[ 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: 20 KB, 380x304, 2450700.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3621024 [Reply] [Original]

How long until religion is abolished?

>> No.3621029

2500.
That's around the time the world will end because of overpopulation

>> No.3621120

It starts with the schools. After that the people with power keep us distracted.
I live in America, most people I work with or talk to don't know a thing about science, especially our universe. Oddly enough they don't know anything about the bible but still follow it blindly(thank you reptilian brain)

Even without school, I learned much about what I from the internet. The greatest library at the tip of your fingers but instead watching Jersey Shore is more important. The people keeping us distracted know exactly how to stimulate your brain to keep you tuned in.

>> No.3621138

There will always be religion as long as there are recognizable humans.

>> No.3621156

>>3621029

Population is actually going down in the more civilized countries.

>> No.3621164

The majority of humanity will never be non-believers. Until virtual reality is invented, anyways. Then all the fucking muslims and christians and jews and hindus and general fuckwits can live in their own little perfectly theocratic world.

>> No.3621182

I dont know about religion

But the idea of a god will ALWAYS live in the human brain
Deal with it atheists

>> No.3621184

>>3621156
God Bless Japan

>> No.3621191
File: 298 KB, 876x667, 1306188823600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621184

>> No.3621212

I live in France and this place seems pretty secular/atheist. I really don't know how the US has managed to not lose its religion by now, tbh.

>> No.3621218

>>3621212
it's happening, it's just slower here.

>> No.3621235
File: 4 KB, 700x467, frefranc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621212
we haven't surrendered ourselves to a welfare state govt just yet, thus the individual's need to invoke the aid of a higher power.

>> No.3621251

>>3621024
>How long until religion is abolished?

Hopefully never. Freedom of thought and speech is the single most important freedom.
That said, I wouldn't mind if it died out on its own.

>> No.3621262

trolololol

that's so funny.
he posted a question about religion on a science board.
loooool.
this is gonna make so many people butthurt.
best troll ever.

>> No.3621264

>100 years from now, 50% of people will not believe in any religions

>Next generation, 75% of people won't believe in religion

>Their children, 95% won't believe in religion. 5% will be unable to be ridded of, too ingrained.

>> No.3621266
File: 193 KB, 630x480, 1311340134413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621251
This is the logic of your typical theist and capitalist pig.

>> No.3621273

>>3621024
never

>> No.3621283

When high schoolers who just came to the amazing conclusion that God isn't real (probably due to a Youtube video) stop going on the internet to tell everyone how retarded religiousfags are.

oh wait

>> No.3621287

WOW OP YOU ARE THE BEST TROLL EVER YOU HAVE TROLLED SO MANY PEOPLE.

>> No.3621294

>>3621266
Looks like someones been watching too much Bill Maher

>> No.3621297

Why would it ever be ABOLISHED?

It will just continue it's spiral towards irrelevance and obsolescence as we become more reasonable, more moral and more prosperous as human beings.

>> No.3621299
File: 76 KB, 179x201, 1288048822276.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621182
>the amazing conclusion that God isn't real
If a conclusion that something that has no evidence at all isn't true is AMAZING, what must a conclusion based of much evidence be? Unrealistic?

>> No.3621302
File: 56 KB, 392x480, Lenin-basketball.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621294
Who the fuck is Bill Maher.

I am Vladimir motherfucking Lenin.

>> No.3621317

>>3621283

It is a bit absurd that anyone could consider this a startling revelation. But then again, when you're in a society that is so heavily invested in the Emperor being fully clothed, just stating the obvious can feel like a transgression.

>> No.3621325

>>3621299
A Richard Dawkins video on Youtube is more than enough evidence for these people.

>> No.3621328

>implying this is a troll thread

Most people on this board view religion as a cancer since it prevents progress of science.

>> No.3621355

>>3621328
>This is what atheists actually believe

>> No.3621360

>>3621328
Speak for yourself. With the exception of the crazy fundamentalists who think gays are the devil, religion exists as a spiritual outlet to give people hope in a mostly hopeless existence. I hope religion never dies.

>> No.3621362

>>3621325

Evidence of what? Evidence of Dawkins saying stuff? The whole point is that there is no evidence, that's why you'd be an atheist.

>> No.3621374

>>3621266
>This is the logic of your typical theist and capitalist pig.

