does your soul matter?

oh thats right it matters because you have a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures,...its just that you believe that the greatest and lowest of well-being occur after your death

>> No.3344386

>>3344368
>If it's true, it's true whether god says so or not. And if it's only true if god says so, then it is arbitrary.

THIS. And the same can be applied to morality. If you think that it can't exist without god - and that's a bad thing - then you've already contradicted yourself by implying the existence of morality is objectively a Good Thing.

>> No.3344389

>>3344380

It is not an assumption.

If god invented logic and morality, it is his subjective view of what those things should be.

If logic and morality exist independently, then they would be so whether god says so or not.

I have never heard a satisfactory third option here, but I'm all ears.

>> No.3344390

>>3344377
The passage in Thessalonians is telling you to use common sense and not believe blindly in what men tell you. The Reformation happened because people started questioning what the church told them and decided that it went against what the Bible taught.

>> No.3344392

>>3344375
>Not if consciousness is just the result of chemical processes.

What? I can't even tell which statement you are referring to.

>> No.3344395

>>3344389
John 1:1 seems to suggest that the rules were always there.

>> No.3344401

(looks at post numbers)

Is it just me, or is the board really slow right now? It looks like we have about three posts a minute.

>> No.3344404

>>3344390

That is good advice. Being good advice does not mean god said it. And applying that advice to readings of the bible causes one to discard the obsolete parts of that book when using it as a guide to the good life, and regard the whole thing as any other historical document.

>> No.3344413

How dear you. Christianity shaped the entire western world.

Would you rather be shitty worthless atheist scum like some backward Africans or gooks?

>> No.3344415

>>3344404
>That is good advice. Being good advice does not mean god said it.

But he could have inspired men to say it.

>And applying that advice to readings of the bible causes one to discard the obsolete parts of that book

Which is what everyone does. In fact Jesus criticized the Jewish priesthood for turning the law itself into a god. In short, they were using dogmatic interpretations of it rather than common sense.

>> No.3344418

>>3344395

Okay. So then god is merely a more powerful agency than us. And we can come to our own conclusions regarding morality and logic. If the bible is any indicator of gods knowledge on the world, we have already surpassed him.

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

What does this mean? Some say the 'word' refers to Jesus, and use it to back up various Trinitarian dogma. You say that it means morality and logic are absolutes, and god exists in context of them.

>> No.3344422

>>3344390
>The Reformation happened because people started questioning what the church told them and decided that it went against what the Bible taught.

And of course their beliefs weren't perfect either (what with them being flawed men), but it was certainly better than what went on before.

>> No.3344425

Lots of derping in here

Theism: The act of belief
Gnosticism: The ability to know

Atheism: The lack of belief
Agnosticism: No ability to know

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive

>> No.3344427

>>3344415

>we should all follow common sense and our consciences

Welcome to atheism.


Seriously, though. God could have inspired men to say these things. But there is nothing there that men did not invent before. Buddha said something just like that.

>> No.3344435

>>3344418
>If the bible is any indicator of gods knowledge on the world, we have already surpassed him

The rules are absolute, but they're being written down and practiced by flawed men.

>You say that it means morality and logic are absolutes, and god exists in context of them.

Some will tell you that God is both of those things and they're one and the same with him.

But that's getting rather esoteric and I know that atheists don't understand anything more than simplistic, Zeus-like cartoon gods.

>> No.3344436

Atheistfag here. the one with the legacy-esoteric-trickster stuff. I have to fuck off in a few minutes, but I want the godfags to know that this was a very enriching, only slightly infuriating discussion for me. As I'm sure it was for you.

I'm just saying this now because I can talk for a few more posts, maybe, but I might need to dash. So if I don't respond to a point it's not rudeness, or a concession, it's just reality land stealing more of my time.

>> No.3344438

>>3344390
> The Reformation happened because people started questioning what the church told them and decided that it went against what the Bible taught
>decided that it went against what the Bible taught
how did they do that...im pretty sure Martin Luther read the sermon on the mount and still thought that...


