What is your opinion on Richard Dawkins?

File: 2.02 MB, 1438x1798, Richard_Dawkins_Cooper_Union_Shankbone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:29:08 2013 No.6209503 [Reply] [Original]

What is your opinion on Richard Dawkins?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:32:37 2013 No.6209510 Pretty cool guy. His meme theory is interesting. A lot of his fans are annoying fedoratards though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:33:07 2013 No.6209512 I like him. He invented memes and he is an atheist. We need more scientists like him and Neil Tyson.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 13:35:37 2013 No.6209520 >>6209510 this dawkins is cool, and i like his books. some of his fans are dickheads, tho.,

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 09:40:25 2013 No.6211283 He's a brilliant biologist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 09:54:55 2013 No.6211302 >>6209510 >>6209520 I'm always amused that die hard Dawkins fans treat him the same way Christians do Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 09:55:26 2013 No.6211304 Truly the jesus of our time

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 09:58:55 2013 No.6211307 >>6209503 pretty good writer/biologist. inspires butthurt, what more can be asked?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:34:25 2013 No.6212317 >>6211302 Except that Dawkins didn't need miracles, because he had facts and science instead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:27:42 2013 No.6212941 He's a good science educator and he makes religitards butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:33:13 2013 No.6212949 >>6212941 The only thing Dawkins has ever done for 'education' is push his agenda driven scientific pretentions alongside his lifetime ass sleeve krauss.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:34:13 2013 No.6212950 >>6211302 That's not true though. Why do you faggots insist on a false equivalency?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:38:13 2013 No.6212951 >>6212317 That's funny, because from what I understand the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth supposedly performed are back with historical text with eyewitness accounts. Just as much of a fact as everything else in recorded history. Checkmate fedorafag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:44:42 2013 No.6212953 >>6212941 actually its the other way around, religious people dont care about tryhard militant faglords anyways, i liked his enemies of reason uncut interviews

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 04:19:12 2013 No.6212971 >>6212951 >Butthurt christfag

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 04:23:42 2013 No.6212974

>>6212951
Somebody lied to you. There isn't even evidence that Jesus ever existed beyond one Roman Soldier writing down that he crucified a guy with that name. A lot of the stories don't match archaeological evidence and are copypasted from earlier savior myths.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 04:44:42 2013 No.6212989 I can not give my opinion on Richard Dawkins, as I have never been in a situation where it is feasible to stand on the man. Should such a situation present itself I would be more than willing to do so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:06:13 2013 No.6213003 File: 23 KB, 620x388, 1386583597638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Separated at birth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:07:12 2013 No.6213004 >>6213003 see >>6209503

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:31:12 2013 No.6213022 >look at all these fedoras

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:46:37 2013 No.6213542 >>6213022 Where? I don't see them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:47:07 2013 No.6213548 >>6213542 thats because its on ur head

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:53:37 2013 No.6213561
File: 1.89 MB, 236x224, 1386615182581.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6213022
so anyone who even slightly likes dawkins is a 'fedora' now, huh?

do you faggots actually even know where the word comes from? coz it seems a bit fucking dumb that it's now associated with atheism and misogyny considering that it actually comes from the sarah bernhardt play 'fedora' where she wears one, and it actually became a symbol of womens liberation.

so how the fuck you guys have hijacked it to turn it into something else is pretty fucking weird, because you've basically spun it into having completely the opposite meaning from what it originally had.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:55:07 2013 No.6213573 File: 11 KB, 300x278, 1386615345820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6213561 Yeah yeah, why dont you go sort your fedoras hanging on your coat rack.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:57:07 2013 No.6213582 File: 21 KB, 365x385, 1386615460913.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6213573 i dont even wear ANY hats at all, you fucking jew

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:29:07 2013 No.6213654

>>6213561
>where the word comes from
Nobody cares. Did you know that the word "bigot" has its roots in a reference to a specific ethnicity?

Etymology is trivia.

Fedoras are now just unfashionable old hats, worn today by socially inept people who have no idea of how they actually appear to others.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:31:07 2013 No.6213658

>>6213654
>Fedoras are now just unfashionable old hats, worn today by socially inept people who have no idea of how they actually appear to others.
socially inept people dont usually even go to the effort of finding, buying, and wearing a specific type of headwear. they usually aint fashion conscious at all.
so 'scruffy hair' would be far more likely than 'wears a fedora'
and fine, the word has obviously fucking changed, and i have to deal with that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:34:07 2013 No.6213666 >>6213582 Sure buddy. You can put it back on now. Your fedora that is. While you're at it, go back to /leddit/ and visit /r/atheism and brag about how cool you are to your fedora friends.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:34:07 2013 No.6213667 >>6213658 >socially inept people dont usually even go to the effort of finding, buying, and wearing a specific type of headwear. ...and when they do, they end up looking ridiculous. Which is the whole point of euphoric fedora man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:36:08 2013 No.6213672 >>6213658 >the word has obviously fucking changed, and i have to deal with that. Fedoras stopped being associated with women's lib long before you were born, and the association was never strong to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:37:07 2013 No.6213675 >>6213666 fuck you. and reddit is for twats >>6213667 >Which is the whole point of euphoric fedora man. wtf is that? i thought the whole 'euphoric' thing was a hitchens quotation?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:38:08 2013 No.6213676 >>6213675 tips fedora You can go back to sucking Dawkins cock and being euphoric :3

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:39:37 2013 No.6213678

>>6213672
>and the association was never strong to begin with.
seems to me that theres even less association with atheists.
im atheist, and i dont wear one. all my mates are either atheists or agnostics, and none of them wear them either. in fact, i dont think i've met a single atheist who has ever worn one. it seems to be more of an 'old guy' kinda hat. not that 'old guys' aint atheist. maybe some of them are. i just never bothered to ask. mainly because i dont give a fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:40:08 2013 No.6213682 >>6213658 your missing the point entirely. socially inept people (like you for instance) will go to the bother of buying a fedora because they THINK they look good, when actually it looks completely out of place on them

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:40:37 2013 No.6213683 File: 9 KB, 248x251, 1386618054029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6213676 how can you tip a fedora unless you're the one wearing one, faggot?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:41:07 2013 No.6213684 >>6213678 Okay fedora, calm down. Go wear your fedora wherever you want with your "friends."

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:42:07 2013 No.6213687 >>6213683 >Tipped it off of your head Wow such smart Such fedora Such reddit Wow le atheism is such logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:43:07 2013 No.6213688 File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1386618214110.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6213684 still with the fedora shit? and you put 'friends' in speech marks, nice. fuck off, dumb troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:43:07 2013 No.6213689 >>6213683 I think it's imitation

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:44:07 2013 No.6213690

>>6213678
It's not "an association with atheists". Nobody's fucking criticizing atheism.