Lolwhut? I am an atheist and a socialist. I just happen to be a big fan of civil liberties. No socialist state can succeed unless it is both socially libertarian and freely and openly democratic.

>> No.3621378

>>3621325
That's note exactly what I meant. There is no evidence at all for a supernatural world, because it is supernatural. I don't think coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world doesn't exist is an "amazing" conclusion to reach. I think if people were introduced to religion at later ages rather than being brought up from the earliest stages of life, there would be a lot less theistic people.

I am an atheist (trust me I'm not like the kind you described in your post), and its not because I reject authority, or because I want to be cool and different, because I do question a lot of things: I question all the time why I don't believe in a supernatural world, I do research on theoretical physics, etc.., and I've come to the conclusion that if two explanations (with similar merit) arise, the one that requires no supernatural explanation is more logical and the best choice for me to accept, as it has the least new implications/assumptions: and the biggest implication/assumption you can make is that there exists a part of the universe that is not only undetectable and will never be detectable, but can never be explained by any physical process or observation, as it just requires belief. I don't claim to know the answers to everything about the universe, but I think the best position to take is that maybe one day we can figure out these answers, rather than standing still and saying "Nope, it's way behind human comprehension and it will never be explainable because it is supernatural"

>> No.3621380

>>3621362
Is English not your first language? I was agreeing with you.

>> No.3621381
File: 20 KB, 252x256, breadnought.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

/sci/, what is stuff made of?

>> No.3621387

>>3621355
>>3621360
>what is the dark ages?

>> No.3621388

>>3621362
Stand back, I'm gonna use logic

there's also no evidence for the Big Bang, just things that would suggest that there was a Big Bang.

You can't say for sure there is no God when you don't have complete knowledge of the entire universe and everything around it

>inb4 you can't say there is one either

But that's not what we're saying, we're saying we BELIEVE there is a God, atheists say that there IS NO god. Entirely different thing.

>> No.3621390

It won't. Most people need something to believe in, a majority of those people choose religion.

>> No.3621394
File: 157 KB, 655x277, NOPE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621388
>there's also no evidence for the Big Bang, just things that would suggest that there was a Big Bang.


How's that being a retard working for you?

>> No.3621395
File: 67 KB, 449x599, 449px-Nietzsche1882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

About negative fifty years according to Nietzsche.

>> No.3621417
File: 51 KB, 530x553, 1312922349777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621388
>no evidence for the big bang

>> No.3621420

>>3621388
>there's also no evidence for the Big Bang
Really? Or are you just defining evidence as providing 100% certainty (Pro Tip: It's impossible to be 100% certain about anything in the universe)

There exists evidence. Evidence is observable fact. All of the observable facts seem to indicate that the best model for the universe is that it had a beginning and this beginning was the big bang.

If you can find evidence that would make something else a better, more well-fitting model that explains the origin of the universe, then there's a nobel prize with your name on it waiting for it.

Scientists don't accept the Big Bang theory because science is some authoritarian system that tells them to do so.

Also don't ask me to show you the evidence...that would just show that you have pure ignorance towards the situation

>> No.3621426

>>3621417
>herp derp all christians are retarded so I'm not even gonna listen to what he's saying

the atheist way

>> No.3621443

>>3621387
Show me evidence that widespread religious beliefs of the time was the cause of the dark ages and not a symptom.

>> No.3621465

>>3621420
Yes, real evidence proves something with 100% certainty
But that cannot exist in this universe

Holographic universe, look it up
Also, I'm a Christian and I passed my practical driving exam and saw an atheist fall of his bike, so they're all retarded HUEHUEHEUHEUHAHAHA

>> No.3621467

>>3621388

The observations of distant objects in space moving away from us and each other is decent evidence that, if you trace them back in time, they were all very close together indeed. Cosmic background radiation shows us that the early universe was more energetic than we observe today.

So we have evidence for the big bang. We didn't think up the big bang until we had evidence.


I can't say for sure that there is no god. I can say with confidence that I have met or heard or read nobody that knew anything about whether god existed and what god was like, and could back those claims up or even explain how they came to these conclusions. And I can say with confidence that the specific claims put forward about god do not pass muster for these reasons, they are either totally unfounded or utterly discredited.

>> No.3621473

It'll last about as long as it takes for people to get over the transhumanism revolution and essential immortality.

