[ 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: 50 KB, 461x614, 1313928458893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3735712 [Reply] [Original]

there are really intelligent people who believe in
- god
- alien visitors
- telepathy
- etc

given the fact they are *really* intelligent people (professors, doctors, etc.),
isn't that fascinating that intelligent people can be that blind and stupid?

why?

>> No.3735713

not really

>> No.3735717

^that

>> No.3735722

If you want to believe something badly enough you can rationalize it.

>> No.3735723

>>3735713
there are plenty of highly educated and intelligent people who believe in god and religions (religions makes it even worse -_-)

>> No.3735725
File: 818 KB, 900x1354, 1315983518013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

It's a solid bet that their "upbringers" indoctrinated them.

I'm an atheist. My parents never introduced me to a religion or influenced me. Atheism was the result. Anti-theism, in fact.

>> No.3735729

>>3735725
well I doubt you become a professor of moral theology and spend the rest of your live in churches fondling around with faggots, only to score that title

>> No.3735730

Not stupid, not necessarily blind.

They provide comfort and mystery in a world at once increasingly abstract and unsettlingly literal. To some, pure reality lacks flavor and beauty, and humanity's insignificance makes them feel alone in the universe.

Personally, I think there is beauty and grace enough in reality to make these fictions unnecessary, but hey, not everyone is me.

If you're a bit more respectful toward them, you can at least prove that other ideas don't ruin life. You won't change their minds, but you'll at least make things a little better for everyone in general.

>> No.3735732

Intelligent people can be irrational, and there are a number of reasons for believing in religion that don't necessarily involve the plausibility of it

>> No.3735733

>>3735730
butthurt jesusfag detected

>> No.3735736

>>3735729
I can't tell if you're insulting me, or telling a joke.

>> No.3735737

intelligence in one area does not mean someone is intelligent or credible in all areas

>> No.3735738

>>3735733
I...actually said I didn't believe in any of that business. Did you...

Oh wait, no. I get it now. You're trolling me. Gotcha.

>> No.3735742

>>3735738
let me guess
you are either a women or a huge faggot. or both
am i rite?

>> No.3735743

Why can't you be intelligent and believe that life on other planets is plausible?

>> No.3735746

emotional trauma?

is it really that hard to grasp?

>> No.3735748

>>3735743
> imagine for a second how large the universe is
> imagine how many galaxies there are etc
> imagine god build all this just for us, a tiny dustcorn
> look at me in mirror, see how awesome I am
> well, might actually be

>> No.3735749

The thing is that there's no way to prove or disprove any of those things.

>> No.3735750

>>3735743
Reread the OP, faggot.
Alien visitors.

>> No.3735751

>>3735743
Life on other planets is one thing, life from other planets landing on Earth is another matter altogether.

>> No.3735752

>>3735749
> implying we are living on a giant flying turtle and jesus is steering it

>> No.3735761

>>3735749
Wow. gtfo, you fucking fag.

>> No.3735762

>>3735749
There's an easy way to prove any of them. God could walk down from the heavens and perform great miracles under laboratory conditions.

Alien visitors would show up in the middle of the day in a metropolitan area, deactivate all cloaking, and make public contact with earth governments.

Someone could actually do telepathy while being watched by someone who knows what to document and how to test it (again, lab conditions).

There are plenty of ways to prove any bullshit idea true. People just get hung up on "CAN'T PROVE IT WRONG, FUCKER"

>> No.3735763

If telepathy is real, someone mind link with me right now, I'm bored as shit and this thread is retarded.

>> No.3735769

>>3735763
Scanning...Scanning...Scanning...

All I'm seeing is titties. You want to see titties.

I am a mindreader.

>> No.3735774

>>3735762
That implies God or aliens would be willing to do that, which they may very well do not.

>> No.3735775

>>3735769
Nah, it's actually dicks.

>> No.3735777

>>3735774
That implies you are a faggot and a fatass.

>> No.3735782
File: 101 KB, 640x543, get it out of my brain!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3735769

>> No.3735787

>>3735774
right maybe they troll us

>> No.3735791

>>3735774
Not a good enough excuse for me. If god isn't willing to go on the record, then fuckem. If aliens don't want to land in broad daylight, then fuckem. If telepaths won't sit in a room with a skeptic and actually do what they claim, then doublefuckem for going on with the con on national television.

>> No.3735794

>implying intelligence dictates an individuals philosophy

>> No.3735798

/sci/ is full of intelligent people believing in other sorts of nonsense, such as socialism.

>> No.3735810

>>3735794
This.

Capability to process information and questioning are two different things.

>> No.3735820

>>3735810
>>3735794
yes but this relgious stories about jesus are 2grader material

>> No.3735823

Why do you assume that doctors and professors are intelligent?
How does title dictate mental capacity?

Anyways, an intelligent person is just as capable of being brainwashed as someone that is less intelligent.

>> No.3735843
File: 3 KB, 97x126, 1306075001194s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

There are really annoying kids who don't believe in
-god
-alien visitors
-telepathy
-etc

given the fact they are just moderately intelligent people (living with their parents, etc) isn't it fascinating that they expect the entire human race to give up their believes. Can they really be that naive and stupid?

>> No.3735844

/sci/ has really gone downhill.

>> No.3735845

Thread's meh but OP pic is delicious. Any more of that? What a lovely back.

I'm an atheist and am largely anti-theist but I know some "reformed" Christians and Jews and some non-identifying "spiritualists" whose beliefs aren't really offensive to me because they don't entail many concrete claims about the world and if they do said beliefs are fairly benign.

Only a few, though. Most religious/spiritual people really do hold at least some opinions that are right-bonkers scientifically and/or logically. Most religious/spiritual people are actually massively ignorant of their cultural/religious backgrounds and of other people's religions/philosophies, though.

I do think the real problem is simple ignorance, and moreover Western society's ignorance-shame. Generally ignorance shouldn't be something to be ashamed of but weirdly only scientists and skeptics and the like are usually positively in the habit of admitting of ignorance.

