/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3547447]

[Anonymous No.3547461]

Dawkins thought for himself. He didn't follow a book.

you: 0
us: 1

[Anonymous No.3547460]

Agnosticism ftw

[Anonymous No.3547469]

TGD wasn't the first atheist holy text. There have been earlier ones.

[Anonymous No.3547474]

>>3547469
0/10

[Anonymous No.3547478]

>>3547469
10/10

[Anonymous No.3547480]

>>3547469
>implying Marxism has anything to do with atheism

[Anonymous No.3547483]

>>3547461
God thought for himself. He didn't follow a book.

you: 0
us: 1

[Anonymous No.3547485]

>>3547460
Agnostic what? It really bugs me how so many people say "hurrr agnostic". All that means is you're not 100% positive about something..... pic related

[Anonymous No.3547488]

>>3547469
>Not remotely aquainted with the thousands of years of philosophers that predate the communist manifesto

Why am I not surprised.

"but those books dont have picture"

whatever, supersize my fries

[Anonymous No.3547492]

>exact same thread posted for the 3rd time this week
>still get replies

Trolls: 1
/sci: 0

[Anonymous No.3547495]

>>3547488
Didn't Greek philosophers first come up with the idea of communism?

[Anonymous No.3547502]

>>3547492
it's more like
trolls: over 9000
/sci/: 0

[Anonymous No.3547503]

>>3547485
If you don't have a positive belief in God, you're an atheist.

[Anonymous No.3547514]

>>3547503
Atheism=I do not believe in God
Agnosticism=I do not know if God exists

[Anonymous No.3547524]

>>3547514
I do not know if any gods exist.
Therefore I do not believe in them.
I am an agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.3547525]

>>3547514
No. Atheism is absence of belief in God.

IF YOU FIT THIS CRITERIA, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!!!

[Anonymous No.3547535]

>>3547525
But I don't reject the idea of a god, so I cannot be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.3547543]

>>3547535
Nor do I but I don't believe in one unless I can prove it.

[Anonymous No.3547580]

>>3547535
Rejecting the idea of God does not make one an atheist. It is merely a lack of a belief in a god.

Everyone is born an atheist. They change that status only once they're indoctrinated.

If you claim that you "don't know there's a god", you're atheist.

[Anonymous No.3547596]

>>god/gods exist
>>god/gods does/does not exist
I refuse to take a standpoint, as neither hypothesis is falsifiable ( or even testable) therefeore I am agnostic.

[Anonymous No.3547622]

>>3547596

And you're also atheist. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3547626]

>>3547580
>Everyone is born an atheist. They change that status only once they're indoctrinated.
So then religion never happened because there was never anyone around to have someone else believe in it.

Damn monkeys, should've never let them around my kids.

[Anonymous No.3547633]

>>3547626
No, you'd be theologically noncognizent. If there were no religions, atheism could not exist by definition.

[Anonymous No.3547641]

>>3547596
>Someone comes up with untestable hypothesis
>"I CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE A SIDE!"
Wow, I bet you're a wonderful scientist

[Anonymous No.3547643]

>>3547641
Uh, that's how science works. You come up with some posit, and you find a way to test it then do.

If you can't test something that doesn't make it false, it makes it unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.3547650]

>>3547633
Arguments "by definition" are the worst arguments.

When "atheist" is said, what is meant is "one who does not believe in gods". Someone who has not heard of them cannot believe in them, and as such is atheistic.

[Anonymous No.3547656]

>>3547596
They're coherent statements. As such, probability theory requires you to be able to assign probabilities to them. "Believe" and "disbelieve" are fuzzy statements corresponding to rough probability assessments; it is fair that your assessment does not fall within either bound, but it still must exist. What is it?

[Anonymous No.3547666]

Why the fuck would you follow Dawkins anyway?

[Anonymous No.3547670]

>>3547650
But he couldn't have rejected them either. That would be passive agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.3547676]

>>3547670
By one definition. By another definition, no.

Arguments "by definition" are the worst arguments. There is no question about the universe on which we disagree.

[Anonymous No.3547680]

> implying I'm atheist because I read a book that told me to be one

OP is a giant homosexual

[Anonymous No.3547696]

>>3547626
You're a retard.

>>3547643
This.

>>3547633
Atheism don't exist because of religions. Atheism is the default, and people only became theist when they started wanting to come up with explanations for how the world works.

>>3547670
It would still be atheism.

[Anonymous No.3547714]

>A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

-Francis Bacon

The more I see internet atheists, the more I realize this is true. I've yet to meet a single atheist out there that isn't completely ignorant about philosophy. (Reading Wikipedia articles doesn't count, chumps.) But hey, what did you expect from people who still adhere to naturalism, anyways?

[Anonymous No.3547723]

>>3547714
Precisely one of the five philosophy professors I've had have been at all spiritual, and he was a Buddhist. My experience is the opposite of Bacon's; most philosophers seem to encounter enough wildly different and equally justifiable theories about the origins and deep workings of the universe that they decline to subscribe to any particular one, but rather withhold opinion.