>> No.3621477

>>3621465
No, fuck you, look up a flat universe.

>> No.3621481

>>3621465
Alright, you might as well say "There's no evidence for the existence of gravity. There's just evidence that points to the suggestion that gravity exists"

Nobody's looking for 100% certainty. The mathematical model that explains all the observations and also has predictive power is the best model, and even though its not "100% certain", its much much much more than likely to be true.

>> No.3621484

>>3621467
YOU think scientific evidence is enough to make something exist.

I think the belief in the Bible is enough to make something exist.
Also, either way I win, either I go to heaven or nothing happens
Either nothing happens to you or you go to hell

>> No.3621497

>>3621484
The delusion is strong in this one.

>I think the belief in the Bible is enough to make something exist.
>Also, either way I win, either I go to heaven or nothing happens
>Either nothing happens to you or you go to hell

But if you do not believe in the Bible, then hell doesn't happen, right?

>> No.3621498

>>3621477
It's 2:45 in the evening, I can't really get into that but from what I can see it isn't related to the subject

>> No.3621500
File: 9 KB, 384x148, Image4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621484

No, I think something existing is enough to leave evidence. The strength of my belief does not affect reality, I just try to figure out what the best (most accurate, most useful) description of reality is.

And Pascals Wager is just image related.

>> No.3621505

>>3621484
>Pascal's wager is a legitimate argument

Christfags are retarded

>> No.3621510

>>3621484
What about every single other religion that states that if you're not loyal to it you'll face eternal suffering?

Christianity and atheism are not the only two choices....

>> No.3621515
File: 49 KB, 279x291, 1298513762796.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>It's 2:45 in the evening

fuck off

>> No.3621533

>>3621497
No, if you do not believe in the Bible, you'll go to hell


If it turns out atheists were right and there is no God and the Bible is made-up, nothing will happen to either of us
If it turns out Christians were right and there is a loving God and he indirectly wrote the Bible I will go to heaven and you will go to hell.

Case A: I lose and you lose
Case B: I win and you lose (a lot worse than the first one)

>> No.3621534

>>3621484
>"Either Christianity is right or there is no deity/afterlife at all"

That's a pretty good example of arrogance

>> No.3621538

>>3621533
Are those the only 2 cases?

>> No.3621549

>>3621510
Tell me, how many Muslims have seen the light and turned to Christianity in dreams, or trough other ways? Let's store that amount in variable a.

Now, let's store the amount of Christians who turned to another religion because their deity approached them in variable b.

Now let's do some math

a / b = OH SHI

>> No.3621553
File: 43 KB, 553x492, 1923049811.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3621533
Another possibility: It turns out there is a god, but it's Allah. Oops; all Christians go to hell too.

>> No.3621557

>>3621533

And if you don't believe the moon is made of cheese, you'll go to hell.

You have two choices. Either you believe the moon is made of cheese, and so go to heaven when you die, or you believe something else and go to hell. Since the reward is so great, and the punishment is so dire, it makes sense for you to believe the moon is made of cheese, even if the chance of that being correct is so low.

>> No.3621558

>>3621443
Right it was the fall of the Roman Empire that put the wheels in motion.
Still doesn't change the fact that everything got fucked up that much worse because of religion.The fucking churches had more power then the king. Religion and politics were essentially the same.

>> No.3621559

>>3621533

What.
But you stop existing when you are dead.
How would the existence of hell affect you in anyway?

Case A: I don't spend my precious living-time praying and get to do other things like trolling on /sci/
Case B: I don't spend my precious living-time praying etc and after I'm dead and non-existing, something I don't and can't care about happens.

>> No.3621565

>>3621549
what?

>> No.3621568

>>3621553

Allah is just the Arabic word for god, they're the same deity dipshit

>> No.3621569

>>3621559
I meant "any way" obviously.

>> No.3621574 [DELETED] 

>2011
>believing in sky daddies

ISHYGDDT

>> No.3621575

>>3621533
Hello Pascal Wager, you still remain a fail after 400 years.

>> No.3621576

>>3621557

Hi, Blaise Pascal.

>> No.3621583

>>3621568
>doesn't know there are more religions than just Abarahmic faiths
>confirmed for americunt

>> No.3621584

>>3621568
lol no theyre not.

>> No.3621585

>>3621568
Tell that to them. Also remind them that they share the same god as the Jews.