It's an association with people who throw their atheism around like it's some kind of intellectual achievement. It's a particular type of pseudointellectual, who is not very bright or well educated, but wants to be seen as a scientific thinker.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:44:07 2013 No.6213691 >>6213689 >imitation 'the sincerest form of flattery'

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:44:07 2013 No.6213693 >>6213688 >Someone tells you what you are. >Must be a troll! top kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:46:07 2013 No.6213700 >>6213690 It's more of a condescending catch all for anyone with particular interests

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:48:08 2013 No.6213703 >>6213687 I keep seeing this doge newfaggotry on facebook. I didn't actually think people would talk that way on 4chan. You must be new here.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:51:07 2013 No.6213712

I think he should spend less time complaining about religion and more time doing actual research in evolutionary biology.

Maybe if he studied a bit of quantum mechanics he'd realize that materialism is not a correct framework, either.

Not that Christianity is anything more than a doomsday cult.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 14:52:37 2013 No.6213715 >>6213703 These people normally never leave /v/ and /b/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:01:07 2013 No.6213741 >>6213703 >Thinking 4chan is an elite group with asocial people Are you this retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:09:37 2013 No.6213752 Hm, he is good scientist, but fedora turds did ruin it little for me. I just feel like I am watching their version of Jesus and that is just annoying, but in all cool guy. >tipping Intensifies

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:17:38 2013 No.6213773 >>6213693 Hey there mister trole man kek is property of [s4s] you turn that ship around and sail the ruse cruise back to /b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:03:07 2013 No.6214112 >>6209503 a gentleman and a scholar

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 10:57:33 2013 No.6215672

I respect and to some degree admire his ideas in evolutionary biology, but I absolutely hate everything he has to say about religion and atheism, to the point that his stupidity in the religious realm has made me reconsider his intelligence in a broader level. after all, his arguments considering evolutionary biology are interesting but are often just as unscientific as his atheist activism

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 11:00:33 2013 No.6215676 >>6215672 Examples?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 11:22:33 2013 No.6215700 >>6212951 >History >Accurate You're joking, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 11:48:17 2013 No.6215745 The Chocolate Thunder... bustin' backboards, livin' large. Legend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:05:46 2013 No.6215777 >>6211302 hadn't noticed this before, thanks for pointing out

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:12:16 2013 No.6215800 >>6211302 There is no god but Darwin, and Dawkins is his prophet. They are two parts of the Holy Trinity: the Theorist, the Popularizer, and the Teapot in Orbit Between Earth and Mars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:15:46 2013 No.6215809 >>6212951 >eye-witness accounts >from poor, uneducated fisherman 2000 years ago even modern eye-witness accounts are often disregarded as evidence because most people are fucktards

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 12:21:47 2013 No.6215816 >>6215800 I regard the stories of Dawkins's life as parables expressing divine moral truth, but I don't believe he ever lived as a flesh-and-blood human being on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:09:16 2013 No.6216019 >>6209503 He redpills christfags and other inbred religious shitstains. What's not to like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:33:52 2013 No.6216696 File: 284 KB, 1545x1024, 1386725612429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Nice guy, but as stated I really don't care for his fan base. I really didn't "understand" common decent until I read The Selfish Gene.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:51:22 2013 No.6216967

>>6216696
Dawkin's fanbase
The most visible of Dawkins fanbase may be the people who were traumatized by religion as a child.

Dawkins has probably converted countless people, but most of them would never publicly show fervent support for him for fear of revealing that they ever believed in such nonsense in the first place. At least part of his fanbase is wise enough to know that it's not their fault that they were inculcated with erroneous beliefs.

captcha: which minMeem

bumpwatch 9001 Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:12:53 2013 No.6217039
File: 214 KB, 460x275, 1386731556512.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6211283
bumped after 20 hours

>>6212317
bumped after 7½ hours

>>6212941
bumped after 8 hours, no replies between bumps

>>6213542
bumped after 8 hours

>>6215672
bumped after 17 hours

>>6216696
bumped after 5½ hours

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 23:19:49 2013 No.6217240
File: 73 KB, 600x400, 1386735574562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Dawkings presents the problem of religion: people are dumb,
theres a battle between reason and ignorance in peoples mind

Then he interviews a priest.
A priest never turns into an atheist in argument,
the priest is not going to leave his income and search for new profession,
the priest has no skills for a somewhat pleasant job.
Priest senses that he is going to be called dumb forever now,
he senses that any children on tv understands what dawkinator talks
but will not admit it even if u torture him
He is intended to keep his (somewhat pleasant i believe) priest job
He is not going to let dawkinator make him unskilled unemployed
Priest is punching dawkingator in the face, audience laughs

The real battle was between priest and dawkinator
The battle in priest mind was between commercial interest and having reputation of a dumb

But churches are commercially viable

commercially viable

Though his methods of war are scientifically pathetic, Dawkinator is a man who loves to watch people learn, and he has some courage, i would love to have him as a friend

COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, OK?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:16:06 2013 No.6217574 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI pretty much sums it up

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:21:37 2013 No.6217579

>>6209503

He says dumb things about religion that even the most neckbearded of athiests can't agree with.

He pissed off the "I fucking Love Science"/tumblr/internet feminism/"YEES IM A GUUUURL SCIENCE FAN DON'T HIT ON ME SILLY BOYS" crowd by publicly mocking one of their leaders. He's now pretty much shunned in certain internet science fan communities.

So all in all I'm pretty torn.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 02:24:06 2013 No.6217581 >>6217579 >He pissed off the "I fucking Love Science"/tumblr/internet feminism/"YEES IM A GUUUURL SCIENCE FAN DON'T HIT ON ME SILLY BOYS" crowd by publicly mocking one of their leaders. i don't get how it's a bad thing

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:28:36 2013 No.6217587 >>6217581 It's not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:33:06 2013 No.6217593 >>6217581 Reread the post. He's annoyed with Dawkins over the "dumb things about religion", but pleased that he pissed off the tumblr crowd.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 02:38:06 2013 No.6217599 why do you even care what he think about religion, he wrote 'selfish gene' which is an amazing book, especially the part about behavioral stereotypes i.e. the prisoner paradox etc

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 02:44:37 2013 No.6217605

>>6217599

If someone were going to speak intelligently about or criticize something in science, they better understand what they're talking about. The major schools of thought, the internal debates, the history of the controversy, etc.

Dawkins takes pride in his ignorance of theology. Because to him, it's all hogwash, why try to learn about it at all?