[Anonymous No.3547730]

Atheism isn't something gained. It's a lack of a belief, but a rejection of a belief. You are born with it. You can be theist, but if you're not, you are automatically atheist. There is no in-between.

Once you claim that you don't know if there's a god, you are atheist. Only the ones that believe in one or more gods are theist.

Polite sage for not /sci/-related.

[Anonymous No.3547737]

>>3547730
>You are born with it.

lol no

I thought you guys were smart.

[Anonymous No.3547740]

Atheism: because it's important to be smarter than everyone else and they are retarded christians who believe in a fiarytale i am so smarter than everyone in the world and am a deep thinker i will major in philosophy

[Anonymous No.3547741]

>>3547696
>>3547737
>>3547730
see
>>3547676
and stop talking.

[Anonymous No.3547742]

>>3547737
Your born with a mind that will latch onto anything that your elders tell you.

[Anonymous No.3547749]

>>3547737
But you are born with it.

You lacking reason does not make us not smart.

[Anonymous No.3547755]

>>3547741
We will not stop talking, as we have reason, and we wish to profess it.

[Anonymous No.3547758]

>>3547749
>>3547755
REASONMIND

[Anonymous No.3547760]

>>3547755
I CAN HAS TROLLOLOLOL?

[Anonymous No.3547763]

There's genuinely no point arguing with atheists. I mean, let's face it, all of us were atheists at least for a bit when we were impressionable kids. Remember yourself when you were that age - would you listen to reason back then? Of course not.

So just do what all the sane people do. Ignore these threads, let them think high and mighty about themselves, and hopefully one day they'll grow up, just like we did.

[Anonymous No.3547767]

>>3547763
See
>>3547760

[Anonymous No.3547779]

>>3547760
...huh?

[Anonymous No.3547778]

>>3547767
>What? That can't be! EVERYONE knows atheists are smart and mature and intelligent and compassionate, all my other atheist friends agree with me, and so do all the authors who make books about atheism and make millions of dollars on them! This guy has to be trolling!

Feel free to believe that if it makes you feel any better, though.

[Anonymous No.3547785]

>>3547763

>I would propose an argument with regards to atheism, but I can't. So I'll just whinge about them all being kiddies. That'll make me look mature!

[Anonymous No.3547795]

>>3547785
>Implying theists ever had an argument
Pot, meet the kettle.

[Anonymous No.3547805]

>>3547785
How do you propose a person to argue about a philosophical stance with people who disregard philosophy completely and for some reason attempt to back their arguments which science, which not only doesn't support their arguments, but also has nothing to do with the argument in general?

Trying to debate philosophy with atheists is like trying to debate science with creationists. There's no point. They're too arrogantly clueless and indoctirnated about the topic for you to have a rational debate about it.

[Anonymous No.3547808]

>>3547795

... but I didn't imply that?

[Anonymous No.3547819]

Atheistic feel sad/cry/mourn when someone close to them dies.... shouldn't you stop feeling that way because the person your mourning/crying/sad for was a waste of life/skin/reason? You know i am right so shut the fuck up pussy. You have Christian morals and there isn't anything you can do about it. /thread

[Anonymous No.3547821]

>>3547805
Trying to debate philosophy with atheists is like trying to debate science with creationists.

Wut.jpg

[Anonymous No.3547822]

>>3547805

>Implying that no atheists have an interest in philosophy.
>Accusing atheists of being “arrogantly clueless and indoctrinated” based on above generalisation.

So, yeah, atheists are the ones who aren’t interested in rational discussion. Totally.

[Anonymous No.3547828]

>>3547805
Mrs. Bachmann, are you high?

[Anonymous No.3547830]

>>3547819
So, being sad that someone is gone is an inherently religious feeling?

Really, religious people have no reason to feel grief, as they believe the deceased will live on forever. It is only atheists who should grieve, as they know the dead person is gone forever.

[Anonymous No.3547835]

>>3547819
>You have Christian morals and there isn't anything you can do about it.
Atheist here, this is true.

Brb selling my daughter.

[Anonymous No.3547832]

>>3547819

Christfaggotistic feel sad/cry/mourn when someone close to them dies.... shouldn't you stop feeling that way because the person your mourning/crying/sad for belongs dead, with your almighty god-king? You know i am right so shut the fuck up pussy. You have Christian 'morals' and there isn't anything you can do about it. /thread

[Anonymous No.3547840]

>>3547835
like in biblical times

[Anonymous No.3547844]

>>3547835

Why bother, just have her raped, then the rapist HAS to pay you.

No refunds.

[Anonymous No.3547849]

>>3547830
>>3547832
>>3547835

You all grew up with Christian morals and are faggots, read a book then QQ.

[Anonymous No.3547860]

I always find the whole concept of "christian morals" rather amusing. The bible is full of horrible morals, as well as good ones. When a children's nursery rhyme or picture book is a better source of morality than your holy book, it's time to call it quits!