>> No.3621590

>>3621533
Additionally, if you view religion strictly as "winning" and "losing," you're doing it wrong.

>> No.3621596

>>3621559
You don't stop existing in case B, you have eternal life on a different plane of existence either in heaven or in hell

>> No.3621601

>>3621590
I'm breaking it down to make it understandable because I clearly think on a much higher level than this board

>> No.3621625

>>3621601

Okay. The fastest growing religion is the true one.

So.... the irreligious?

I mean, it would be unfair to include children who are brought up in a religion, right? So we'll just deal with adult conversion or deconversion.

>> No.3621634

>>3621596

But reality contradicts your belief.
My person as I am right now will stop exist if I die, because it's linked to my body.
If my body stops functioning, then my person will stop existing.

So I'm not saying you should not care about other people, I do not believe in any sky daddy myself but I restrain myself from hurting others too much, but it doesn't mean I should follow arbitrary rules that have no meaning to me just to protect some person who will exist after I stop existing.

>> No.3621635

>>3621297
Only good reply.

The question was bad though.

It

>> No.3621657

>>3621634
Your soul won't stop existing when you die

>> No.3621665

>>3621360
Hope for what?

This "hope" thing is irrelevant..

>> No.3621673

NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS
NO RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE THREADS

>> No.3621684

"God" has never presented himself to me

therefore it's not my fault that I don't believe in him

>> No.3621678

For people to work together, they either have to knowingly and willingly sacrifice their own interests for no possibility of reward, or they have to believe certain falsehoods.

People are a lot better at the latter than the former.

I've noticed that most professed atheists have got some pretty extreme religious beliefs of their own, and they seem like they'd be pretty willing to burn people at the stake for heresy if they could manage it.

Pretty commonly, they've got a passionate faith in global warming. They don't work in the field, have never looked at the data, don't really understand the case for it, and aren't exactly certain of what constitutes this "global warming" we should all believe in (Is it merely that some small amount global temperature increase has been observed over the last century or two? Is it that Waterworld is sure to happen in 50 years? Seems to depend on whether the discussion of the moment is whether the science is rock-solid indisputable fact, or whether we're all going to die if we don't drop everything and reorganize world industry around stopping it.), but they have absolute faith in the theory and the professionals who study it. All in all, doubting global warming with these people, or even insisting on pinning down strictly what it is before agreeing to mouth the usual pieties about how we had all better do something about it, is enough to get you pigeonholed as something between a creationist and a holocaust denier.

Then there are the multiculturalism and feminism things. All sorts of thoughts that are morally wrong to have, regardless of facts and reality.

The nameless god won out over all of the named ones, in part because it was vague and impersonal and harder to argue about. Now godless religions are taking over, with the advantage that they don't even admit to being religions, and in fact calling them religions is heresy worthy of the most severe punishment the followers can inflict.

>> No.3621679

>>3621657
My what?

Can a soul experience things?
I'm pretty sure you stop experiencing things when you're dead.

>> No.3621697

>>3621678

Climate change is a reality, according to climate scientists.

>> No.3621702

>>3621657

Your soul does stop existing when you die.

Now it's just a simple matter of explaining how you know souls exist to shut me up.

>> No.3621709

>>3621678
Because people trust scientists to know more about the situation than themselves

It's not an issue of faith, it's an issue of trust.

These scientists aren't "faithful" in climate change, nor did they just make up a conclusion and trust it from therein

>> No.3621720

>>3621679
I'm pretty sure your soul lives on and it will get a new body in the 'afterlife'

>>3621702
Wait, do you think souls exist until you die or don't they exist at all? im confus


>>3621684
You're not even willing to accept God

I don't know if you've ever meditated or something in an attempt to communicate with God or something but if you did it was probably with "Nothing is gonna happen you're ridiculous" in the back of your head

>> No.3621728

>>3621024
Why would you want to "last" ?
Because of a non-finite biological routine making you "wish" you could?
Why don't we naturally accept death when it's time? Why weren't we hard coded to ease our spirit naturally and accept death without fear ?
Because it serves no natural advantage...... nature (reality, the logical stream of events) doesn't give a shit about our "happiness", only what gives a surviving/breeding advantage "counts" and is retained in our genes.

>> No.3621733

>>3621678
So in order for it to first present itself to me I have to convince myself that it will?