/ramble

>> No.3735846

I wonder if there's one atheist that isn't a massive douchebag about it.

>> No.3735852

>>3735846

one clipper's fan

>> No.3735856

I'm sure the /sci/ from the dark ages said the same things about them crazy irrational people claiming the sun is the centre of the universe.

As long as you can't give a specific case of believing, you can barely make an assumption. There are people who believe that something great (humanoid or force) set everything in motion and that thing is god.
There are a few experiments that very very weakly show 'evidence' for telephaty. Who's to say if telepathy isn't just the word that descibes a hightenend sence of awareness (of smell, temp, facial expressions, etc.) on which people can unconsciously predict an outcome?

Alien visitors might just as well refer to bacteria arriving on earth through meteors or even water through comets.
You use thos words in a negative connotation but as long as they aren't reffering to a single case they can be anything.


Believing in somehting not yet explained is what makes science turn. It becomes problematic if you yield those believes as if they are facts without them being proven.

>> No.3735859

Religion is ultimately just a way to make sense of reality.

>> No.3735862

>>3735798
>/sci/ is full of intelligent people

I daresay only 1 or 2 out of 10 posting /sci/ visitors is intelligent.

And I do not count myself amongst those 2 out of 10 so don't even think about it.

>> No.3735866

>>3735859

A piss-poor way, but yes. In the same sense that homeopathy is a method of cancer treatment.

>> No.3735868

>>3735859
Then why all the extraneous rules? It's religion's tendency to not stop at the explanation for the way things work and then on to proscribe certain actions for receiving celestial rewards that fucks it up.

>> No.3735871

knowledge=/=intelligence

>> No.3735873

>>3735868

atheist here

it's called emergence!

But just think about it. Every crackpot disjointed instance of dogma can be traced to a desire to understand or control a very real event, behavior, etc.

The celestial gifts are imagined to given for things you really do or really think, and the things people do and think are important because society is important, and so forth.

>> No.3735875

>> OP
>> ATHEIST Hurr Durr. Matter & Energy can not be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. hurr durr.
What are we made out of?

>> No.3735878

>>3735875

duwotnaow.jpg

>> No.3735890

>>3735712

I don't believe that there is a single person on this entire planet who has an internally consistent worldview. For some people - who may happen to be very intelligent - their inconsistencies just happen to lie with their attitude to superstition and the unfalsifiable. No biggie.

>> No.3735898

>>3735873
That explanation might make sense for some of the rules, sex before marriage seems like a population control thing, which makes some sense (although nowadays just leads to clusterfucks of morality) But some of the rules are just idiotic though? How does wearing clothing of mixed fibers or collecting firewood on Sunday negatively affect society? There are a whole slew of these kinds of rules that are completely superfluous IF religion was meant to be a tool for discovering the way the world worked.

>> No.3735901

>>3735890
Elaborate please.

>> No.3735913

>>3735875

You placed a preposition at the end of a sentence.
Your argument is invalid.

>> No.3735933

>>3735898
>sex before marriage seems like a population control thing
>not at all

>> No.3735959

>>3735901

All people hold beliefs that are not necessarily rational. Some more than others - yes - but I find it very hard to believe that there is someone out there who examines every single one of his/her beliefs with as much rigour as atheists seem to expect from theists' theistic beliefs. Most of the time this probably only happens with small things, as people are probably more inclined to examine only the potentially more significant of their ideas/beliefs in depth, but I don't see why it shouldn't happen with "bigger" issues such as religion.

For example, when I woke up this morning I saw that my housemate's bedroom door was open and that his shoes were not on the shoe rack. I (correctly, as it turns out) assumed the belief that he was not in. Obviously, though, there could have been many other explanations as to why his door was open and shoes were missing, and there is no way that I could realistically claim that my initial belief was totally rational. These littles things are believed ALL THE TIME, as I'm sure you're aware. Is it impossible to believe that some theists simply examine their theistic beliefs with the same rigour that we use to determine little everyday things?

>> No.3735968

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain"

>> No.3735997

>>3735959

I understand what you're saying but there's a case to be made that a skeptical approach to life is beneficial and that superstitious beliefs about tangible, important aspects of reality are detrimental.

*shrug*

Essentially I want more OP-like pics. /sci/ disappoints tonight.

>> No.3736011

Almost all good authors have been aliens, what's your point op?

>> No.3736017

>>3735997

Oh, absolutely; I'm not saying that anyone is "right" to treat their beliefs that way - I was simply suggesting to OP a possible explanation for the prevalence of superstition in the intelligent population. Skepticism wrt everything is the way forward, I believe.

>> No.3736023

didn't read the thread, but i'm pretty sure intelligent people go mad all the time. i mean check out david icke.

that's the best attempt at an explanation i can manage.

>> No.3736037

Perhaps they hate unpleasant atheist more than they hate god.

Because I for one would rather believe that a magic fairy in the sky created everything on a whim than be around mean anti-theists.

Additionally in the end I feel my groups supposed values are better than your groups supposed values.

>> No.3736056

There was a study I read not too long ago that said that highly intelligent people also tended to have bizarre superstitions or rituals. The attempt to rationalise it was the idea that highly intelligent people tend to seek correlation in everyday events, and so they mistakenly believe in correlations that were just coincidences.

That being said, I don't think that's the reason. Some people just feel spiritually inclined regardless of intelligence. It's not such a hard concept.