[Anonymous No.3547862]

>>3547849

I read the only book I need to. The bible. Now I know that the world was made in six days and humans were by some miracle both created before and after the rest of the animal kingdom. I know that the jews were enslaved in egypt and that a miracle occured leaving absolutely no evidence to suggest that a massive migration had ever occured. Truly god is glorious.

Then I learned about the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god who rapes a married woman while in ghost-form, becomes his own rape-baby, preaches to a relatively small amount of people despite having god powers, commits suicide by cop (and by religious mob), sacrificing himself to himself. Later he comes back to life but is very secretive so news doesn't spread about this remarkable feat until about a generation on, when it is written down in the gospels.

This all loving god is also loving enough to torture people forever, for not doing what he says. What he says, and which holy book of his is accurate, there is no word, and no errata has been issued to correct this. God is apparently testing the faith of his followers, watching them faithfully follow whichever dubiosly-accurate variant of abramahism they were born into until they die.

Remarkable. How could I not immediately dedicate myself to such a moral being?

[Anonymous No.3547873]

>>3547844
Lrn2theology

[Anonymous No.3547888]

>>3547862

[Anonymous No.3547889]

>>3547873

My mistake.

It's blessed by the church, which makes it okay.

[Anonymous No.3547898]

>>3547893
You posted a strawman interpretation of the Bible that you could knock down.

[Anonymous No.3547893]

>>3547888

what was factually incorrect about what I wrote?

strawmen are distinct from the targets they are meant to portray.

[Anonymous No.3547930]

>>3547830
Caught self-righteous trying to impose your beliefs on others.

[Anonymous No.3547938]

>>3547898

Unfortunately for you it can only be a strawman if it's inaccurate. Where is it inaccurate?

[Anonymous No.3547957]

>>3547938
Not same guy but pretty much everything was grossly distorted or taken out of context. And I say that as an agnostic.

[Anonymous No.3547971]

>>3547957

In a summary, everything is taken out of context. Was it misleading?

[Anonymous No.3547982]

>>3547971
Yes.

[Anonymous No.3547986]

>>3547982

Well that's the thing. I need some specific examples and an explanation, otherwise I won't know what I got wrong, will I?

[Anonymous No.3547991]

>>3547986
>Then I learned about the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god who rapes a married woman while in ghost-form

This for one thing. It almost seems as if you're projecting your own rape fantasies.

[Anonymous No.3547999]

>>3547971
Yes, god never raped Mary. She had a child with Joseph. If you read the original writing, Mary was never a virgin. They translated young into virgin because it was the thing to do back in the day. Kind of like how the Catholic church made Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit all the same person hundreds of years later because monotheism became the popular shit.

Besides that, pretty accurate.

[Anonymous No.3548000]

>>3547991

That's weird. I was under the impression that impregnating a woman without her consent was classified as rape.

Don't feel bad, its in a lot of mythologies. At least yahweh didn't do it in the form of a non-human animal.

[Anonymous No.3548002]

>>3547999

my apologies, I can't read ancient greek. Though I must say, this puts rather a large dent in christian mythology.

[Anonymous No.3548003]

>>3548002
Only if you're Catholic.

[Anonymous No.3548007]

>>3548003

Odd. I thought other christian sects relied on this. Isn't that what classifies them 'christian'?

[Anonymous No.3548008]

>>3547999
And some early Christians believed Jesus was just an ordinary child God chose for his mission.

[Anonymous No.3548010]

>>3548007
Technically true, but only Catholics make a big deal out of the Virgin Birth.

[Anonymous No.3548017]

>>3547862

I'm an atheist, but that's a bit much. Although you're right, the whole "Jesus is God" thing is a bit weird. And there's also the angle that, if God is omnipresent then God must have experienced getting it on with itself and birthing itself through Mary.

That sounds pretty fucking psychedelic. But sage for troll thread.

[Anonymous No.3548021]

islam sounds like a christian sect right now.

[Anonymous No.3548028]

>>3548002
My favorite is the book of Thomas, which didn't make it into the bible. It's the part that covers Jesus from infancy to adulthood. If you get an exact translation, Jesus pushes a kid off of a roof. Everyone gets mad at him. He resurrects the kid because he's fucking Jesus. In a fucked up little twist of fate the kid tells the people that Jesus didn't kill him, but released him.
WARNING: If you look this up, make sure you get an accurate translation. 99% will rape the translation and tell you the boy fell off the roof. Kind of like how the majority of the world thinks Mary was a virgin.

[Anonymous No.3548058]

I used to be an atheist. I was close-minded but I saw the light. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior and I will enjoy eternal life.

[Anonymous No.3548071]

>>3548028
I had heard of that. Jesus was a little punk who used his divine powers for mischief until he grew up and realized the error of his ways.

[Anonymous No.3548080]

>>3548058

>>3547862

samefag. GTFO troll.

[Anonymous No.3548101]

>>3548071
Pretty much. I will admit, it does have a solid message behind it. Jesus was a rebel, going as far as killing another kid. Turned his whole life around and sacrificed his for the people. But the church took it upon themselves to make God and Jesus the same entity ( something that the bible never does.) And you couldn't have God, the all great and omnipotent, learning the trials of man.