Doesn't this just lead to delusion?

>> No.3621739

>>3621720

So it's not me.
I'm my body and the experiences attached to it.

If you were born with 3 arms instead of 2, would the person you are not be very different from what it is?

If you had a different body, you'd be a different person.

So if your skydaddy gives you a new body, it's not you anymore. Especially since you died.
The person you were stopped existing.

>> No.3621748

>>3621720

They don't exist. I'd love to know how you can know that they not only exist, but they also survive death intact.

>> No.3621754

Why try to "communicate to god" when you can just use a magnetic coil to stimulate your right cerebral cortex and get the exact same effect and feeling?

>> No.3621772

>>3621739
You'll get a new body, a perfect, complete body. Your conscience will be in a new body.

>>3621748
Because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is God's word

You need scientific proof for something, I take God's word for it

>> No.3621783
File: 59 KB, 393x393, a dayum shame.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Creationist comes in here saying God is real you're stupid, christianity is fastest growing blah blah blah atheism might as well be a religion blah blah

>Sciencefags blast back with logic and science etc etc, some theories

>lol u cant prove teh theories like u cant prove my god does not exist

>dudewut

>50 posts later

>Sciencefags get tired of arguing about this stupid shit, people come in here all the time pulling the same stuff

>Christfag is telling everyone "hurr durr yeh i skooled a bunch of godless science believers with teh help of my god. they r so stupid"
>He actually believes this, and so does the people whom he might tell it to.

such is life on /sci/

>> No.3621789

>>3621772

Why do you say "you".
After my life, I'll be dead.
If I die my life is over. I'm no longer conscious.
My body doesn't function, my conscience stops existing.

What's so difficult to understand?

>> No.3621801

What the hell is all this talk about souls? Really guys?
The first definition of the soul was just the air. That's why faggots still say "god bless you" after you sneeze. They don't even know it themselves but that is why. Fuck this gay earth.

>> No.3621808

>>3621709
>Because people trust priests to know more about the situation than themselves

>It's not an issue of faith, it's an issue of trust.

And what happens when you check their work, starting from simple things you do understand and find easy to analyse decisively, and you notice little things like the fact that we easily have the industrial capability to dredge material off the seafloor onto land at a rate sufficient to prevent the predicted sealevel rise, but they're still using the unstoppability of sealevel rise as a primary argument to justify forced immediate changes that would, frankly, gut our industry and economy?

And when you point this out to True Believers, they refuse to even look into it, but just dismiss it out of hand, because it doesn't sound consistent with what the priests are telling them, how do say it's not a religion?

>> No.3621811

>>3621772

How about you take MY word for it that you have OCD.

>> No.3621820

>>3621772

And how do you know the bible is gods word? If you want to say that gods word is absolute, and everything else is relative to that, then fine. But you still need to explain how you know which claims about gods word are real and which are false.

>> No.3621822

>>3621789
That's what you believe
I believe that it's a lot more complicated that

>>3621783
see
>>3621426

>> No.3621836

The god concept is a security blanket. Let go of it. Do your good, but for your own reasons.

You can be a good person without imagining a fatherly sky-friend.
You can love your family without imagining a fatherly sky-friend.
You can love nature, have a thankful heart, and enjoy life without imagining a fatherly sky-friend.

Giving up the god security blanket feels bad at first, just like giving up any drug. But it's worth it.

>> No.3621837

>>3621808
You missed my last sentence. The difference is scientists base their views on the situation on evidence, and you trust their interpretation of the evidence. A lot of people look at the evidence themselves. When trusting a priest, you're trusting their faith.

>> No.3621839

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claim god exists, but no evidence.

</thread>

Also, dinner for trolls.

>> No.3621846

>>3621836
>You can be a good person without imagining a fatherly sky-friend.

Provide reasons to.

>> No.3621847

>>3621783

After a while you realise that discussing god is about as sensible as trying to hold a serious discussion on Superman.

Even granting that Superman exists for the purposes of discussion degrades you.

>> No.3621852

>>3621822
What's complicated?

If you die, you lose consciousness, forever.
Just like when you faint, or if you get in a coma, but longer.

If you ever fainted, you should know you do not remember anything from what happened to your body.
That's what happens when you lose consciousness.

Your "soul" does not magically transfer to another body.

