[ 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: 12 KB, 503x254, 224.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3904738 No.3904738 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.3904740 [DELETED] 

>mfw there was an atheist near me today
>he was saying that denying things because of lack of evidence was scientific
>we all laughed and stoned him to death

>> No.3904741 [DELETED] 

>>3904740
>mfw Anon lives in Iran

>> No.3904745

Where are you faces?!!

>> No.3904769

>Agnosticism: because we're too counterculture to be athiest

>> No.3904781
File: 116 KB, 498x498, sam harris atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3904781

As creatures of limited knowledge and cognitive capacity, just to function in the world requires us to make numerous rational assumptions. The fact that you have managed to keep yourself alive to this day, and out of an institution, proves the fact that you too, have a tendency to apply the most rational assumption to almost every aspect of your existence.

Atheists don't deny the theoretical possibility of a creator (anything is ultimately possible), rather they choose to only ACT on the more rational assumption on questions of the supernatural: i.e not to let any of the different, contradictory and unknowable theoretical possibilities of evil vengeful gods ever affect the living of their day to day lives.

>> No.3904791
File: 56 KB, 568x648, Ath.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3904791

An always useful reminder...

>> No.3904794

>>3904769

stupid fag:because this guy is to stupid to google and find out that agnosticism is also called "weak atheism"

>> No.3904798

>>3904781
>>of evil vengeful gods ever affect the living of their day to day lives.

You seem to have a rather strict definition of God.

>> No.3904809

>>3904794
Maybe.
But that's not the common term used.
The whole "agnostics are really atheists" is just a piece of convenient rethoric to convince people the world is either black or white.
>>3904781
Oh Sammy, what a load of shit. There are no terms to define disbelief in these things because they are not as common and pervasive as the theism/atheism debate.

>> No.3904810

>>3904769
When you are older you will understand that not everything is about cultivating an identity.

>> No.3904816

>>3904791
Cute.
I'll use the "anemic" thing the next time someone goes on a semantic rant.

>> No.3904885

>>3904781
This is a good response.

Basically, you wouldn't withhold judgement towards the existence of fairies or pink invisible unicorns, so why god? I've never even heard an agnostic's response to this analogy. Even if you're not an agnostic, can anyone tell me what the most common response is?

>> No.3904890

>>3904781
I want to marry sam harris now.

>> No.3904894

I like Ignosticism: There is no point in discussing a hypothetical entity that is not well-defined.

But that sort of upsets the fence-sitting and feeling of superiority agnostics get.

>> No.3904898

>>3904738
We atheists agree with that position, with some caveats. Gods exist on a sliding scale from deist to full on miracle theist. The closer it is to a deist god, the more unknowable he is, and the more interacting it is, the more testable it is. I am fully militant agnostic about deist gods - I don't know and you don't know either. I am fully militant atheist about the literal, "naive" intervening gods - there is no such god.

In other words, I am the common atheist. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Sagan and every other atheist (whether they want to call themselves that or not) holds roughly this view.

>> No.3904904
File: 51 KB, 461x392, therefor aliens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3904904

>>3904798

>You seem to have a rather strict definition of God.

If a god is not evil or vengeful, then they will not punish you living a virtuous yet atheistic life. With genuinely good gods, you no longer have FEAR, which is the emotion most capable of over-riding reason in people's brains.
Genuinely good gods don't bring out people's natural obsessive-compulsive tendencies, nor do they inspire evil in their name. I'd be surprised if any of the suffering in the world caused by religion/spirituality is due to ideas about a genuinely good god.

The problem with an irrational belief in a genuinely good god however, is that it's the thin end of a wedge: allowing the entire door to irrationality to be kept open. Without the principle of reason (which you lose when you dispose of it even in one small area), your mind is left completely defencless and the sort of superstitious/obessive-compulsive thoughts/behaviour which are the cause of so much suffering in the world are given a chance to spread. With this understanding, if you are a truly virtuous person you will not allow your mind to play host to deliberate irrationalism.