>> No.3736063

>>3735722

this works both ways :p

i grew up in the church

i became an atheist

then i discovered God, or the idea of God, on my own

God is as real as the totality of the universe and its tendency towards good

>> No.3736067

>>3735742
>>3735733

speaking of the intelligence of atheists

>> No.3736071

>>3735763

the internet is fucking telepathy

we're communicating without making a sound, from thousands of miles away, at near the speed of light

>> No.3736079

>>3735762

the seat of religion is deeper and older than that of science

science and the outer cortex are the youngest parts of the brain

the equivalence is a young child (and most of /sci/ is young) telling an old wise man how much he knows about life

all cultures share some form of religion/divinity

at the end of the day it's just another way of looking at things. the difference is, science restricts itself to the most superficial part of its brain to do so.

as for "miracles" or whatever, and what you can measure, science is constantly changing its mind because the evidentiary record is so incomplete and limited. like trying to look beyond an event horizon, or the last major volcanic activity; evidence of times before are erased

not saying there isn't a proper function for science, (newton, leibniz, oersted, even einstein got along fine with it) but everything in its right place.

>> No.3736086

>>3735868

the rules are for the most part self-organisation

a society consecrating natural law

morals and social ethics generally outline ways societies function stably.

a good counterexample is the way society has developed since getting further away from ethical foundations; more corruption, crime, break up of families, etc.

>> No.3736089

>>3735933

right, it's not for population control, but more for the insistence on stable families; ie. healthy ways to raise children and promote stability

>> No.3736093

>>3736017

finally, skepticism is only one half of the equation

possible less than that.

it is useful in order to make progress, but we must also have self-confidence and a foundation for belief. perpetual doubt is no way to live

>> No.3736108

>>3736079
I'm from the Illuminati Self-Defense Committee and I'm here to tell you to shut the fuck up

>> No.3736110

>>3735846
I personally don't have a problem with religion or that almost everyone I know is religious to some degree.
I was raised as a Catholic and went to church with my parents. In fact, I still go on holidays when relatives are in town. I even went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls when they came this way.

So yeah, I'm fine with religion. Just as long as nobody tries shove it down my throat or convert me. And I don't try to tell them that religion is bullshit.

>> No.3736114

the fabric of reality bent around jesus christ.

~what I was told by an intellectual theist as a last ditch attempt to justify his belief. Well his last attempt was actually just the words "Well I believe it so....."

What a compelling argument.

>> No.3736118

>>3736108

surely you can do better than that. a successful defence is more than a tantrum.

>> No.3736125

>>3735712
there are really intelligent people who believe in
- earth being round
- bacteria
- air being made of particles
- etc

given the fact they are *really* intelligent people (professors, doctors, etc.),
isn't that fascinating that intelligent people can be that blind and stupid?

why?

Popular belief does not mean true belief

>> No.3736129

>>3736114

well keep in mind, again, religions are part of our history, and these ancient texts in many cases are historical documents as much as anything, literally or metaphorically.

i am surprised /sci/ and supposedly serious minded atheists in general don't put forth more humble effort to reconciling ourselves with our past in ways that are inclusive and understanding

>> No.3736172

>>3736129
there was a video that postulated that the noahs flood story was based on true events. apparently, geologists have found evidence that the persian gulf was once several times smaller than it is today, and that there WAS once a great flood that created the persian gulf as we know it today, and that flood inspired the stories of gilgamesh and the biblical flood. wish i could find it. i think it was on nova or some such

>> No.3736199

>>3736129
But the bible is not a historical document. It is a collection of stories and propaganda.

While there are parts which might have basis in historical fact, it doesn't exactly make up for the other 1999 pages of utter, utter hogwash. Saying it does is christian apologia.

>> No.3736211

>>3736199
The Bible is a historical document, but we must remember that historians as we know them today did not exist then. The history of any nation at that time was going to be biased and one-sided.

>> No.3736232

>>it doesn't exactly make up for the other 1999 pages of utter, utter hogwash. Saying it does is christian apologia.

not saying it did. i just think that that is interesting. are you done being edgy now?

>> No.3736238

Intelligence and stupidity don't necessarily exclude each other. However, most of the time they do so these exceptions are rare.

>> No.3736246

>>3735712

Magical thinking is very common. Astrology, homeopathy, feng shui, etc.

>> No.3736250

>>3736232 here

i also think that it is a neat parallel between the "god created man from the dust" story and the scientifc notion of abiogenesis. both are accounts of life from non-life, both recognizing that man quite literally came from the earth. whoever wrote genesis probably realized on a basic level that we are quite literally a descendant of the earth

>> No.3736258

>>3736232
> edgy

who taught you that word

>> No.3736268

>>3736172

yes and many cultures have flood "myths"

and similar moral structures plus shared ideas of divinity

>> No.3736272

>>3736199

you're treating it too superficially

propaganda is not the case

these are books of history yes, and books of parables and wisdom

you've probably never read psalms or ecclesiastes;

open your mind /sci/ you might actually learn something deeper than what your mere instruments can measure

>> No.3736278

>>3736268

not just divinity, but that indeed our presence here is the emanation of something our science cannot measure

this concept is present in the idea that god created man (christian/muslim/judaic) and also in the religions of the east (the relationship of brahman and maya; the tao)

>> No.3736279

>>3736250
You're giving them WAY too much credit.

>>3736272
2/10, almost got me.

>> No.3736294

>>3736279

i'll take that as a no then

protip: before you criticise something it's a good idea to read it first (much less understand it) popular prejudice/mythology notwithstanding

>> No.3736304

>>3736272
except the superior technology is far more accurate than underdeveloped, hindered by evolutionary processes human experiental senses.

i'd incarcerate everyone disbelieving technology as a way to further overall cosmic understanding

not some stupid hedgepile of fairytale books

>> No.3736321

>>3736304

incarcerate eh?

so much for freedom of thought

superior technology? like nuclear weapons

there is such a thing as going too far

>> No.3736325

>>3736321

and tho humanity may survive science, science and modern society may not.

see einstein on ww3 and ww4

>> No.3736337

ITT: angry atheists

>> No.3736348

>>3736089

marriage was to stopthe spread of STD'd

>> No.3736369

>>3736348

there's more to it than that

>> No.3736406

>>3736093

You're right in that living one's entire life doubting absolutely everything makes it very difficult to function normally.. however, this bears no relatio whatsoever to whether or not doubting brings us closer to the truth. Logically, skeptics are going to be closer to reality than those who have faith and undeserved confidence in their beliefs.