If a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner. . . Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog. - Martin Luther
Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason. -Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)
Christ wants to slay reason and subdue the arrogance of the Jews...-Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.22, p.320)
Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason. -Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.23, p. 99)
A woman has no control over herself. -Martin Luther (Letter to Several Nuns, 6 Aug. 1524)
We are at fault in not slaying them [the Jews]. -Martin Luther (On the Jews and their lies, 1543)

>> No.3344451

>>3344438
I don't dispute that ML was an anti-Semitic dick. His obsession with Satan probably also contributed to the outbreak of witch burnings in Europe at that time.

But then the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation was pretty bad also.

>> No.3344452

>>3344425
you realize that your entire post is in that dawkins book in OPs pic and you are proving OP correct to a ridiculously hysterical and ironic degree, right?

im starting to think teens who go atheist might be the absolute dumbest of the dumb

>> No.3344456

>>3344435

The bible is not, then, a decent indication of gods nature?

And the argument that god and the nature of reality are one and the same leads one to one of two paths;

God cannot change his own nature. He is an agency without agency. How can he even act?

God can change his own nature. In which case the laws are arbitrary again, since they can be altered on a whim.


And no matter which may be the case, we are still left with the problem of discerning gods true commandments from the mistaken interpretations or outright deceit of men. If this is impossible, we are left back at square one. Trickster god. If it is possible, why is there any disagreement over the nature or existence of god?

>> No.3344460

>>3344435
>Some will tell you that God is both of those things and they're one and the same with him.

Which makes the word "god" meaningless, or at least redundant. That is, unless you want to claim that THAT "god" is one and the same with the "simplistic, Zeus-like cartoon god" of the Bible. In which case you're really back to square one.

>> No.3344464

>>3344418
>What does this mean? Some say the 'word' refers to Jesus, and use it to back up various Trinitarian dogma. You say that it means morality and logic are absolutes, and god exists in context of them.

The Bible is like the US Constitution. It can be interpreted in numerous ways by different people. Like some will claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional, others say it's not cruel and unusual punishment.

>> No.3344465

>>3344422
>but it was certainly better than what went on before.
who says?

>>3344435
>Some will tell you that God is both of those things and they're one and the same with him. But that's getting rather esoteric and I know that atheists don't understand anything more than simplistic.
theodacy is obscurantism, not the sublime subtleties of gods nature being articulated

>> No.3344474

>>3344456
Actually it is. The basic message is that it's bad to be a dick and God gets annoyed at those people.

>> No.3344475

>>3344464

There is no problem with that. Nobody is claiming that the constitution was written by god, though.

>> No.3344476

>>3344460
You have to understand that the OT was written by men who didn't yet have a concept of an esoteric god. They only understood Zeus-like deities because that's what everyone believed in at that time.

>> No.3344482

>>3344474

This basic message is indistinguishable from normal, everyday good advice. There is nothing about it that only a god could know, or that only a god could command. Men from all of history have come up with this.

>> No.3344485

>116 posts and 8 image replies

why.jpg

>> No.3344486
File: 66 KB, 346x473, tumblr_lnmt0xxllm1qm65mbo1_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3344486

Ignostic (not agnostic) in the house. Anybody else?

>> No.3344487

>>3344464
But the Supreme Court gets the final word unless we find a cure for being dead for over 200 years.

Where's this god guy? Jesus should be here by now, right?

>> No.3344491

>>3344487
Yes, although the Founders did write a lot of papers explaining the Constitution in detail, some of which are at odds with modern-day interpretations of it.

>> No.3344495

>>3344487
I don't think biological immortality will help bring Ben Franklin back from the dead.

>> No.3344502

>>3344482
The Jews were the first to really have a written moral code, though. Most ancient peoples had no real morals, at least none that they thought the gods cared about.

>> No.3344508

>>3344502
Actually,. the first people to have a written code were lidarils.

>> No.3344521

>>3344508
There was Hammurabi's Code, but it dealt more with property offenses that morality. As I said, ancient people generally thought you could do whatever you wanted if you didn't do certain things that angered the gods.