>> No.3904909

>>3904885
>Even if you're not an agnostic, can anyone tell me what the most common response is?
The response is that the agnostics use the strawman of the deist god, a near perfectly untestable god. For that kind of god, the only correct and acceptable answer is "I don't know". However, that is /not/ the kind of god that nearly all religious people believe in.

Next, they'll pull shit like "Yo, what if god was messing with physics / your mind so that even if he was interfering, then it wouldn't be testable?". The reply is that if he's interfering in a non-testabe way, then he might as well be the deist god, his existence is irrelevant, and his existence is unknowable. Only factual claims which are testable are knowable.

>> No.3904928
File: 34 KB, 500x429, atheist_chart.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3904928

obligatory

>> No.3904931

>>3904928
>posts bullshit
Yep. Go ahead and think that those definitions are obvious and agreed upon.

>> No.3904932

>>3904904
the idea of a god that doesn't give a flaming fuck about us never crossed your mind uh?

>> No.3904936

fuckin agnostics mang they're litterally the worst

>> No.3904941

>>3904928
see
>>3904791

>> No.3904942

>trying to fit your views under an -ism
>desperately wanting to be part of a group

>> No.3904966 [DELETED] 

>mfw i get banned for starting a drug thread but religion/atheism threads pop on a daily occurrence without consequence

yah i know, no face

>> No.3904979

>>3904932

My post is about why it is morally wrong to deliberately hold irrational beliefs. That covers all sorts of gods. You might be surprised at how many different things have crossed my mind.

>> No.3905016

>>3904928

/thread

anyone below the X axis is delusional

>> No.3905028

>>3905016
but anyone above it is weak!

>> No.3905060

>>3905028
no, this whole thing is bullshit.
The chart says anyone below the line is strong in their conviction, and anyone above is weak in their conviction.

This is only an observation someone made, though, and a wrong one at that. Agnosticism is the belief that God is unknowable, and I've seen a lot of strong agnostics on here.

>>3904781
doesn't realize he/she is agnostic atheist.

>> No.3905069
File: 118 KB, 547x441, 1317599452787.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905069

I wait for the day when atheist moms will pressure the school into removing harry potter from the library because it encourages magical thinking.

>> No.3905073

How do you guys define "knowledge"? Especially in relation to the words "belief" and "faith"?

>> No.3905080

>>3905069
I wish people cared enough about science that anyone ever considered it from that perspective.

>> No.3905090

>>3905060

If you don't acknowledge that it's impossible to know for certain whether a god exists or not then you are retarded. For that reason, the term agnostic is largely redundant. Just because you admit you do not know for certain does not mean that there is an equal probability of both sides being correct.

There has never been any legitimate evidence which supports the existence of a god, and therefore I don't believe there is one. But I don't KNOW that there isn't one. This is the view held by the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists.

>> No.3905097

>>3905090
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

>> No.3905100
File: 75 KB, 677x738, 4chan sci, full of JUSTICE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905100

Gods, christian ones included, are physically impossible and logically impossible.

So allowing for their existence is a cultural thing, which isn't scientific.

Thus, religions don't belong in /sci/ and neither does talking about agnosticism.

Instead, it shows a flaw in the personality of anyone who begins these threads.

>> No.3905105

>>3905090
Also, that is indeed saying that most atheists are agnostic atheists.
Many theists are also agnostic theists.

>> No.3905122

>>3905090
Maybe.
But this is not what the dictionary says.

>> No.3905123

>>3905105

It is not unreasonable to think that a far greater percentage of atheists are agnostic than theists are. Most religions forcefully tell believers than if they don't believe 100% then they will go to hell. Organized religion breeds gnositicism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief.

>> No.3905124

>>3905090
and just to be clear, the same holds true of all fictional characters ever. OP is agnostic in his belief in spider-man.

>> No.3905134

>>3905123
No.
only christianity and Islam.
Judaism has no hell, zoroastrism judgement was based on actions.

>> No.3905136

>>3905122

Can you show me where the dictionary differs?