I'm an atheist, so don't get me wrong here. I just don't agree with elementary criticisms like "if god loves you, why does he send you to hell?" Anyone who spent even a few minutes looking around the internet could see why something like that is like saying "if evolution is true, how come humans don't walk out of zoos"

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 02:54:06 2013 No.6217622 >>6217605 i see your point but it just means that his statements about religion has no particular value, he still is a good biologist though

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:12:36 2013 No.6217645 >>6217605 >"if god loves you, why does he send you to hell? This actually is a pretty good argument.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 03:15:06 2013 No.6217647 >>6217645 it shows you don't know much of theology, it's a very easy question god doesn't send you to hell, it's you who reject the god (you can do that because she gave you free will) and doing so you get into the hell yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:19:07 2013 No.6217649 >>6217647 But god could easily send you to heaven but chooses not to. He is the master of everything meaning that he is the one that sent you to hell.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:24:07 2013 No.6217657

I don't like Dawkins. I don't like it when people compare him to Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson because he doesn't inspire in me the same love of science as those guys do. He also steps on a lot of toes intentionally, and that's being more of a dick than anything.
And, though I've never read any of his books, I don't really feel the compulsion to. I'm a fan of science literature, and I'll quench my thirst for science elsewhere, with someone that I actually like as a person.

Also, his "Selfish Gene" came under fire, and he responded kind of childishly.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 03:27:37 2013 No.6217659 >>6217649 so you mean she should enforce you to accept her against your will? you forgot about the free will rule which she don't want to break. it's your choice to suffer

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:30:36 2013 No.6217667 >>6217659 >I shot you in the head but it is your fault since it was your free will to piss me off Seriously? >God can make you go to heaven and doesn't but that is totally your fault not his I swear!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:32:07 2013 No.6217671 >>6217659 >>6217667 I don't think that the two of you are going to make more headway on an imageboard in one night than hundreds of years of theologians and philosophers.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:38:36 2013 No.6217678

>>6217647
>>6217649
>>6217659
>>6217667

My point is that different denominations have different answers to this problem. There's a huge history of people answering this kind of stuff. To shrug it off as nonsense because you can't tell the difference between some religious people admiring god's work with people trying to push biblical literalism is dumb. There's a bit more subtlety and thought to it besides "herp derp is he willing but unable derp"

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 03:43:06 2013 No.6217687 >>6217667 yet again, you completely miss the point that it's not the god who punishes you sending to the hell, you go there yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:52:36 2013 No.6217696 >>6217687 >You go there yourself >Because god who designed the universe made it that way and willingly chooses not to save you Do you get it? This is going in circles.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 03:57:06 2013 No.6217702 >>6217696 If he CAN'T do something to prevent you from going to hell because he CAN'T stop you from having free will, than there is at least one thing he CAN'T do, therefore he is NOT all powerful you nitwit

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 04:11:37 2013 No.6217715 >>6217702 yes, it's a classical example of omnipotence paradox usual answer is that god can do everything which doesn't contradict her nature and breaking her own laws and violating your free will is against her nature

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 04:40:06 2013 No.6217754 >>6217715 >Jesus >her what? lol... >omnipotence paradox There is no paradox, he can do all. He gave you the choice to eat good food, or eat bad food. Up to you.

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 04:46:06 2013 No.6217758

>>6217754
>Jesus

i hope you don't mean that jesus is the god. he is the son of god, huh, a manifestation of god using a mortal body, an aspect of god

>There is no paradox, he can do all.

one of its solutions that she can even break the laws of logic because the direct solution of omnipotence paradox (can god, being omnipotent , create a stone she cannot lift) breaks it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 04:47:36 2013 No.6217760 >>6209503 Poor mans Hitchens. Has some nice ideas but doesn't have the background knowledge, or panache to elocute them the way the Hitch did.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 04:59:07 2013 No.6217775

>>6217758
>i hope you don't mean that jesus is the god. he is a manifestation of god using a mortal body, an aspect of god

That arian heresy was refuted a long time ago.
Jesus is cosubstantial with God. If you want to assign a gender to God it will always be He, never she.

>one of its solutions that she can even break the laws of logic because the direct solution of omnipotence paradox (can god, being omnipotent , create a stone she cannot lift) breaks it

Breaks what? I don't follow. God can do anything, including break logical rules.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:06:36 2013 No.6217780

>>6217715
There is a paradox, it just comes about when people don't actually understand what omnipotence means.

All powerful means all powerful. If something omnipotent wanted to make a rectangular circle then it can. Logic and rationale aren't a part of the equation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:10:06 2013 No.6217787 >>6217780 >All powerful means all powerful. If something omnipotent wanted to make a rectangular circle then it can. Logic and rationale aren't a part of the equation. bingo. Also time and space don't matter, so anything goes.

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 05:15:06 2013 No.6217790

>>6217775
>That arian heresy was refuted a long time ago.

lolwut

arians thought that christ was created by god, i said that christ is an aspect of the god, it's the common christian tradition, ever heard of trinity?

god as a whole doesn't have a gender so i may use w/e pronoun i like

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:16:06 2013 No.6217793

>>6217758
>(can god, being omnipotent , create a stone she cannot lift)
That's not a paradox, that's just defining omnipotence to be illogical. In my experience, the universe is logical, and therefore God is logical, and therefore defining omnipotence to include doing self-contradictory things is not something that would apply to God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:18:36 2013 No.6217796 >>6217780 All powerful doesn't mean breaking logic. It means that they possess all power. Just because you define something contradictory as a power doesn't make it one.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:19:07 2013 No.6217797

>>6217790
>god as a whole doesn't have a gender so i may use w/e pronoun i like

you're separating God from Jesus, just like the arians did. It's not correct to say he is simply an aspect or manifestation of God. That is a heresy.

>god as a whole doesn't have a gender so i may use w/e pronoun i like

Jesus is God, and Jesus had a penis.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:25:06 2013 No.6217804

>>6217790
Not who you are responding to, but under mainstream Christianity Jesus is fully God, not an aspect of God. It's part of the Nicene Creed, which was indeed written to contradict the Arian idea that Jesus was not fully God. Someone who doesn't think God's gender is Jesus's gender obviously doesn't think Jesus is God.

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 05:33:07 2013 No.6217809

>>6217797
>>6217804

jesus isn't the whole god, he is one of her, umm, if you don't like the word 'aspect', her divine persons or hypostasis. arians thought that jesus is the first god's creation so it's completely irrelevant here

seriously, should i explain you the conception of trinity?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:37:06 2013 No.6217815 >>6212951 >performed are back with historical text with eyewitness accounts. Just as much of a fact as everything else in recorded history. no, all historical accounts of Jesus re heresay Bible isnt historical account of Jesus

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:39:06 2013 No.6217819 >>6209503 He is alright to me, my only problem with him is he has some cognitive dissonance against religion He sees religion as a major problem rather than humans who created it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:50:36 2013 No.6217825 >>6217581 he said he likes that fact about dawkins and is torn in whether to like him or not like him on an unrelated note, i have seen you in the gay evolution thread, are youlurking threads after searchhing for evolution in neet catalog?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:51:06 2013 No.6217828

>>6209503
Generally a cool guy. Sometimes he says things which are a little offensive and idiotic, which gets the feminists and others riled up, such as his recent comments on his own sexual abuse as a child. I think his heart is mostly in the right place, but he can stick his foot in his mouth rather well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:53:36 2013 No.6217829 >>6217702 the answer sometimes to that is god CAN but doesnt WANT to

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:53:36 2013 No.6217830

>>6212951
There is no independent accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the 4 gospels of the christian bible. This is a mainstream position.