>> No.3736414

>>3736199

I'm assuming that you've never actually studied Biblical literature/history? It's alleged historical accounts are closer to what scholars believe to be true history than you appear to think.

>> No.3736424

>>3736406

there is folly on both sides

but without a foundation; without faith, there is nothing

>> No.3736426

>doctors
>really intelligent

>> No.3736477
File: 162 KB, 851x1226, 1267564858819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736294
Wait, you were actually serious? The last line
>open your mind /sci/ you might actually learn something deeper than what your mere instruments can measure
seemed such a cliché that I was sure you're a troll.

But here goes. Yes, I've read the bible. All parts, many times. As I had to since I was registered as lutheran and had to go through confirmation and religious studies at school. What's more, I've debated about it with teachers and clergy from a few denominations. I've been atheist all my life, but only heard the term when I was around 22 years old.

If you keep in mind the historical context of the times that the stories in the bible were written down and then edited several times, you can clearly see how large parts of the bible are there just for reasons of propaganda.

There are also parables and wisdom to be found in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, but you're not seeing me bow down to Ilúvatar either.

A few good points do not legitimize the whole work. Especially when the whole basis of the work is as false and as made just for PR as the bible.

>> No.3736480

>>3736477

the bible wasn't made for PR tho, and you know better

the challenge is to recognise what wisdom there is while rejecting how religion has become corrupted

to acknowledge the fundamental/universal while rejecting the provincial (as often religion is)

i'm not particularly religious myself but recognise it for what it is; it's not a fraud

>> No.3736504

>>3735712
it's more comfortable to believe, when you reach a point of knowledge, where there's only questions left you can't answer with the given parameters. But according to what ppl believe you can guess their level of education. Gods/Believes that are, using the common knowledge, already falsyfied and still believed is mostly found at more uneducated levels of society.
I myself do like the thought of Sumerian believe or any other ancient religion that tries to explain the Big Bang, which is, in my eyes, the last bastion to reveal to definetly make the use of Gods and Religions obsolete!

Plz excuse my english (not been using it for quite a while)

>> No.3736552

Religion gave us jews. Why the fuck are yall complaining again?

>> No.3736558

>>3736480

you're pretty naive, are you not aware of the bible's history, how certain books were decided canon by groups of powerful men? to say they were all guided by the hand of God, or even by pure intent, is hard to believe

>> No.3736562
File: 90 KB, 499x720, 1269296035973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736480
The bible, as it now is, was made EXACTLY for reasons of PR.

Large parts of it were for PR way before the Council of Nicea, but that was the point when it became the most blatant.

And how do you define a fraud? I could present a lot of evidence towards many people who wrote and edited the bible to have known better than to believe what was in it, and to have done so for personal interest and for the interests of their group.

>> No.3736574

>>3736424

Blind faith, you mean. Faith of the kind in good friends, or of day and night, is not based in religious dogma, it's based in experience. A trust in the reliable.

>> No.3736582

>>3736558

the books weren't written for PR tho

that somebody decided later to include one or the other is not the same

>> No.3736591

>>3736558
>>3736562

there are always dissident personae but i believe the central tendency of those organising early christianity did it with pure intentions

you're projecting after the fact (taking what religion has become, in many cases, and using those associations to tarnish the originators)

>> No.3736597

>>3736574

yes, and we also experience the immaterial

>> No.3736611

Have you considered just what is it that makes most of them appear "intelligent"?

The truly intelligent are willing to accept reason and come to conclusions that they might not like or even scare them.

If you can't let go of a belief, when presented with evidence and a good counter argument does not exist, well then.... We should really re-evaluate the "intelligence" of such people.

Is society just confusing "knowledgeable" with "intelligent"?
There's a huge difference.

>> No.3736620

>>3736591
>i believe

You have faith, you mean? oh boy

Here's a newsflash: Corruption has always been around. Religion (or any system in general) didn't start pure and turn from grace or whatever nonsense you think happened. Those men were no closer to God than megachurch preachers.

>> No.3736649
File: 130 KB, 508x650, 1267093097104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736591
>>3736582
No, there is ample evidence, through literary analysis and other means, that the books of Mat, Mark, Luke and John were ORIGINALLY written so they would be good PR.

And so were many of the jewish stories that the old testament is based on.

But don't feel bad, just about every other religions does and has done the same for thousands of years. Christian bible isn't even the first example, other religious texts a thousand years before show the same thing.

And now when people have studied human behavior and books on psychology are easy to get, the newer religions do it even more and in more clever ways.

One of the most ironic things about the bible is that Kent Hovind was actually right about some parts of the bible being later additions.

When even someone like Hovind can spot these discrepancies, you know the thing was badly done.

>> No.3736650

>>3736597

Feelings and emotions are material. But you seem to have missed my point. You can't equate blind faith with a faith in the reliable.

>> No.3736653

>>3735712

If by intelligent you mean people who have more efficient brains or for whatever reason have more "powerful" brains, then, it's simple.

More intelligent people can also be better at being an idiot. It's all "indoctrination". Just as the avergae joe deludes himself about the existence of god and such, the intelligent person will actually delude himself better!

In other words, your "better" brain would have just made you a nazi faster... If you were raised in nazi germany.

>> No.3736673

>>3736620

there is such a thing as belief

and you're completely wrong about how the church started

success curve operates in similar ways in all things

it always starts out pure, on the way down it always ends up corrupted

you've let your cynicism get the better of you

>> No.3736677

>>3736649

sorry, this is bullshit

saying it doesn't make it so

i suppose you'll claim jesus was a fraud too eh?

that whole crucifixion thing was a publicity stunt...

fucking retard

>> No.3736683

>>3736650

feelings and emotions are not material

nor are ethics

there may be material sources, etc. but the immaterial lies in the relationship between cause and effect

the relationship is what is immaterial

>> No.3736684

This has probably already been said, but: Compartmentalization. The brain is pretty good at it. Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is inherent to us, it's almost necessary to function, especially in the modern world. We all have conflicting ideas, and conflicting actions. This isn't excusing anything, we should try to work out contradictions, but it's hard to fight something that is both a product of nurture AND nature.