>> No.3905139

I'm thinking of starting to reportbomb these threads with the explicit goal of getting /sci/ deleted.

Because you fucks are just too fucking stupid.

>> No.3905149

>>3905136
An atheist is someone who"denies the existence of one or more gods".
Feel free to check any dictionary you want, then come back and tell me.

>> No.3905150

>>3905123
You'll find that in a lot of religions many followers aren't strict adherents to what their "spiritual superiors" or whatever preach.

>> No.3905151

>>3905134

That is largely irrelevent. Firstly, most theists are either Christian or Muslim. Secondly, it doesn't matter if a religion teaches that there is a hell or not, most still tell their believers that non belief is one of the greatest sins. Organized religion is opposed to questioning.

>> No.3905154

>>3905139
You're right, arguing about definitions belongs on /lit/.

>> No.3905157

>>3905134
Oh, and tibetan buddhism.

>> No.3905162

>>3905149

And? Denying the existance of a god or gods is not the same as saying that those gods DEFFINATELY do not exist.

>> No.3905165

>>3905149
That's probably everyone.

>> No.3905166

>>3905149

>> Anonymous 10/15/11(Sat)08:04 No.3905149

>>3905136
An atheist is someone who"denies the existence of one or more gods".
Feel free to check any dictionary you want, then come back and tell me.

Okay. That means christians, jews, muslims, hindus, sikhs and most religious communities I can think of are atheistic, because they all think the gods of other religious communities are false.

Only way not to be atheist, then, is to believe in literally anything.

>> No.3905175

>>3905162
Yes, it is.
Denying the existence of something means saying "no, this doesn't exist."
That's saying "no, this definitely doesn't exist"

>> No.3905191

>>3905175

Do you deny the existance of unicorns, or leprechauns? Do you have proof that they don't exist?

This is largely boiling down to an argument of semantics, especially since internet dictionary's may not have precise definitions of words like agnosticism and atheism.

>> No.3905193
File: 154 KB, 616x462, 1317599245495.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905193

>>3905166
Check the dictionary sweety pie.
Is it so fucking hard to do?

"a disbelief in the existence of deity"
merriam-webster

"disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity"
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

>> No.3905195

>>3905139
And why don't you just stop coming? Note the flood of shit that washed through several boards after /new/ was taken down; do you really want /sci/ to be canned, if you hate its posters so much?

>> No.3905198

i'm an atheist because i don't believe in miracles and gods from religions that have been made up throughout human history

i don't believe in intelligent design. which is what all religions say the world was created by. therefore i am an atheist

and you're a fucking idiot if you're not one too.

>> No.3905201

>>3905175

Or it could mean you're just taking the rational assumption that it doesn't exist.
See >>3904781

People don't normally specify that their reasoning is based on rational assumptions, because you can't really reason without rational assumptions.

>> No.3905217

>>3905195
No, I want the posters of /sci/ to learn an important life lesson about the consequences of
a) willful ignorance.
b) ignoring rules that have been stated time and again as being bannable offenses.

>> No.3905224

>>3905198
How edgy!
We are not talking about any religious god or about intelligent design kid.

>> No.3905225

>>3905217
>Life lessons
>From 4chan
And you call them fucking stupid.

>> No.3905233

ACT only that yourself a tendeny the most ever their day, just the make not to only to keep yourself anythis ultimately possibilitive moretical assumptional institution, proves. The most evil vengeful gods every any of the different, cognities to on to the fact of anythis day to make numerous rathe fact they choose that your existendeny of almost to aliving is don't deny of theoretical assumptions.

>> No.3905243

>>3905224

then what are you talking about?

>> No.3905258

>>3905243
See namefag, the concept of "god" is a little bit less defined than you seem to think.

>> No.3905261

>>3905225
>fucking stupid
Yes, that's why they need this lesson so badly.

>> No.3905273

>>3904885
just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can’t prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about, but that doesn’t mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.