One might even make an argument that the most plausible explanation is that there was never an Earthly human Jesus. See the work of Richard Carrier. Note this is not a mainstream position.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:54:06 2013 No.6217833

>>6213690
Organized religion is the main source of hatred in this world. The world would be a far better place if we got rid of organized religion and replaced it skepticism and humanism. This is a fact. Those who care about their fellow humans thus work to eradicate religion. It's not pseudo-intellectual. It's being a decent human being who gives a damn.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:54:37 2013 No.6217834 >>6217809 Seriously learn the Nicene creed and its interpretations. Jesus is cosubstantial with god. If any gender were to apply it would be male.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:55:36 2013 No.6217836 >>6213712 >Maybe if he studied a bit of quantum mechanics he'd realize that materialism is not a correct framework, either. What do you understand materialism to mean, and how does quantum theory contradict that? Genuinely curious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:55:37 2013 No.6217835 >>6217809 >jesus isn't the whole god, he is one of her, umm, if you don't like the word 'aspect' Only some chritians believe this, othes think Jesus and god are the same

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 05:59:06 2013 No.6217837

>>6217605
>I'm an atheist, so don't get me wrong here. I just don't agree with elementary criticisms like "if god loves you, why does he send you to hell?" Anyone who spent even a few minutes looking around the internet could see why something like that is like saying "if evolution is true, how come humans don't walk out of zoos"
There's a difference. There are good replies for the evolution question because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. There is no good reply for the religion question. The emperor has no clothes. Euthyphro's dilemma is completely legit with no actual counters.

Example: Either christians think that heaven is a better place than Earth, or it's not. If heaven is a better place than Earth, why hasn't the christian god intervened to make Earth more like heaven?

They might reply that Earthly experience is necessary for heaven. Then, you bring up that one woman who was kept in the basement for 20+ years and raped daily, and ask them to say straight to your face that you think it's necessary that the woman experience that to have her spirit be properly "molded" to get into heaven. (If they say yes, then they are a miserable human being who is not worth your time.)

Ergo, there is unnecessary suffering in this world, and the christian god could prevent it, but it chooses not to, or it is incapable.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:00:06 2013 No.6217839

>>6217659
How is it free will to keep someone in hell against their will? Why can you only choose before you go to hell? People should be allowed to leave hell after they get there. Where's your free will in hell? Infinite punishment for finite crime, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:03:36 2013 No.6217841 >>6217837 >>6217839 PS: All of those free will arguments are bullshit. They are equivalent to saying "We shouldn't have police because they abridge your free will". It's insane.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 06:05:37 2013 No.6217844 >>6217834 seriously read what trinity is what you are trying to tell me is some kind of monarchianism heresy

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:05:37 2013 No.6217845 >>6217837 I hink the [problem is seeing religion in the view of science rather than the view of a philosophy Religion cannot be judged by facts like science is Religion is based on fictional premises for the purposes of teaching a way of life

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:06:06 2013 No.6217846 >>6217845 >Religion is based on fictional premises for the purposes of teaching a way of life And it does irreparable harm, and we would all be better off without it with skepticism and humanism in its place. This is an objective fact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:06:36 2013 No.6217847 >>6217839 They keep themselves there.... >>6217841 God isn't police he is more like the judge...intentions matter

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:08:06 2013 No.6217849 >>6217847 >They keep themselves there.... Right. Anyone sane would choose eternal suffering when there's another option. Fuck you and fuck your shit.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:09:06 2013 No.6217851

>>6217847
I say again - do the police and courts violate your free will when they catch criminals? Why can't god do at least that much and stop all murder and rape? That would be a good start. God cannot or chooses not to. I'm asking it to do as much as our police.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:10:36 2013 No.6217852

>>6217844
No matter how u slice it 2/3 of the trinity are male : sin + father .
The other is neutral : holy spirit.

I don't see where anything female fits in...

And once more Jesus is of the same substance as god and the father...a christian calling god a she is pretty hilarious and just a sign of cognitive dissonance and heresy

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:12:07 2013 No.6217853

>>6217846
>And it does irreparable harm,

so do many other things like science with nukes and shit. The problem is neither religion nor science its the humans behind them. Its ultimately people who decide to do bad things intentionally or intentionally with whatever shit is available to them

Religion as a tool does good too and that cant be discounted

and we would all be better off without it with skepticism and humanism in its place. This is an objective fact.

Sure i agree but persecution of religion does no good too

The only problem i see with religion is it trying to force itself as ultimate truth over science. Religion should not interfere with science.

In the same manner Science should not interfere with religion

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:15:36 2013 No.6217856

>>6217853
You are making no sense. You are contradicting yourself.
>Religion as a tool does good too and that cant be discounted
>Sure i agree but persecution of religion does no good too
You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Either we would be better off without religion and with humanism and skepticism, or we wouldn't be. I think it's rather obvious we would be better off with humanism and skepticism and without religion. Ergo, I should act in a way to eradicate religious belief, and I think that discussion is the best way to go about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:18:06 2013 No.6217860 >>6217849 People chose lives of atheism and sin all the time... >>6217851 Suffering is something we must experience...god experienced it, are we supposed to be better than god ??

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:20:06 2013 No.6217861

>>6217860
>People chose lives of atheism and sin all the time...
What does that have to do with being in hell and choosing to stay there? Try to keep up. Where is your free will in hell? Can you leave hell whenever you want? Then I don't see a problem.

>>6217860
I want you to look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that it is necessary for that woman to be kept in her basement since birth, to be raped daily by her father, for over 20 years. I want you to tell yourself that this is required for her to get into heaven.

If you can manage it, just kill yourself. We'd be better off without you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:22:07 2013 No.6217863 >>6217853 >In the same manner Science should not interfere with religion That's incredibly broad and vague. When does science stop "interfering" with religion? The creation of the universe? The working of the atom? Where?