>> No.3621855

>>3621846
I never said you had to be a good person. Find your own reasons. If you can't find any, you're just as blind as any Christian.

>> No.3621856

>>3621847
I always wondered : if superman doesn't feel pain when impacted by bullets, how does he feel a gentle caress?

Is the man of steel , litterally is?

>> No.3621858

>>3621846
Because it can be satisfying? Because you realize this is the only life you have and you don't want to spend it in jail?

>> No.3621862

>>3621846

Since we have to take a priori that obeying gods word is the right thing to do; why not just take being a good person as being the right thing to do a priori instead?

It saves a few steps, and is far less open to abuse.

>> No.3621864

>>3621846
Pragmatism.
Evolutionary mechanisms.

If you don't hurt someone else, they won't hurt you.
You feel bad when you do something wrong.
Etc.

>> No.3621865

>>3621852
Yes it does

I wouldnt use the term 'magically' but basically that's what will happen

>> No.3621868

>>3621855
What are your reasons to be "a good person" then?
Or are you a "bad" person?

>> No.3621869

>>3621808
Okay. Introduce your plan to these scientists to move sand from the sea floor to land, and see their response. You don't have to sit their just mulling over your belief that they are conspiring against you

>> No.3621875

>>3621865
How come when you faint because of physiological reasons you lose consciousness?

Shouldn't you be able to remain conscious and experience things through another body?
Where's your soul when you faint?

>> No.3621878

>>3621875
Or when you're asleep too, for that matter

Does the soul just dissapear when you sleep?

>> No.3621880

>>3621865
"magically" is an adjective used to describe everything you do not understand and can't explain.

>> No.3621892

>>3621880
So is quantum decoherence magic?

>> No.3621894

>>3621864
I'm ok with the primordial reasons.

Now thazt we can consciously realize these, why are the reasons to obey? To serve what purpose? The pepertuation of the human species...Why should we, we'll die in max 70 years...

>> No.3621897

>>3621878
You still experience things when you're asleep.
Like dreams.
That's not a very good example.

>> No.3621904

>>3621897
You're not conscious when you're asleep

>> No.3621905

>>3621837
Religions don't work like that. It's not turtles all the way down. The lay worshiper has faith, a prophet has a divine revelation, a meeting with God or His servants, and doesn't need faith.

According to Christianity, Jesus walked the Earth and performed miracles proving the power of the divine before witnesses. The gospels are eye-witness reports.

It's not just having faith in men who have faith in men who have faith. The chain is claimed to go to observational evidence.

"I believe it because I read a man tell me that he has good reasons to know it's true, and I trust that man." is what faith is. It doesn't matter whether it's a prophet or a scientist, if you're trusting him instead of checking his work, you're operating on faith.

>> No.3621908

>>3621878

A better example can be seen it Mark Twain's quote in response to someone asking him if he was afraid of death. "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and I didn't mind it in the slightest."

You were nonexistent before you were born. Once your dead, you return to that state.

>> No.3621911

>>3621904
Not fully conscious.
Yet you can remember dreams.

You can't remember anything once you fainted.

>> No.3621915

>>3621905

>implying any of the gospels weren't written much, much later than the events in question

>> No.3621918

>>3621905
Except it's not as simple as a scientist making something up and it become a popular theory in the scientific community. His work is rigorously tested by other scientists

>> No.3621921

>>3621905

Also, "eye witness" evidence is the lowest form of evidence.

>> No.3621932

>>3621892
Never heard of it before but if we can't explain it, I guess it can be considered "magical".

>> No.3621933

>>3621869
Why don't you just go and tell the pope that there is no God? He seems like a reasonable guy, and he's the expert on the matter.

Why should I even think about your argument instead of just listening to my priests? If your argument was any good, the priests would listen to you, and tell me about it.

Do you see how this works?

>> No.3621935

>>3621904
State of altered (different) consciousness.

>> No.3621941

>>3621905

But... the gospels are not eyewitness statements. You can trace them all back to Matthew, and that was at least a generation removed from the alleged death of Jesus.

But you're right, you can always trace it back to somebody saying they know what god wants. And then you have no method to apply that can distinguish whether they are really talking for god or they are delusional or lying.

>> No.3621949

>>3621868
>What are your reasons to be "a good person" then?

I agree with comments others have made-- it is prudent (stay out of trouble), and it feels good to "do the right thing".