>> No.3905274

>>3905261
Let me reiterate that:
>Getting a life lesson
>From fucking 4chan
>4chan gives people life lessons
>Life lesson
>4chan

Do you honestly believe that if /sci/ goes the way of /new/, people will walk away from the debacle with some newfound sense of humility or justice? Then you are the biggest fool in this thread.

>> No.3905285

: implying religion wasn't an ancient illuminati tool that still works on dumbasses today

>> No.3905293

>>3905285
Can't say if troll.
Can't see how it is related.
Also, I'll have to repeat myself: we are not really talking about religion here.

>> No.3905299

Christ, I actually wish the illuminati really existed.
<but the fact this world is so messed up is a good enough proof they don't.

>> No.3905319
File: 138 KB, 1280x1024, snorks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905319

>>3905274
Life lessons can be got from anywhere, especially when people have some emotional stake in it like /sci/.

I'm not saying every newly boardless person will go "I now see the error of my ways and swear that I will never again act like a total fucking idiot!".

But a few people might realize that constantly posting in bannable threads is really fucking stupid, especially while the legitimate threads go unnoticed.

>> No.3905326

>>3905299
Maybe they do and Bob Page is just winning out.

>> No.3905332

TL:DR whole thread

ALL non retarded atheists are theists in the literal sense and only atheist in the day to day sense

>> No.3905334

>>3905332
im drunk meant agnostic, absolutely no idea why i wrote theist

>> No.3905337

>>3905332
Bullshit.
I can actively deny the moon landing being fake but I can't have absolute certainty it is't.

>> No.3905338

>>3905319
Riddle me this: Do you think that anyone who has significant emotional investments in /science and math/, and not /religion and philosophy/, would continue to post in these threads? And do you think that the people who post in these threads don't already know that trying to convince the other person is a useless endeavor?

>> No.3905351

>>3905338
The thing is, I really don't much care anymore.

/sci/ has shown that people in 4chan are incapable of staying off troll threads no matter how many times m00t and mods have shown that religion doesn't belong here.

Thus, /sci/ has shown itself to be nonviable, not fit to survive.

>> No.3905359 [DELETED] 
File: 118 KB, 645x773, 1317052293956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905359

>>3905319
>that feel when someone uses your OC/reaction image
thanks stalkerbro

>> No.3905365

>>3905337
just like your can't prove goblins/santa etc isn't real but day to day its easer to assume it is proven

>> No.3905367

>>3905351
The answer is either make /rel/, or to leave /sci/ as a retaining wall like /b/ is. Or would you recommend that /b/ is next on the chopping block?

>> No.3905368

>>3905351
everybody knows its a troll, its just good practice for IRL

>> No.3905402

>>3905367
No, /b/ is important because it's the gutter where shit flows.

Unfortunately the gutter has become so full that some of the shit splashes on other boards.

>>3905368
If you like these troll threads, then petition m00t to change this to "/sci/ - Religiontrolling".

>>3905359
Thanks for the awesome reaction image, Stalker-bro.

>> No.3905405

>Be an agnostic roman catholic

Such is life under the pope.

>> No.3905410

>>3905402
>Gutter
Exactly. If Moot just deletes /sci/, the shit that we have here won't magically vanish.

>> No.3905457

>>3905402
2nd point, just chill if you don't like a thread don't participate simlpe

>> No.3905470

Apathetic Agnosticism:
Because some of us are smart enough to simply not care

>> No.3905481
File: 478 KB, 1000x1160, 1309952214447.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905481

OP clearly doesn't understand what 'agnostic' means.

>Pic very related

>> No.3905483

>>3905470
Atheism because some of us are smart enough to not be politically correct

>> No.3905490

>>3905481

person who made that picture clearly has no idea what "gnostic" means

>> No.3905491
File: 55 KB, 600x296, 1316906856949.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905491

Atheism is not just a lack of belief like indoctrinated athiests brainwashed by dawkins and hitchens spew.

Atheists don't believe in God.
Agnostics don't believe in God for the same reason Atheists don't believe in God. The only difference is that Agnostics don't turn off the light, the leave a dim glim of hope to their heart.