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Dec 11 06:22:07 2013 No.6217864
File: 349 KB, 800x800, 1386760961423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6217849
they keep themselves since they cannot accept the god
imagine a trench which bars you a road if you canno jump long enough

you can ask why god create such an order when finite crimes lead to infinite punishment, regardless what mechanism holds sinner's souls, this question is harder, but firstly the bible say there will be the doom and people will leave the hell so the punishment isn't infinite, the lake of fire which awaits those who still will not repent/be forgiven may be understood as a complete elimination than as an infinite punishment, secondly it may be possible people can leave hell before the doom as well. bible hardly tells us anything about hell after all, "abandon all hope, ye who enter here" it was the phrase of dante, not of the bible
also modern thinkers rather understand the hell as a state of soul than as a place, but w/e

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:23:06 2013 No.6217867

>>6217864
Even if what you say is true, the christian god has raised at least two people from the dead and Lazarus. Thus, it is well within its power to keep raising everyone from the dead to keep them out of hell. It does not, because it is a moral monster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:26:36 2013 No.6217870 >>6217864 So, people can leave hell after getting there? Thus there is no reason to repent before death? Good - your theology is approaching what reasonable people may consider moral. I'll just keep being an atheist over here hten.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:32:06 2013 No.6217876 >>6217861 Suffering is a necessary part of life...u might as well cry about being mortal and dependent on food and water... Suffering should be prevented where possible but it is also part of life, nothing contradictory here

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:33:06 2013 No.6217879 >>6217876 >Being this stupid I can't tell if this is trolling or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:33:06 2013 No.6217880 >>6217876 So, you think that it's necessary for that woman to be raped daily by her father while kept in the basement since birth for 20 years. You are a miserable human being. Kill yourself.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:33:37 2013 No.6217878

It is impossible to have more than one person have genuine (perfect) free will, because his will might include denying others of their free will (murder, for example). Therefore we have a compromise, you have free will up to the point where you explicitly deny another persons free will or rather, reduce the amount of free will. We, pathetic humans as we are, figured this out a long time ago, but god isn't quite so clever it seems.

>>6217864
>imagine a trench which bars you a road if you canno jump long enough

And imagine god is sitting on the other side holding a plank saying, "Ah, I can't help you unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and saviour, sorry man, I wish I could just extend this plank to help you but I would violate your free will by doing so, I'm sure you'd rather rot in hell than get out, right? Because if you don't, just submit to me and everything will be alright."

You're painting your god as a mafia asking for protection money you know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:34:06 2013 No.6217881 >>6217870 Heaven and hell are in you . You can cultivate either one in your life. Upon death the choice is made and the consequences you picked will be yours to experience. Simple and just.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:35:06 2013 No.6217883 >>6217881 >this hippy supernatural deepak chopra shit To /x/ with you

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:36:06 2013 No.6217885 >>6217881 >Don't do exactly what I say and believe in everything I say >You deserve eternal pain Very just.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:36:37 2013 No.6217884 >>6217880 Its not necessary since the father could have chosen differently... I don't see the issue here other than that man made a huge mistake...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:37:36 2013 No.6217886 >>6217883 Its in the bible the kingdom of heaven is in you...

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:37:36 2013 No.6217887

>>6217881
Fuck just.

I am a humanist. I care about the happiness, safety, and well-being of humans (and other conscious creatures). If justice gets in the way of that, fuck justice.

Your justice is punishment for the sake of for punishment. This is the retributive theory of justice. It is sickening. It is naked sadism.

To be more than clear - if it was within my power, as long as I could guarantee that he could be isolated to never harm anyone else, I would ensure that Hitler had a great afterlife. Inflicting suffering just for "justice" is sadism and barbaric. (Also ignoring the possible deterrence effect, and the possibility of rehabilitation, etc.)

Your god and your justice is sick. Die in a fire.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:37:36 2013 No.6217889

>>6217880

At least in the incarnation story Jesus just got tortured for a while and then got to be god. Or he was god, or whatever.

This woman could potentially go to hell if she masturbates to much (under some definitions of Christianity) while her rapist could have a death bed conversion and sing eternally at god or whatever, which is supposed to be fun although it sounds astoundingly lame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:38:37 2013 No.6217890 >>6217884 The issue I see is that god did not stop the father. Again, do you want the police to stop the father? Do the police inhibit free will? You can't have it both ways. Either god should the father, or we shouldn't have police.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:39:36 2013 No.6217893 >>6217890 >Again, do you want the police to stop the father? Do the police inhibit free will? You can't have it both ways. Either god should STOP the father, or we shouldn't have police. fixed

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:42:36 2013 No.6217897 >>6217885 Your complaining that a triangle has 3 sides... You are struggling with god so you are on the right path, but your questions are silly...

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:43:06 2013 No.6217900

>>6217897
I'm complaining that god has demonstrated the power to raise people from the dead, thereby avoiding hell, and yet god does not raise everyone from the dead to avoid hell.

I'm complaining that god's justice is punishment for the sake of punishment, e.g. naked sadism. God is an immoral prick. You shouldn't be worshiping god. You should work for its destruction. If Stargate SG-1 taught me anything, it's that the proper response to evil god is not to bow down and worship, but to nuke their ass. Nuke god!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:45:06 2013 No.6217904 >>6217863 >When does science stop "interfering" with religion? The creation of the universe? The working of the atom? Where? i didnt mean stop discoveries, i meant try and not discard religion as unnecessary

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:47:37 2013 No.6217905 >>6217856 >You are making no sense. You are contradicting yourself. i am trying to say Science and religion are tools used by humans for various means The fault does not lie in the tools but the humans

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:49:37 2013 No.6217907 >>6217905 No. The fault lies in the tool. Religion is a completely and utterly useless tool. Science, skepticism, and humanism completely replace any "need" for religion.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:50:06 2013 No.6217909

>>6217884

The issue is why must an innocent girl suffer for the bad choices of her father

millions of kids get raped some from preists no less, they are abused beyond irreparable damage

why should innocents suffer for no fault of their own and to such degree?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:52:06 2013 No.6217912 >>6217890 God did stop the father. He made the father mortal. All suffering is transient thanks to god. Stopping someone has no bearing on their will or intention god can stop anyone without stopping their free will...will is intention.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:52:36 2013 No.6217911 >>6217907 >Science, skepticism, and humanism completely replace any "need" for religion. There is this need of hope even if it is false there IS such a need

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:54:07 2013 No.6217913 >>6217909 Jesus was the most innocent and he suffered...why do humans think they deserve special treatment?? Hilarious

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:55:36 2013 No.6217914

>>6217911
False hope is only good fort a stupidly short term. In the end, it always comes back to bite you in the ass. See: all of the harm of organized religion. Even the consolation is almost always a bad idea. It doesn't prepare them for handling it the next time. It might cause them to waste their life on a lie. Please see: "Lying" by Sam Harris for additional argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:56:07 2013 No.6217917 >>6217913 then what good is having a god that lets innocents suffer to this degree, why worship him when he cant do what is most asked of him might as well worship something else something better

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 06:56:36 2013 No.6217915 >>6217912 You didn't answer my questions. You posted a non-sequitir. Do you want the police to stop the father who keeps his daughter in the basement for 20+ years and rapes her daily? Why should god not do at least as much as the police?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:01:07 2013 No.6217924 >>6217914 you are seeing a utialitarian view of religion you see more harm than good of religion and thus completely discount it bad stuff from religion should be stopped but you cant let that stoop the good stuff too

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:02:06 2013 No.6217927 >>6217829 So he is able, but unwilling. The other half of the Epicuran paradox

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:02:06 2013 No.6217928

>>6217924
There is nothing good from religion which would not continue existing if we got rid of the bullshit.