Like for example, the Greeks didn't give a crap about homosexuality, although they believed that human sacrifice was appalling and angered the gods.

The Romans believed this too, and Druidism was one of the few religions outside of Christianity that they outlawed (because it had human sacrifices)

>> No.3344531

>>3344502
Not enough close, you stupid kike.

Even the Mesopotamians had an honor and moral code. It's older than recorded history, go away.

>> No.3344540

>>3344531
>Not enough close, you stupid kike.

You and Martin Luther would have gotten along very nicely.

>> No.3344541

>>3344502
No they weren't.

>> No.3344547

>>3344521
>As I said, ancient people generally thought you could do whatever you wanted if you didn't do certain things that angered the gods.

Except that isn't true at all. That the Greeks were mostly ok with homosexuality is not an argument for that, since "no homosexuality" is an arbitrary rule. To imply that everyone except the Jews were just killing each other willy nilly is pretty silly. Those Greeks, for example, had very detailed ideas about what it meant to be a good person that had nothing to do with not pissing off Zeus, as you can see in Plato.

>> No.3344548

>>3344531
>>3344541

Samefag.

>> No.3344549

>>3344495
Out of all the founders, why would we bring back Franklin first? All he would do is go bang more French chicks anyway.

>> No.3344554

>>3344491
>some of which are at odds with modern-day interpretations of it.

Wait, where can I find these?

>> No.3344558

>>3344549
>Out of all the founders, why would we bring back Franklin first?

Because he's a total bro. What kind of a question is that?

>> No.3344559

>>3344547
Yeah, but the Greek philosophers didn't represent the common man either. Most of them rejected Zeus and friends because they felt spiritually and intellectually unsatisfied by them.

>> No.3344567

>>3344549
>All he would do is go bang more French chicks anyway.

Franklin's France, on the Travel Channel.

>> No.3344569

>>3344554
I forget exactly, but I know James Madison wrote a ton of commentary about the Constitution and what it was supposed to say.

>> No.3344575

>>3344485
Nobody reported this thread. The mods aren't going to know it's here if you don't do that.

>> No.3344581

I don't understand this shit about writing down morality.

You realize those morals were passed down in the form of stories, right? I mean, there's ALWAYS some moral in some story in some way and they understood them better than most people today do.

>> No.3344584

>>3344581
It was supposed to be so that morals would be set in stone as opposed to word of mouth.

>> No.3344588

>>3344559

They might not have been representative of the common man, but a great deal of what they were discussing and dissecting was the conventional wisdom of the time about ethics and morality, implying long traditions and widespread acknowledgement.

>> No.3344601

>>3344588
Also the Greek mythology we all hear about didn't quite represent actual religious practices anyway. Many Greeks were into mystery cults and other underground stuff.

Besides, most of what we know about Greek religion comes from Athenian sources, and doesn't quite reflect religious practices in other areas.

>> No.3344604

>>3344569
>>3344554

You're probably thinking of the Federalist Papers. Although it should be pointed out that the Federalists were just one faction. In truth, not even "the founders" agreed on a single interpretation of the Constitution.

>> No.3344616

>>3344584
But those stories were LITERALLY written in stone. What the fuck do you want from them?

Aesop lived before christfaggotry became all the rage in the western world anyway.

>> No.3344622

The Roman religion was a lot more backwards than the Greek one and had a lot of primitive, shamanistic practices like using the entrails of animals for fortune telling.

Aside from the Mesopotamians, using animal guts for fortune telling was not a very common practice in historical times. The Egyptians had abandoned human sacrifice before the earliest dynasties, although it went on in China until about the 7th century BC.

>> No.3344637

>>3344622
Oh, and incidentally the Church adopted a priesthood and rituals like the wine and bread thing because that was what people understood at that time. It wasn't quite exactly what Jesus taught.

>> No.3344642

>3. No "religion vs. science" threads.
http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci

Huh, well would ya look at that.