Atheists are not only arrogant but ignorant in the fact that they believe something doesn't exist when the evidence for non existence is even less then the existence of a God.

Atheists lack logic, driven by emotion.
Find it in your heart Atheists, you know this to be true.

>> No.3905492

>>3905483
>don't care
>"Oh you political correctness whore! Take a stand you faggot!"

Yeah... no...
Whatever man.
I don't give a fuck

>> No.3905505

>>3905491
Arrogance + Ignorance is the worst combination in the world. Lord have mercy

>> No.3905507

>>3905491
ever smart atheist admits agnosticism in the literal sense even dawkins if you read his books but they just use theism in the day to day sense just as you don't use an agnostic view towards santa day to day every though he is just as improvable as god

>> No.3905514

>>3905492
THIS>>3905507

>> No.3905518

>>3905483
u so edgy

>> No.3905521
File: 30 KB, 306x425, 1306682863505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905521

>>3905491
Arrogant because don't believe in chimeras as well.

>> No.3905526

>>3905518
ALL OF MY RAGE because it is religion and it is very common that it receives protection, all agnostics should be just as agnostic about god as they should about santa, the flying spagetti monster etc etc any fucking thing i could think of in the history of the universe

>> No.3905533

>>3905518
also only *fixed* the sentance because of prior statement

>> No.3905541 [DELETED] 

>>3905507
I wouldn't say you can compare that to santa
Santa lives on the north pole.
You can go there
You can check it.
"Oh he is not here... welp... so much for that"

The same doesn't work for some kind of (semi-) intelligent universe creation

what if a huge fat nigger shits out the universe recursively?

unprovable
yet possible

it's the best to simply not care

>> No.3905546

>>3905541
however a universe that at certain times broke the laws of physics would be detectable, and evey miracle is a *suspension* of the laws of physics

>> No.3905549 [DELETED] 
File: 70 KB, 387x386, sagan_uc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905549

>>3905490
>what if a huge fat nigger shits out the universe recursively?

>> No.3905548

>>3905481
Oh look, another gridfag! There are several reasons why it is probably unwise to use those definitions:

1. The majority of people will have no idea what you are talking about as "agnosticism" is, in the real world, usually assumed to mean what you would call "agnostic atheism". Generally, a word means whatever people believe that it means- if it didn't, then language would have failed entirely as a construct.
2. It causes confusion: gnostics (followers of gnosticism) are follows of the Abrahamic religions who believe in particular doctrine. By introducing a word that already means something else in exactly the same subject area, you are causing a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
3. Some people don't actually fit into either of those categories: it is possible not to know (i.e. be agnostic toward) a question. If someone doesn't believe that there is a god - but also doesn't believe that there is no god - they can't really be called a theist or an atheist. Of course, you'll probably get around this by popularising another rather rare definition of atheism i.e. lack of belief in a deity; not the conventional definition of the belief that there is no deity. Please read 1 again, if that is the case.

>> No.3905553

>>3905546
>[citation needed]

Dawkinsfag detected.

>> No.3905562

>>3905483
>Politically Correct
>Smart

Oh the irony

>> No.3905574 [DELETED] 

>>3905546
I didn't know we were talking about miracles and the content of religious writings

That stuff cant be taken literally.

I was rather talking about a "living" being that somehow, maybe not even consciously, blows its load out into the nothingness of nothing (or undefineable) and thus starts the process of universal creation

That has not so much to do with the stuff some confused sand niggers wrote down a couple of hundred years ago.

>> No.3905571

>>3905507
When all atheists have to defend their belief is strawman, you know they lack basic critical thinking skills.

God, an eternal supernatural being created the universe. The universe was created. God is eternal. Remeber that.

>> No.3905580

>>3905546
the laws of physics aren't even concrete.

Or do you still think they are?

>> No.3905581

>>3905571
infinite regression what procces created 'god' a being so complicated that it was able to just make the universe apear

>> No.3905588

>>3905580
no evidence to suggest otherewise post big bang, eg. all of human history, so for practical purposes they are

>> No.3905598

>>3905588
This is /sci/. Please tell me you aren't this stupid.