>> No.3736687

cynicism, especially these days, is the easy way out. join the crowd (bullet in a bible, herp)

>> No.3736698

>>3736677
>saying it doesn't make it so

Why don't you apply that to yourself?

The human brain at work.

>> No.3736709

Fun fact: Existence of aliens, god, angels, and unicorns cannot be proven or disproven. The fact that you're arguing one side or the other is proof of this statement, hence to claim that it's completely obvious that something is or is *not* true on equivocal issues such as this is simply ignorance.

>> No.3736710

>>3736698

it applies to both of us, sure

i happen to be making sense
you don't <shrug>

what about jesus and all the martyrs homey? frauds?

>> No.3736711
File: 1.31 MB, 3543x3543, 1261900445399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736677
No, I'm saying right now that there most probably was no Jesus as presented in the bible.

The literary person of Jesus is an amalgam of several relatively insignificant people, stories, old stories and older stories.

Put bluntly, Jesus was an urban legend of two thousand years ago.

And, as before, there is a lot of evidence to back this comment.

>> No.3736718

>>3736687

This is also the brain at work. Notice how his longing for the good old days mirrors his religious beliefs, AND that he criticizes cynicism while being heavily cynical himself.

Yep.

>> No.3736730

>>3736711

Nice try.


A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[330] Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[17][333][334][335]
Robert E. Van Voorst states that the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted.[336] Walter P. Weaver, among others, states that the denial of Jesus’ existence has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles.[337][334][335]
Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first century Roman historians Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.

>> No.3736740

>>3736718

it's not longing for anything; God never left

so pointing our your cynicism makes me cynical? uhm, nope.

>> No.3736746

>>3736718

plus, as i've already made clear; i'm not particularly religious myself

however, i understand where it's coming from.

you feel threatened by it and so the only way you have of dealing with it is to reject it outright

this is intellectual laziness, at least

>> No.3736751

>>3736710
>i happen to be making sense

Of course you think you make sense to yourself, if you didn't, you would believe something else. You know, you are very easy to read.

>what about jesus and all the martyrs homey? frauds?

Jesus was probably just a guy or guys with some followers, i.e. a cult leader who managed to become a legend, with some previous legends mixed in.

As for martyrs, people die for many things: religions, nations, concepts, and so on. Their commitment is genuine, what they're committed to isn't always.

>> No.3736761

>>3736751

yes, we both think we're making sense; you talk bullshit, you think i talk bullshit

your claim that jesus was an urban legend is not supported by the facts; see the wikipedia entry i cited;

inb4 herp derp wikipedia, it's more than you got.

"jesus was probably" ~conjecture

also, the bible is a record of these martyrs, in many cases, including jesus; so to say "their commitment is genuine, what their committed to is not" is contradictory, as in this case it would be the same thing

>> No.3736768

>>3736650

I disagree, I think... when you say faith in the reliable, are you referring to inductive reasoning? "In the past, x has always happened, and so I believe that x will always happen."?

Faith in the reliable - or inductive reasoning - is still faith, and is still a necessarily illogical process. You could perhaps argue that blind faith is "more illogical" than your kind of faith, but this, really, is less important than the fact that neither is logical, still.

>> No.3736769
File: 145 KB, 1280x902, 1262035661017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736730
>most critical historians
Blatant lie.

>Robert E. Van Voorst
>Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary
Impartial evidence doesn't work like that.

>scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted.
Another blatant lie.

>Walter P. Weaver
Another christian 'scientist'. Not evidence.

If you want evidence, some nice people have luckily collated a good piece in one place.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Common_objections
_to_doubters_of_the_historical_Jesus

If you actually read the article instead of dismissing it as heresy, I congratulate you and might pay some heed to your posts in the future.

>> No.3736770

>>3736730

You can copypaste from Wikipedia but that doesn't provide context. There is a vast difference between a historical Jesus and a biblical Jesus, as in his divinity, which is the foundation of Christianity.

>> No.3736789

>>3736769

>If you want evidence, some nice people have luckily collated a good piece in one place.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Common_objections
_to_doubters_of_the_historical_Jesus

>You can copypaste from Wikipedia but that doesn't provide context

Hahaha

>> No.3736803

>>3736683

You're basically playing a semantics game here. What relevance does your argument have if the immaterial is just based in the material? There's no spirit world or anything involved there.

Furthermore, feelings and emotions ARE material, they come from the brain.

>> No.3736806

>>3736770
>>3736769

well to the second guy, the other guy claimed he was an urban legend; so let's first get at least a few things straight; he existed and he was crucified, as were many of his followers

to the first guy, "rationalwiki" lulz i read the intro on main page, and you criticise some of the wikipedia links for being biased

whatever

the majority of historians (i'm guessing here) and common sense for that matter do not hold your viewpoint

Scholars like E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan have variously argued that the gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are generally deemed to be historically authentic, while the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection, are generally deemed to be inauthentic.

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

>> No.3736817
File: 402 KB, 480x640, 1281739025348.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736789
Different posters, all my posts are with pictures.

Also, as I said:
>If you actually read the article instead of dismissing it as heresy...

I guess it was a vain hope that you would read it. It does offer links to other authors and sources.

>> No.3736821

>>3736803

not at all semantics

quoting another dude from another thread >>>/lit/2078644:

"That we have immaterial concepts proves the existence of things that are not material - for the concepts themselves are not so.

To take another angle. Much of the universes complexity, much of how it functions, much of how we understand it via science, is based on the temporal and spatial relationships between objects. But these relationships are not material - all our coordinates are relative."