>Or are you a "bad" person?

I'm just a person, that is free from the god delusion. That makes me a profoundly happy, free person. Profound happiness and freedom tend to make me want to do good things and be a good person.

>> No.3621953

>>3621933
Priests do not act rationally. They're not payed to do that.
They even go against their biological purposes by restraining from passing their genes.

>> No.3621956

Okay this is running out of hand I can't reply to all of this and it's late and I'm going to sleep

I hope some day you people will see the Light and accept Jesus Christ in your heart as saviour from the punishment you deserve for the sins you do everyday ( I do them too (I'm on 4ch­an), they're in our nature)

>> No.3621958

>>3621933

Except for the matter that the whole idea of science is to grasp the universe as it truly is. It gains no benefit from holding an ideal and then denying new evidence. If you proposed a great idea to the scientists, they would accept it, and you would get a nice little nobel prize.

Religion, on the other hand, seeks to explain reality in lieu of new information. Try to propose a dissenting idea to a priest, and he will tell you, "That's ludicrous, the answer to that is already known."

>> No.3621959

>>3621894
Because being an asshole isn't cool.

Does there need to be anything else?

>> No.3621967

>>3621933
No, because scientists aren't an authoritarian group that just tell us what to do. If your plan was viable, then you should present to those that have the resources to be able to commit such a plan.

Scientific theories are based off of evidence accessible by anyone. By accepting a theory you are not answering to any authority at all. Priests are an authority.

What is your evidence even? You haven't presented it in one bit to me, or any one else as far as I know

>> No.3621970

>>3621933

And yet even most Christians don't think the pope has any authority on the subject. And most religious people think Christians are utterly wrong entirely.

Religious people have no way to compare their claims and determine fact from fiction. They just have somebodies word that they either spoke to god, or speak for god, or that they met someone who did. That's it.

>> No.3621973

>>3621933
True.
If people were interested in Truth , true.

But, most often, they're not. They'll willfully cling into reassuring delusions rather than facing the faceless, cold Reality surrounding them (and being them).
Your priests are defenders of their own pstric personal interests that they think/wish they serve by doing what they do and believe what they wish to . They undertaken the role of "pilars" to support this delusion, to preserve their own trough the shared one of the others fellow believers.

You just want reassurance.

>> No.3621978

>>3621894
Obey what?
Society?
Because you don't want to go to jail?
Because if you do not obey, then you can't tell others to do it, and then your own safety is endangered, etc...

>> No.3621979

>>3621956
Jesus fuck. Don't spray your thought poison on me.

>> No.3621981

>>3621941
Where do you get that. Matthew and John were both disciples. Matthew's gospel was is a Greek translation of the Hebrew or Aramaic original that is lost. John's gospel is most likely the original, written in his old age, when he was on patmos, and wrote revelation, and two of the three "John" epistles.

Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, but Mark, as Peter's translator in Rome, was basically repeating the eyewitness testimony he'd translated hundreds of times. Luke was a physician and researcher, who tried to fix dates and gives the impression of having interviewed the people who were there.

>> No.3621991

>>3621941
My point here is, once you reach the point of not being interested in hearing from anyone but "recognized experts", when you're willing to trust their say-so and unwilling to demand understandable proof or check their work yourself, and ready to immediately dismiss any dissenters as obvious ignorant fools, it's a religion and you're one of the faithful.

>> No.3621993

>>3621978
You're only projecting yourself into a world that doesn't think like you here.

If everybody think like you : provide reasons for society, for laws, for ..anything except one's self interest?

>> No.3621997

>>3621905

What really happened: Jesus went apeshit and wrecked the money lenders tables... the Romans arrested him, and were going execute him... the Jews wanted him out of the way as well. but John (the only disciple at the 'crucifixion' and Joseph of Arimethea paid off the damage, Had Pilate crucify Jesus Bar Rabbas, and they got Jesus out of town. If anybody saw Jesus after that, John told them the Official version.
ONE eyewitness... John.. who died of OLD AGE... not matyrdom.

>> No.3622004 [DELETED] 

>yfw Australia is in line to be the first Secular Western Country

>> No.3622002

>>3621991
Yes, that would be a religion, and I am glad that the current scientific community does not fit that description.

>> No.3622013

>>3621991

>be religious
>attack someone by calling them religious

lolwat

>> No.3622017

>>3621993
What else is there?