>> No.3905609

>>3905598
please let me know when you have seen the laws of physics broken, eg water turning into wine etc biblical styale miracles where the laws of thermodynamics are broken

>> No.3905612
File: 83 KB, 460x369, stoma.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905612

>>3905410
Yes, but other boards have active mods, so while the shit will spread, it will also soon evaporate.

>>3905457
There are a lot of threads I don't like and don't participate in, but these threads are against the board rules. And for good reason.

The good reason being that religion isn't science, nor is it related to mathematics.

>> No.3905621

>>3905612
i agree completely however it is a current issue in the general public that has many misconceptions surrounding it, and since when was science not aiming to eliminated misconceptions

>> No.3905626

>>3905581
God is eternal.

Do I even have to define what eternal means?
Eternal is something the human mind can't grasp. Don't beat yourself up.

>> No.3905633

>>3905581
no one believe infinite regress. that's just another fairy tale used to explain the unexplainable.

>> No.3905638

>>3905626
infintie is something the human mind can't graps just like the size of atoms or the scope of the universe this is because our brains evolved to cope with mid range measurements.
stating a sentance does not prove it. if we accepted that some things are just unknowable then where would we have come from the renaisence *cbf spelling*

>> No.3905641

>>3905588
>no evidence to suggest otherewise post big bang

So you are aware of it and choose to ignore it. makes sense. anything that says otherwise could be detrimental to your beliefs .

>> No.3905645

>>3905633
so you believe tht something so complicated that it knows the positions and motions of every fundimental particle and atom in the universe was just always there. i have no pity towards your future in life

>> No.3905646

>>3905609
Miracles can't be explained by Science.

Hence Jesus turning water into wine.

tl;dr - Science can't account for miracles. Which is why Jesus is who he said he was.

>> No.3905662

>>3905638
Science will never have all the concrete answers.
Which is why abiogenesis, big bang, evolution, etc etc exist. Hypothesis and theories with no scientific empirical evidence to back them up. Deductive reasoning, something Science shunned centuries ago is now accepted because these are simply things science will never truly answer definitively.

>> No.3905668

>>3905646
ALL HOPE in humaity is lost, oh someone told a story of somebody doing somthing that is unsubstatiated to the same level as stories of zeus and the fucking rainbow serpent, oh it must be true because somebody wrote it. they had fiction writers back then they were called priests

>> No.3905679

>>3905645
to believe that god was created only spews ignorance. god is eternal. something that is eternal cannot be created.

>> No.3905680
File: 98 KB, 356x337, 1313795869001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905680

>>3905646
In times where earthquakes were the rage of God.

>> No.3905688

>>3905662
excuse me, did you just infer that a theory is something with no empirical evidence
L2science
a theory is the best explanation given that fits with all current exidence gathered at the present

>> No.3905690
File: 338 KB, 1227x1187, 1312649355698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905690

>>3905621
Jersey Shore, Katie Price, Jobs' death, Michael Jackson's death and (insert 500 inane topics here) are also current issues in the general public that have many misconceptions surrounding them.

This board is about science.
The board rules say "No religion-threads".
If you want to talk about current issues in the general public that have many misconceptions surrounding them, I suggest doing so in /soc/, /fa/, /fit/, /n/, /k/, /int/, /b/, /c/, /s/ or even /x/.

If the current issue in the general public that has many misconceptions surrounding it happens to be about science, then go the fuck ahead and make a thread.

The most related boards to the topic of religion would be >>>/x/ or >>>/b/. So I suggest simply moving these threads into one of those places.

>> No.3905696

>>3905680
source

>> No.3905697

>>3905679
i went to a fundametalism christian school i know when to give up and let you live your life according to falwed reasonging

>> No.3905708

>>3905690
the best discussion happens on sci due to the least religious lurkers, and if mods wish to ban me go right ahead i'm got exams coming up

>> No.3905710

>>3905646
But how could Jesus do miracles since he didn't even exist?