>you see more harm than good of religion and thus completely discount it
Yes, I live in the real world where I have to make concrete policy decisions to improve the human condition. Getting rid of harmful fictions is high on the list.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:02:36 2013 No.6217925 >>6217915 I want the police to stop him. I want the man to stop himself. There is no point for god to interfere that would be absurd... God doesn't grant wishes and give you lottery presents...he's not that petty

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:03:06 2013 No.6217931 >>6217925 What the fuck does petty have to do with it? You agree it's moral to stop the father. Thus it's needless suffering. Thus god allows needless suffering. Thus god is incapable or immoral. Take your pick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:04:37 2013 No.6217932 >>6217715 >usual answer is that god can do everything which doesn't contradict her nature then we are in agreement, God can not do everything. He has at least one limitation on his power, therefore not omnipotent

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:05:36 2013 No.6217934

>>6217927

i am not a theologist, but i think that is what religious people

there is some mysterious reason, a greater good some how that will happen from it

most times its blamed on satan or some form of dissonance but ultimately it is god can but didnt for a better reason

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:06:06 2013 No.6217935 >>6217780 So in order to believe in omipotence, you have to believe in the possibility of a rectangular circle. What a good reason not to believe in omnipotence. Believing in it literally breaks logic

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:06:06 2013 No.6217936

>>6217934
>there is some mysterious reason, a greater good some how that will happen from it
Again, I want you to look in the mirror and say that there is a greater good that will result from a father keeping his daughter from birth until 20+ in his basement prison, and raping her daily. Do it.

If you can, kill yourself. We're better off without your miserable excuse of a human being.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:07:06 2013 No.6217937 >>6217928 >There is nothing good from religion which would not continue existing if we got rid of the bullshit. The bad stuff too would continue too

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:08:06 2013 No.6217940 >>6217931 Everydorg god does is moral. There is no morality without god. So an atheist can't say rape is immoral. At most he can say it is gross and undesirable.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:09:36 2013 No.6217941

>>6217937
No, it wouldn't. Right now there is innumerable harm from false fictitious beliefs, such as gays are bad, early term abortions are bad, sex before marriage is bad, tithing is good, prayer is good, evolution is false, science is the work of the devil, etc.

All of those would stop if religion stops, and nothing equivalently bad would replace them if we put skepticism, science, and humanism in their place.

In other words, I think that we can improve the human condition. I think we can make life here on Earth better. Do you? Or do you think that our actions are completely irrelevant. Do you vote? Do you think life is better now than 200 years ago? 2000 years ago? Do you think that no slavery is better than slavery? Do you think that the emancipation of women is better than treating women as chattel?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:10:06 2013 No.6217943

>>6217936

i didnt meant to say I belive there is a greater good, i dont even believe in god

I am saying there is a dissonance people have that lets them accept or be believed into accept tragedy as God allowing it only because there was some greater good that will prevail

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:10:36 2013 No.6217942 >>6217935 You mean like the possibility of a triangle who's angles don't add up to 180 degrees?! Absurd!!! Impossible!!! Hahahajaha ppl think god could make such a thing?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:12:06 2013 No.6217947

>>6217940
I can say it's immoral just fine. Your god is an amoral prick.

Fine, to the morality argument.

You ask me why I think that your god is an amoral prick. You ask me why I don't rape.

Let me ask you: Why do you decide to not rape when you get out of bed in the morning? Why do you do what god says? Why do you do what is "good"?

You choose to, just like I do. You choose to be a slave to an eternal unelected celestial tyrant. I choose to care about my fellow human beings. Neither of us can have any justification for it. Neither of us has "objective morality". See: Hume's is-ought problem.

However, we both know that avoiding suffering is the right thing to do. We both know it's self-evident that we should avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. Thus, I am going to act to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone, and if your god won't help me, fuck your god, and fuck you too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:12:36 2013 No.6217945 >>6217941 Ya cuz stalinism and Maoism were such atheistic blessings... Without religion atheism would've destroyed all life

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:13:06 2013 No.6217950 >>6217941 if you remove religion, there will still be homophobia, misogyny, sexual repression and spreading falsehoods People will just find a different excuse or tool to execute it like politics

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:14:06 2013 No.6217951

>>6217945
I give you props for not including Christian Hitler and the religion of the Japanese god-emporer.

So, we're even, 2 for 2 in the genocidal regimes of the 20th century. Do you have any better?

Protip: Stalinism and Maoism were not skepticism, science, and humanism. I am not saying replace religion with atheism. Thus a strawman.

I am saying replace religion with skepticism, science, and humanism. Find me any culture where they taught and celebrated the works of Voltaire, Mill, and where they committed genocide, and I'll eat my hat.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:15:06 2013 No.6217953

>>6217950
No, there won't. If you want to look for the license for slavery, for the subjugation of women as chattel, for genocide, all you have to do is look for a book in every church, in every mosque, and in every synogogue. Getting rid of the justification that "god says so" will definitely lessen those problems.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:15:37 2013 No.6217952

>>6217915
If God exists, and transcends time, and influences events within time, then any such influences are done with a view to their eternal consequences. We act and think mostly with a view to immediate consequences due to our consciousness being locked within a moment of time. The idea of positing "why doesn't God do x" based on a slice of time while we're ignorant of eternity is vastly overvaluing the significance of our perspective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:16:06 2013 No.6217955 >>6217952 So, you think that some good requires that a woman be kept from birth until 20+ in a basement prison and raped daily. Kill yourself.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:19:06 2013 No.6217958

>>6217940
>There is no morality without god. So an atheist can't say rape is immoral. At most he can say it is gross and undesirable.

morality does exist without god and all atheists dont think morality doesnt exist only nihilists do

Conscience is what dictates morality and most athiest do have a conscience

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:20:37 2013 No.6217959

I respect him as a scientist. He's added some valuable knowledge, written good and interesting books and is also a remarkable educator.
I'm not so much a fan of his atheist preachings though. I know he means well and tries to get people to think more critically, but he often comes out as arrogant and elitist, talking down on religious people. He sometimes seems just as close minded as the people ha debates with.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:21:36 2013 No.6217960

>>6217947
Rape has no existential meaning, no moral status in an atheistic worldview. The fact that you dislike it is no different than the father who likes it: just your own preference.