>> No.3736829

>>3736768

Blind faith is far more illogical. You can't just ignore the sliding scale, or ignore context, in the foolish hope of trying to equate two completely different sides of a spectrum. That is playing dumb, to put it nicely.

>> No.3736830

>>3736817

for what it's worth, the guy you're responding to here is not the guy you've been arguing with (i don't capitalise)

goes both ways it seems... :)

>> No.3736836

>>3736821

Again, what relevance does that have? You are being intentionally vague.

>> No.3736840

Because intelligence is not an absolute thing. Someone who has an IQ of 145 may not be able to talk to people because they are unsure of what to say.

>> No.3736843

>>3736836

here's another from the same dude:

"No intelligent person, be they scientist or priest, views science and religion as diametrically opposed, even if they don't believe in the latter. Those who see a difference between art and science don't really understand either. If you've ever perused quantum physics you will know that the material world is built on pretty mysterious feet. You don't need to accept any meta-physical notions yourself, especially without proof, but attempting to limit everyone to a materialist epistemology is dogmatic and churlish."

>> No.3736846

>>3736836

ie. there is more to life than materialism

>> No.3736881

>>3736740

I'm referring to your posts in general as being cynical. Also, saying "at least these days" heavily implies nostalgia.

>>3736746

You know, for trying to act like a tolerant guy, you make a lot of generalizations.

Let me be a hypocrite (in generalizing myself) for a second and say that your type are very guilty of this kind of cognitive dissonance.

>>3736761
>so to say "their commitment is genuine, what their committed to is not" is contradictory, as in this case it would be the same thing

It's not the same thing. They believed in things that weren't true, but they had strength in their belief. See the difference?

>> No.3736910

>>3736843

I could honestly just repeat my last reply here, because it hasn't been answered.

The thing about that post is it is intentionally vague, much like you. When context and situations arise, it falls apart. Context can't be ignored on a whim, that just makes your entire philosophy worthless.

>> No.3736911

>>3736881

it is what it is; these are cynical times. the numbers and the culture speaks for itself;

as for the last part, at the very least, some of the things they believed in that were true were that their compatriots were being martyred, as is recorded in the nt.

for you or whoever to claim this as a publicity stunt or jesus as an urban legend strains credibility

you can question religion in other ways but this goes too far; it's disingenuous

>> No.3736932

>>3736910

you haven't raised context or situations. all you're doing is saying, herp i dont' get it

if you think life is all material then fine, you probably won't get it

i'm saying fairly simply there is more to it than that

here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

>> No.3736949

The smartest person in the world is only still a person. No one is infallible.

As an atheist, I would say anti-theism is just as dumb as religion.

>> No.3736969

>>3735712
>implying being a professor or doctor makes you intelligent or proves being so
oh my, maybe in some other universe

>> No.3736970

>>3736911
>it is what it is; these are cynical times. the numbers and the culture speaks for itself;

Do they?

>you can question religion in other ways but this goes too far; it's disingenuous

Are you trying to twist my words around?

Look, if I explained why Nazism is wrong, am I insulting the Nazi soldiers who gave their lives to the cause? Was their commitment somehow less than that of an American soldier? This is in no way a comparison, I'm just saying people have died for false ideas, but had no less commitment.

>> No.3736993

>>3736932

I see my words haven't left an imprint at all, and more generalizations, how nice, as predictable as ever. Believe me, I understand much, what's lacking is yourself.

When you are being as vague as you are, what relevance does any of what you say have? Answer me that. What relevance does your philosophy have? No quotes or Wikipedia, your own thoughts only.

>> No.3737006

>>3736970

to say that jesus was an urban legend, or that the stories in the bible were PR or propaganda is unsupportable; in fact, is propaganda itself

and yah, divorce rates, political disengagement/bitter partisanship, increase in atheism, lack of faith in any order at all (whether the church, the government, corporate leadership, any leadership whatsoever for that matter)

i think it's pretty obvious; then again what is obvious or common sense isn't enough here is it? lulz, oh /sci/

>> No.3737008
File: 261 KB, 600x819, Only_In_Mirrors_by_mckadesinsanity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3736911
Unfortunately for you. Even the historical validity of the NT martyrs is in doubt.

Many of the key figures are said to have been notable people who raised a large hubbub. But the notable historians of the time do not mention them or the hubbub they are said to have raised. Not even about Jesus.

The stories about them were written decades or centuries after the time the events are said to have happened, sometimes thousands of miles from the places. So the NT isn't even an eyewitness report. The most credibility I can give them is as a story that traveled through the broken telephone, over years, with embellishments added by every teller.

If you have read the bible, you can see evidence of this in the bad contradictions between what the different gospels say about Jesus.

The evidence for the historicity of Jesus that the authors quoted earlier point towards is ambiguous at best. Jesus, Joshua or Jeshua as it originally was written, was the John Smith of the day.

If you say you still believe, I'm okay with that. It doesn't matter to me. But don't say that there is evidence for the existence of Jesus when there actually isn't.

If you do, you are being dishonest about your religion and that is not an admirable trait by any morality.

>> No.3737017

>>3736993

number one, you haven't said fuckall

it's more of this "i don't get it"

here's some of my own words from the other thread:
this should help you out, if you're not fully retarded

i think we were debating the immaterial

virtue, or grace, courage, hope, good and evil

any number of concepts that themselves are solely immaterial

---

here, simple question; either you believe in those things or you don't. if you do, you grant the existence of the immaterial

>> No.3737028

Beliefs are formed in childhood, and intelligent person may never be bothered enough to confront the inconsistencies or arbitrarines of beliefs in things like religion.

They could still kick your ass in a challenge of mental problem solving.

>> No.3737049

>>3737008

if you consult the wikipedia links earlier in this thread, you will see there is ample written record of the events in the NT apart from the NT itself.

here's the thing tho; your counter to the existence of these cross-referencing documents is what exactly? self-serving speculation? doubt? sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

also, apart from being of western european extraction, it's not my religion; but i refuse to delegitimise it either.