Most miracles you see are magic tricks.

>> No.3905715

>>3905668
if all you have to defend yourself are strawman, you've already lost. you lack intelligence to form an argument using logic. I noticed you never denied Jesus' miracles. Because you can't. Either Jesus was a liar, or he told the truth.

Maybe instead of judging a book by it's cover, realize what he said. Strawman don't make the Truth false. Something you need to understand. The Truth is the Truth

>> No.3905720

>>3905710
major poster in this thread here, i'm an atheist, and i think its likely that jesus did exists just that all myths about him were written postumasly and are the same as any fable

also my captcha had velociraptor *instant better day*

>> No.3905722

>>3905697
adhom everywhere.
ggs

>> No.3905734

>>3905710
>since he didn't even exist?

welp, 12 year old confirmed.

>> No.3905738

>>3905715
or he was never alive at all when a single word of the new testament was written, for example in the gospels when it said that herod had a census and that everybody had to return to their home town this never happened, the romans kept excelent records, there was never a census at this time and never in roman hitory was anyone required to return to the town of their ancestors, eg the bethlehem and jesuses birth stories were made up by medieval priests so that they would fit the prophecies of the old testament. oh how goo hindsight is as a writting tool

>> No.3905745

>>3905722
when have i used ad hominem arguments?

>> No.3905765

>>3905722
also he was most likely trolling

>> No.3905766

>>3905720
No, most recent evidence points to the biblical Jesus being based on the life of some jewish resistance idols (Yeshua[Jesus] having been a common name in those times) which was embellished during the century that elapsed before the jesus-parts of the bible were written.

Jesus is said to have been an extremely pivotal person but there's nary a mention of him in the histories written at the time. The only direct evidence that is often brought up in these discussions is a stone urn with a text saying it holds the ashes of James, Jesus' brother.

But like I said, that's not really strong evidence. All it proves is that there lived a guy named Yeshua(of which there were hundreds of) whose brother was named James(also hundreds of them).

If my neighbors were named Bill and Monica, that would not be evidence that Bill Clinton and Monica Of The Stained Dress are now living together.

>> No.3905782

>>3905738
>or he was never alive at all when a single word of the new testament was written
Actually he was risen. lrn2bible

>for example in the gospels when it said that herod had a census and that everybody had to return to their home town this never happened, the romans kept excelent records, there was never a census at this time and never in roman hitory was anyone required to return to the town of their ancestors, eg the bethlehem and jesuses birth stories were made up by medieval priests so that they would fit the prophecies of the old testament. oh how goo hindsight is as a writting tool
>medival priests

John was alive when the gospel of John and Revalations were accounted for. John was a disciple of Jesus and walked with him.
Your whole argument has been debunked on that info alone. Try harder
0/10

>> No.3905785

>>3905766
yes there were many jewish cults at the time eg the zealots, but why invent a charactor when it is simler and easier to use a real figure even if he was of very limited importance

>> No.3905797

>>3905766
>No, most recent evidence points to the biblical Jesus being based on the life of some jewish resistance idols (Yeshua[Jesus] having been a common name in those times) which was embellished during the century that elapsed before the jesus-parts of the bible were written.
Jesus Christ. There is only one. Sorry.

>Jesus is said to have been an extremely pivotal person but there's nary a mention of him in the histories written at the time. The only direct evidence that is often brought up in these discussions is a stone urn with a text saying it holds the ashes of James, Jesus' brother.
Have you even read the bible? Or any of the other accounts of that time? Where do you even get your information from?

>But like I said, that's not really strong evidence. All it proves is that there lived a guy named Yeshua(of which there were hundreds of) whose brother was named James(also hundreds of them).
To deny evidence then say there is little to no evidence is illogical and irrational

>> No.3905803

>>3905782
no orginal manuscripts, and closet to jesus's life the dead sea scrolls are strictly old testament with no mention of him, him copies of the new testament date to hundreds of years after his death meaning how many errors, purposeful or not can have have occurred

>> No.3905806

>>3905782
Gross geographical and cultural errors suggest the author of Mark (around 65-73 CE) had never visited and knew very little about Palestine. The authors of Matthew and Luke (around 80-85 CE) got most of their info from Mark (Luke appearing to be a local, correcting errors of customs in Mark, but made a mistake in Luke 8) and the lost Q gospel, often copying Mark verbatim. John was synthesized later, based on the same story but rewritten around 90-110 CE.