In the end both the father and daughter will die and all will be erased as if it never happened. Already she is losing memory of it ... Soon she will be dust.

There is no right or wrong, good or evil in a pointless and random atheistic world...happiness is no better than suffering and truth no loftier than lies.

The woman and the man are failed experiments and their experiences are so transient that they literally do not even exist...

Speak about morality when it comes from God otherwise you only speak your weird preferences.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:22:06 2013 No.6217962

>>6217953

Not really sure about that, people who wanted to stuff get done like slavery and oppresion did use religion

But if rligion was absent then they would have persuaded their agendas with different means

we will still be the same flawed humans with or without religion

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:23:06 2013 No.6217964 >>6217951 >I give you props for not including Christian Hitler i genuinely wonder if the Nazi agenda was religion based or completely a national movement

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:24:06 2013 No.6217966

>>6217960
You didn't answer my questions. You need to work on that.

Why do you not rape when you get out of bed? Why do you do what god commands? Why do you do what is "good" and not do what is "evil"? How is your answer anything but a completely unjustified choice? How is that any different than my choice to improve the human condition?

>>6217962
I ask again, do you think we can make the world a better place? Is it possible to improve the human condition? Do you think it's better now that people more often have the belief that slavery is bad?

Your answers should be yes. It follows that we can make human beliefs better on average. It follows that getting rid of religion would make us all better off.

>>6217964
It was nominally theistic. It was at least not atheistic. They discriminated quite heavily against nonbelievers in Nazi Germany.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:24:37 2013 No.6217967 >>6217960 >Rape has no existential meaning, no moral status in an atheistic worldview. Nihilism =/= Atheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:24:37 2013 No.6217968 >>6217951 All humanisms are empty and arbitrary. The ones that seem good only do so because they borrow from religion but they have no foundation

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:24:37 2013 No.6217969 >>6217844 >talking about things you don't understand.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:25:06 2013 No.6217970

>>6217968
See:
>You didn't answer my questions. You need to work on that.
>Why do you not rape when you get out of bed? Why do you do what god commands? Why do you do what is "good" and not do what is "evil"? How is your answer anything but a completely unjustified choice? How is that any different than my choice to improve the human condition?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:27:07 2013 No.6217972 >>6217955 I think I wouldn't know. I think you wouldn't know either.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:27:07 2013 No.6217973

>>6217966
>I ask again, do you think we can make the world a better place? Is it possible to improve the human condition? Do you think it's better now that people more often have the belief that slavery is bad?

It would seem like a better place at first but the same problems will crop up. Its in human nature to oppress people who are different than us. Lack of religion will not stop it

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:29:06 2013 No.6217974

>>6217966

Motivation to be moral is irrelevant in this discussion.
You critiqued god for being immoral.
There is no morality without god.
There is no standard to judge others.

You only judge by your random opinion. Which is literally no better than the rapists. That is the hilarious part of your argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:29:06 2013 No.6217975 >>6217973 So you are a complete cultural relativist, and you think it's hopeless to improve the human condition. What a sorry person you must be. Do you vote? Why do you vote if you think it's so hopeless?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:30:07 2013 No.6217976

>>6217974
>There is no morality without god.
Why? What does the existence or non-existence of an unelected celestial tyrant have to do with morality?

>You only judge by your random opinion. Which is literally no better than the rapists. That is the hilarious part of your argument.
Why do you think the unelected celestial tyrant's opinion has any more value than my opinion or the rapist's opinion?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:34:36 2013 No.6217979

>>6217968
Let's look at the values of western democracy.

Free exercise of any religion or no religion? Definitely not found in the christian bible. It's the opposite of the christian bible.

Consequently free speech is also contrary to the christian bible.

Moreover, curiousity and science are contrary to the values of the christian bible. "Those who believe without seeing are blessed" w.r.t doubting Thomas.

The right of man to rule over man for man's sake with no reference to god? That's the US constitution. It was the first of any modern country to be non-religious. Definitely not found in the christian bible.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this life? Again, definitely not found in the christian bible.

The western way of life is a direct rejection of biblical "morality".

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:38:07 2013 No.6217982

>>6217975
>So you are a complete cultural relativist, and you think it's hopeless to improve the human condition.

I didnt say that, i am trying to say that the problem is not religion it is the human nature

Human nature has to change

>What a sorry person you must be.

I am pessimistic in naure, i regret being so but i cant help iti am

>Do you vote? Why do you vote if you think it's so hopeless?

You know what the funny thing about the question is. I voted last time in my country , i voted for an Incumbent govt because the opposition majority is a religious group. They luckily won

Elections however are going to happen in several months again and it seem the incumbent govt will lose power because they did a lousy job. The religious group which is the opposition is most likely going to win. I dont want them in power because they have used religion as a tool for their agenda before but they have a good track record for progress aswell. I dont oppose religion but i oppose use of religion in a bad way especially in politics. I will have to vote in several months and i can neither vote the incumbent govt nor the religious group, luckily there is a none of the above option to which my vote can count.I am going to choose that because i see no good in other choices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:39:06 2013 No.6217984 >>6217976 >why is an all knowing, perfect beings' will more valid that our random opinions subject to errors and biases Gee I dunno

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:40:07 2013 No.6217985

>>6217982
Religion is a collection of beliefs. Do you think that the world is a better place now that most people no longer have the belief that slavery is ok? Is the world a better place than a hypothetical world where most people base important life decisions on astrology? If yes to both, it follows that the world would be a better place if they did not have noxious fictitious beliefs of modern organized religion. I'm sorry, I don't see how you can avoid that seemingly inescapable conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:41:06 2013 No.6217986 >>6217984 Why do you think that god is not evil? God could be perfect and evil. How do you discount that possibility?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:44:06 2013 No.6217988

>>6217979
Everything u said is wrong.

Bible let's anyone believe whatever religion they want. It simply recommends to also preach the truth so that more will hear the good word.

Communicating your message does not destroy free speech.
Believing in the unseen as it relates to god is a matter of faith...

He wasn't blessed for believing empirical matters baswd on faith that would be silly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:45:37 2013 No.6217989 >>6217985 >Religion is a collection of beliefs. not all beliefs come from religion You can easily have racist/homophobic/misogynistic beliefs without having religious beliefs Its in our nature to persecute people that are different than us

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:46:06 2013 No.6217990 >>6213703 Really? It's been pretty much everywhere...

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:46:36 2013 No.6217992

>>6217989
>You can easily have racist/homophobic/misogynistic beliefs without having religious beliefs
Yes, but people who follow the bible must necessarily be racist, homophobic, and misogynist, because that's what the book says. Or they can reject the book. Thus, to get rid of misogyny, we have to get rid of the book which preaches misogyny. To get rid of people doing nothing (prayer) when they could be doing something effect, we have to get rid of the belief that prayer actually does something, e.g. we have to get rid of religion.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:48:06 2013 No.6217993

>>6217992
To continue: religion is not the only source of evil, but is is a source of evil. We should get rid of fascist communism, but there are other belief systems that are also evil. You wouldn't make the obscene argument that there are other sources of evil besides communism and thus we shouldn't try to get rid of communism, and yet you make the same argument for religion.