>> No.3737095
File: 679 KB, 1173x1600, Photos-room_com___Guardienne_by_deevad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737049
I see you are using an underhanded tactic of putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that all the bible is false. Quite the contrary. Several people that are mentioned in the bible are known to have actually lived.

What I said is that the people central to the plot, Jesus, disciples and martyrs are most probably fictional.

The finnish Kalevala also mentions peoples and places that did in fact exist. But do you think that should be taken as evidence that there lived a finnish shaman who slew a pike the size of a large boat and fashioned a magical kantele from it's jawbone? Or perhaps that was just legend, but the world really did spawn from the egg laid down by a species of duck? Or maybe that was just legend, but a finnish smith really did make a cornucopia-machine that fell in the seas and produced so much salt that it alone caused all seawater to be saline?

See, people always add factual information into stories to add credence to the fictional parts.

>> No.3737108

>>3737006
>to say that jesus was an urban legend, or that the stories in the bible were PR or propaganda is unsupportable; in fact, is propaganda itself

It's far from unsupportable. There are conflicting accounts of Jesus even within the Bible. The limited historical accounts give no evidence of his divinity or miracles, and his own divine attributes can be traced to other religions and cultures. He may have existed as a man, a cult leader, as I said, but there is no evidence he was divine. As for the "PR", the Bible was organized by groups of powerful men. True, it would be conjecture to say what influence they had on the final product, but it would be naive to say they had no influence at all.

>and yah, divorce rates, political disengagement/bitter partisanship, increase in atheism, lack of faith in any order at all (whether the church, the government, corporate leadership, any leadership whatsoever for that matter)

None of those are purely or even mostly due to cynicism. Perception is a tricky thing.

>> No.3737118

>>3737095

It's not just about credence, it's also entertainment and the effect of word of mouth.

>> No.3737122

>>3737095

"underhanded tactic" so dramatic...

now you're being insincere

"i never said the bible was false" but "the central people to the plot" were...lulz whatever

so the thees and thous were legitimate but everything else was bullshit?

also, apart from the plot, much of the bible can indeed be read as a metaphor.

you can and should read the new testament as a metaphor as well; it is highly instructive (death and resurrection as the basis for the cyclical nature of time and life) jesus as a representative of western culture, etc.

however, as for the basis for your claim that indeed the events portrayed were fictional, it is not supported, quite the opposite.

again:
Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first century Roman historians Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.[338][339] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus' reference.[340][331] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence_of_Jesus


and the basis for your claim to the opposite is what exactly?

>> No.3737135

>>3737108

see:
>>3737122

the question isn't his divinity at this point, but his mere existence! and crucifixion

the issue of his divinity can be viewed as a metaphor, just as it can be viewed as a metaphor for us all, but that wasn't the point here.

as for cynicism, you can call it what you will. some feminists claim divorce is a tool of liberation as well, but i call bullshit, and their children know better.

>> No.3737205

>>3737017

Not once have I said I don't get it. I understand exactly. What I want to hear from you is how exactly your philosophy is relevant or applicable, which you have repeatedly failed to answer. You have used your vagueness as a crutch, perhaps because you don't have specifics.

>here, simple question; either you believe in those things or you don't. if you do, you grant the existence of the immaterial

You're being fallacious. Accepting the existence of some "immaterial" concepts is not accepting of all, just like with the material; accepting the existence of a jellyfish is not accepting the existence of creatures like unicorns. It's not all or nothing.

Furthermore, each of those concepts can be linked to the material. They are ideas. The soul is an idea, but it isn't attributable to anything in the material. It is an age-old explanation of the source of our consciousness, one that is now outdated due to neuroscience. The soul now can only be a fictional representation of physical workings.

>> No.3737227
File: 573 KB, 1015x1600, Photos-room_com___Syllia_by_dianae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737122
Unfortunately, Josephus wrote his pieces in 90CE. Well after the fact, and there are a lot of problems with using Josephus' text as evidence.
And since my fingers are hurting from work, you can read them here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Josephus_Flavius

And Tacitus is on even more shaky ground, as can be read here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Tacitus

Again, these can be confirmed from other sources, so you don't have to just tkae my word or the word of the wiki authors for it.

>> No.3737235

>>3737135

Most practicing Christians don't view Christ's divinity as a metaphor, it's literal. So would they be wrong from your view or not?

>> No.3737246

>>3737205

you were doing fine until "one that is now outdated due to neuroscience. The soul now can only be a fictional representation of physical workings."

i don't think science has rendered courage, faith, hope, concepts of good and evil, love, etc. as "outdated" or "fictional"

this is precisely where we disagree

>> No.3737257

>>3737227

what evidence there is in the written record you question, but offer no convincing alternative

yah, this is like 2000 years old, and there are minor discrepancies here and there, but something is better than nothing;

i suppose you don't believe there was ever a great flood either, but maybe i shouldn't even go there....

>> No.3737261

>>3737246

Are you not paying attention or what?

See:
>each of those concepts can be linked to the material. They are ideas. The soul is an idea, but it isn't attributable to anything in the material

>> No.3737267

>>3737235

it could be said that christ was the first to be aware of his divinity, as such. that is one explanation

another is that 2000 years ago man had a more primal connection to (god) the collective unconscious, which, in some men manifests more greatly than in others. it is hardly controversial to say that some men are exceptional, and perhaps he had an exceptional connection to the divine.

there could be more to it than that (i'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt) <shrug>

the lord works in mysterious ways

>> No.3737269

>>3737257

Why would he need to offer an alternative?

>> No.3737281

>>3737261

yes of course they are linked to the material; there is no absolute separation; and you could say the opposite as well; the material is linked to the spiritual, or the immaterial

in an absolute sense (nevermind courage, love, hope, etc.) this concept is present in many different cultures/religions, not just christianity

see the Tao, or the concept of Qi, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

>> No.3737284

>>3737269

well because he's casting aspersions

and if you don't have a good reason for it or evidence to the contrary, then it is by definition baseless.