Face it, there's no evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

>> No.3905843

>>3905797
>Jesus Christ. There is only one. Sorry.
See, you're giving a statement without supporting evidence, adding an insincere apology to the end.

>Have you even read the bible? Or any of the other accounts of that time? Where do you even get your information from?
I have read the bible. I don't know how many times, but it's mandatory in the Religious Studies-class here if you happen to be registered as christian.
You can find a lot of research if you know how to google.
Also, I've read articles in science magazines over the years and also news about archaeological reports.

Misunderstanding the part about "not strong evidence" is what's irrational.

If the only direct evidence to the life of Jesus is an ambiguous inscription on stone, without ANY supporting evidence, then it's value is really low.

>> No.3905851

>>3905782
also learn to realise how the bible came about

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

>> No.3905884

>>3905851
Council of Nicea tried to change the bible. They failed.
lrn2history. Please.

The old testament is prophecy of Jesus. Read Isaiah if you think there was no mention of him

Also there are thousand of original manuscripts of John's gospels and books. Where are you getting your information from?

>>3905803
>>3905806
see
>>3905782

More than enough evidence for Jesus. Only a biased person would say otherwise.

>>3905843
You never mentioned Jesus Christ once. How am not supporting evidence? read the bible?


>If the only direct evidence to the life of Jesus is an ambiguous inscription on stone, without ANY supporting evidence, then it's value is really low.
When you ignore all of the other historical documentation and eye witness accounts even then, your point is still invalid. There is direct evidence to account for him. Why you deny facts and evidence is beyond me

>> No.3905905

>>3905884
council of nicea chose out of many different gospels which to include in the new testament, these were just people and if they decideded differently all christians would accept different myths at fact

>> No.3905920

>When you ignore all of the other historical documentation and eye witness accounts even then, your point is still invalid. There is direct evidence to account for him. Why you deny facts and evidence is beyond me

yes i was told the same thing at school just because somebody in a position of authority tells you something does nt give any influence to its truth

>> No.3905926
File: 42 KB, 309x495, moe_schoolgirl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3905926

>>3905884
>When you ignore all of the other historical documentation and eye witness accounts even then, your point is still invalid.
So I guess you are willfully ignoring when we told you that all the rest of the evidence is even more suspect than the Ossuary of James?

>There is direct evidence to account for him.
No there isn't. We have already explained this.

>Why you deny facts and evidence
Why you call such tenuous and forged stuff "facts and evidence" is beyond me.

Here's some easy reading on the subject:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist?
http://www.apollonius.net/forgery.pdf

I know you will just dismiss it out of hand, because that's the kind of person you are, but maybe someone else will look at the evidence presented here and decide to not put their child through religious indoctrination.

Gotta stay optimistic. Especially when faced with the stone wall of willful ignorance.

>> No.3905940

>>3905926
I know you will just dismiss it out of hand, because that's the kind of person you are, but maybe someone else will look at the evidence presented here and decide to not put their child through religious indoctrination.

Gotta stay optimistic. Especially when faced with the stone wall of willful ignorance.

best reason to respond to religious trolls, who knows it may get through to a lurker

>> No.3905956

and just for general interest sake
http://www.talkorigins.org/

>> No.3907635

>Agnosticism: because the probabilities are exactly precisely 50/50

>Agnosticism: because we can't possibly fathom what a higher power would be like and the word "God" doesn't directly imply that it's at least mind-like and thus potentially empirical

>Agnosticism: because the evidence doesn't completely rule out the souls/free will hypothesis of the mind as fundamental substance that could exist before the universe