If you want to survive, you have to cooperate.
If everyone were sane like me, then we wouldn't have people suicide-bombing themselves, because they would rather survive and bring something to themselves and society instead of killing themselves and harming others.

>> No.3622023

>>3622004
Nah Czech Republic and France are ahead.
Also you're a cunt.

>> No.3622026

>>3621981

I don't think so, man. We can only know when it was first written down. And that is a generation after the events it supposedly describes.

But even if they were written by contemporaries, they are only evidence that the authors believed this stuff, not that it actually happened. People also recorded miracles happening to and around other cult leaders all the way to the present day. There must be some reason you'd buy into a poorly recorded two thousand year old account, but not accounts of such occurrences happening in the modern day with thousands of witnesses.

>> No.3622029

>>3622023

Nah cunt, Our Prime Minister is alreayd an Athiest

>> No.3622037

>>3621991
Scientific theories are not based on the authority of one person. They are rigorously tested by many and independent scientists. Scientists are consistently experimenting or looking for evidence that would show that an existing theory is wrong. Scientific theories have an abundance of evidence, that you can find for yourself, explain many observations, that you can observe for yourself, and have predictive power, that you can test for yourself

>> No.3622039

>>3622029
So?
It's the population % that counts.

>> No.3622051

>>3622002
I was never talking about "the current scientific community", you idiot. I was talking about the global warming faithful, the laymen who believe in it with religious fervor, who are willing to admit no doubt despite the vagueness of their understanding and their ignorance of what exactly constitutes the body of evidence for their beliefs (other than a certainty that, whatever it is, it is conclusively proven, settled science).

The global warming believers, the spokesmen for climate science, and the actual climate scientists are three very different groups.

>> No.3622060

>>3622051
Are you a medicine believer?

Did you read all the papers written on the chemicals the doctor gives you?

Do you take the pills then?

>> No.3622076

>>3622051
Okay then, it becomes a religion for the individual. The scientists themselves never required this though. And if it turns out that the scientists are right, which they most likely are, then so what? They have limited understanding of the actualy subject, but it's not like they don't have the resources or access to greater understanding, at least they understood that the scientific community is very objective and competitive and it would better to trust their theories than to make their own based on limited or no evidence.

>> No.3622097

>>3622002
You're going to be disillusioned if you ever make it into the scientific acedemic establishment.

>> No.3622181

>>3622097

There's a difference between investigating a problem and coming to conclusions that other people can investigate and most of them will agree with; and investigating a problem and coming to conclusions that are based on your word alone, and which most people who investigate the problem will disagree with.

>> No.3622182

>>3622076
>it becomes a religion for the individual.
If it was just a few isolated nuts, it wouldn't be a religion.

And it is a religion. A big, powerful organized religion, with a vast number of worshippers and a political agenda of forcing everyone to participate in their religious sacrifices.

>> No.3622185

depends on how long until the intellectuals build their own spaceship, free of public funds, and leave this rock.

>> No.3622250

>>3622182
Just like modern medicine!

>> No.3622329

>>3622250
You really can't understand the difference?

People don't trust doctors because "Trust us, we did the science." or "A consensus of experts agree!" but because of their track record of fixing things in ways that are obvious to the layman.

You don't need to be a scientist to notice that people who do get mainstream medical treatment when seriously ill or injured are much more likely to survive than people who don't.

>> No.3622344

Why is there a zetetic in this thread?

>> No.3622354

>>3622329

>People don't trust doctors because "Trust us, we did the science." or "A consensus of experts agree!"

You mean dumbasses.
Then let's say astronauts.

Do you know personally anyone who's been on the moon or in space?
How do you know it's not a big fraud if you do not believe the experts etc?

Rockets and shit haven't been around since long, you can't personally witness the results, etc...

Proof is: there are still dumb people who do not believe in the moon-landing.

Reality isn't a religion.

>> No.3622414

>>3622354
>Okay, let's just set aside my bad argument without my acknowledging that it's bad or that this hurts my case.

>Here's another bad argument.

>I can keep coming up with these all day and night, and no matter how patiently you explain that they're bad, eventually you're going to do something else and then I'll just assume that my last bad argument was good and declare victory.

You are literally too stupid to argue with. All I could do here is produce fodder for your dim-witted certainty.