>> No.3737296
File: 541 KB, 999x1600, Photos-room_com___Blue_Pearl_by_evniki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737257
If you imply that there was a global flood, then you really are either trolling or you lied about not being very religious.

If that is so, I regret the time I wasted on this thread.

>> No.3737297

>>3737267

None of those explanations have any basis, or even answer my question. I don't think you have given me one straight answer in this entire thread.

>> No.3737320

>>3737296

i am not very religious

either way, a flood is a natural event, and catastrophes happen from time to time

try to keep an open mind

>> No.3737322

>>3737281

You know what? I'm done. You're intentionally vague, you twist words around, your arguments have no basis, you avoid questions, and I'm not even sure what your point is anymore or if you even had one in the first place. You're too much of a hassle, and that's not something to be proud of by any stretch.

>> No.3737331

>>3737297

i think they do try to answer your question, but to be honest when we're talking about things like the history of divinity none of us is an authority

i wasn't around 2000 years ago, neither were you

and, if you can't consider divinity as its own type of metaphor then perhaps that is the reason for your confusion

>> No.3737334

>>3737320

You can keep an open mind without sacrificing critical thinking, they aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe someday you'll realize this. Good day.

>> No.3737335

>>3737322

i'm not vague. you may think so because your beloved science is unable to measure love, among other things.

>> No.3737339

>>3737334

no, they aren't mutually exclusive

however, you're the one excluding here, not me

i think science is consistent with immaterial considerations, concepts of divinity, etc.

you're taking the opposite position

lrn2take your own advice

>> No.3737365
File: 448 KB, 598x1194, Lya_by_eskarina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737320
Okay, you are not being very honest. I ask whether you think a global flood occurred, which is a physical impossibility. You say "catastrophes happen" which would seem to imply that you do believe in a global flood.

Everything I have said in this thread is historically accurate and verifiable from multiple sources.

Unless you have some compelling evidence that was not covered in the rationalwiki article, this discussion has ended.

I believe I have conducted it with civility and honesty, but you have been using arguments that were already covered and disproved or attacking my persona. both of which I do not think speak too well of you.

Good day.

>> No.3737380
File: 206 KB, 750x1146, bird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737365

"a physical impossibility"? orly?

this sounds like type of statement you made concerning the historicity of jesus and his crucifixion.

you have provided 0 evidence, only self-justifying speculation

(herp, there was no flood because it's physically impossible derp, and if there were a flood that would give credence to ancient mythos; therefore there was no flood - also it's physically impossible)

lulz, water also works in mysterious ways. I live 2000 miles from the cost and at one point in time this region was under the sea.

that's science. the evidence for christ is history.

next time, come prepared

>> No.3737434
File: 81 KB, 550x642, ODD19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737380
Like I said, you are dishonest and attack my character.
You are not a nice person and I am glad I have no other connection to you than through this board.

And now you used an argument that is the most false of all.

You truly think a global flood is possible. The physical impossibility of a global flood is of such order that only creationists still believe in it.

Even the whole rest of the christendom has concluded that the story of the deluge is based on old stories of large local floods.

>derp

>> No.3737449

>>3737365
you mean the global flood that is in absolutely every ancient people's history books?

that global flood?

yeah, that happened. made quite an impact, too. maybe you've seen sedimentary rock? you know what that is? it's hardened mud, dried in layers.

as in, what you would expect to find after a global flood. errywhere.

>> No.3737464

>>3737227
so, you're calling the ancient Roman historians liars? or incompetents?

because you don't like the fact that they corroborate the biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth?

and you're the open minded one?

LOL

>> No.3737469

>>3737434

i'm not dishonest in the least; i have no reason to be

and i am nice; but this is a debate not kumbaya


as for the impossibility of a flood; consider for 1 second the proportion of the earth's population that lives near the coast. billions of people

if even the poles were to melt, the result would be devastating. but i'm only getting started

there is more than one way to flood the place.

*displacement*

say, a volcano erupts in the mid pacific, i dunno, say on or near hawaii (it could be anywhere in the deep ocean)

say, unlikely that it is, that a comet strikes, precipitating a massive eruption. that water has to go somewhere

granted new land will be formed eventually, but in the meantime all of present civilisation will be fucked.

implausible? yes
impossible? hardly

every now and then a comet comes

>> No.3737480

>>3737434
you truly are the daughter of the father of lies, and truly deserve your fate therefrom

>> No.3737509
File: 467 KB, 731x1000, Photos-room_com___Nika_by_raynkazuya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737449
>ignorant or troll

>>3737464
>didn't read the links explaining the why of it

>>3737469
>ignorant

Yes. This discussion is at an end until you research the provided material and can come up with something more impressive than what you are resorting to now.

>> No.3737525
File: 96 KB, 1024x768, cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3737509

for the record, i'm 69; the other two are someone else

as for your response "ignorant"; that is appropriate, because it is exactly what you're doing

i gave a possible scenario for a global flood

you failed to refute it.

ignorance.

>> No.3737582

>>3737469
>>3737509
>>3737525

Scientists theorize that the K–T extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events, such as massive asteroid impact(s) (like the Chicxulub impact[8]), or increased volcanic activity. Several impact craters and massive volcanic activity, such as that in the Deccan traps, have been dated to the approximate time of the extinction event. These geological events may have reduced sunlight and hindered photosynthesis, leading to a massive disruption in Earth's ecology. Many researchers believe the extinction was more gradual, resulting from a combination of the events above and others including sea level and climate changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event

>> No.3737610

>>3735712

Any more of that chick?

>> No.3737615

>>3737610
>Freckles everywhere
>Not ginger

Nope.

>> No.3737637

even a massive tsunami caused by an asteroid or comet strike in the deep ocean would qualify

that is, even if the waters receded, there would be no coming back from it, as far as cities/civilisation is concerned

it is possible, it likely happened before, and in time it will likely happen again