Get rid of your belief in belief.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:48:06 2013 No.6217994

>>6217986
Evil by what standard? Again you atheists are confused.

Good is defined by God. Good is God.

If God told u to kill your son, lime he told Abraham then at that point in time for you it would good and just.

There is no right or wrong in a natural world there are only processes and change....human opinions about how they ought to behave are equally empty and baseless

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:49:06 2013 No.6217997

>>6217992
>Yes, but people who follow the bible must necessarily be racist, homophobic, and misogynist,

there are many religious or evn chritians that are not those things

Its ultimately dependent on what the humans believe already. religion is an excuse that lets them enforce those beliefs. If religion did not exist they would find other ways to reinforce those beliefs

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:49:06 2013 No.6217998

>>6217994
If you define god as good, then you have the following problem: Why do good? You can't have it both ways. Either you define the word "good" to be "god's nature", or you define the word "good" to be "that which we should do". Trying to use both definitions is just a giant equivocation and begging the question fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:50:36 2013 No.6218000 >>6217997 Do you think we should try to eradicate the belief that fascist communism is a good thing? Why is christianity any different?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:51:37 2013 No.6218001 >>6218000 i believe any harmful concepts of a belief should be eradicated but not necessarily the entire belief system

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:54:36 2013 No.6218004

>>6218001
The core concept of christianity is that you are born sick, and only by submitting yourself to a unelected celestial dictator can you be better. It requires that you be a slave, and that you be happy about it. This is the core doctrine of christianity and it is unavoidable as long as you are a christian. This is a sick and twisted doctrine. It needs to go. Thus chrisianity needs to go.

A central premise of christianity is that there is a god who interferes in certain ways. This is demonstrably false. Demonstrably false material beliefs need to go, because basing actions on false material beliefs tends to do more harm than good. Thus christianity needs to go.

There is no way to salvage christianity if you get rid of the specific beliefs in it which need to go, as outlined above.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:55:37 2013 No.6218007 >>6217998 You should do whatever you please.it has no bearing on the Good. If you want to be good you follow Gods rules. Your motivation to be good is irrelevant to me. There is no equivocation here.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:56:36 2013 No.6218008

>>6218007
So, why do you do "what is god's nature"? Do you have any justification? How is your decision anything but a completely arbitrary choice, equivalent to my arbitrary choice to care about my fellow human beings? You do not have objective morality. Your decisions are just as unjustified as mine.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:57:36 2013 No.6218009

>>6218004
>The core concept of christianity is that you are born sick, and only by submitting yourself to a unelected celestial dictator can you be better. It requires that you be a slave, and that you be happy about it. This is the core doctrine of christianity and it is unavoidable as long as you are a christian.

Are you saying this is the excuse that Christians used for enforcing slavery ?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:58:06 2013 No.6218014

>>6218009
No. I'm saying that the core doctrine of christianity is to make you have a slave mentality, to make you feel powerless, and thus easily manipulated, depressed, etc.

The warrant for slavery is because the christian bible clearly spells out that slavery is allowed, and gives a great many rules detailing exactly how you can get a slave, how much you pay for it, how much you can beat it, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 07:58:37 2013 No.6218011 >>6218004 There is no slavery in following your heart to the truth openly. Of course you get "better" when you become a christian, but its not a magic pull, salvation is an everyday process...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:00:37 2013 No.6218015 >>6218007 >>6218008 Put another way, why do you choose to be good instead of care about the suffering and happiness of your fellow human beings?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:02:07 2013 No.6218023

>>6218014
>No. I'm saying that the core doctrine of christianity is to make you have a slave mentality,

I dont really see it that way. Chritianity's core doctrine for me always seemed as doing bad things has consequences however if you stop doing the bad things and truly repent you will be rewarded

The only problem with Christianity is it has to update its list of what things are bad

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:03:36 2013 No.6218024

>>6218007
>>6218008
>>6218015
Put another way, because you are not all knowing, it is possible that what is good (under your definition) is something not equivalent to what is best for the happiness of your fellow human beings. Thus, why do you choose to obey god's commands when that might cause needless suffering in your fellow human beings?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:03:36 2013 No.6218025 >>6218008 Mine are justified true beliefs. Yours are unjustified arbitrary beliefs. Yes we both have beliefs that we chose ..in a way

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:04:36 2013 No.6218026

>>6218023
Did you miss the part where you have to accept Jesus as your Lord? You miss the part where Jesus is called the Lord, the Lord of Lord, the King of Kings? The only way to avoid hell is to accept Jesus as your lord. The only way to avoid hell is to become a slave and admit that you are powerless to help yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:05:36 2013 No.6218027 >>6218025 What is your justification? I'm asking for it. Why do you choose to obey "god's nature"? I haven't heard a justification yet. You do not have justified true beliefs. You have unjustified beliefs.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:07:36 2013 No.6218029

>>6218026

i agree you have to accept Jesus as your lord to be rewarded in chritianity but i dont necessarily see it as easing people into accepting slavery

Are you basing this on the theory that romans created chritianity to make sure the jew slave stay complacent and docile

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:08:06 2013 No.6218032 >>6218027 Because I value the truth and goodness and God provides both perfectly.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:08:37 2013 No.6218031

>>6218029
What the hell else does "accept as your lord" mean? In English, "lord" is a position of superiority without election nor any way of control by the inferior person. It's another word for "master" or "king", which makes every christian a slave. This is simply what the words mean.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:09:36 2013 No.6218035

>>6218032
How is that different than me saying I value human happiness? How is your arbitrary decision to value the good any better than my arbitrary decision to value human happiness? I'm waiting for your justification. Saying "Because I value it" is not a justification. I'm asking why do you value it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:11:06 2013 No.6218046 >>6218031 Slaves are oppressed and held against their will somehow. Bad analogy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:11:36 2013 No.6218043 >>6218031 why does it matter, they are the ones who are slave to a person in heaven, not to any person on earth Its still a reach for me to see chritianity promotes slavery, especially since many devout chritians now do condemn slavery

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:13:06 2013 No.6218048

>>6218046
And christians are not held against their will?
>Be my slave or suffer everlasting torment.
Definition: duress.

>>6218043
You still haven't addressed my other problem that the core of christianity is false material beliefs, and false material beliefs need to go, and thus christianity is not salvageable.

Why does it matter? Because I care about the happiness of my fellow human being, and submitting yourself as a slave - even if to a fictional creature - is a great way to not be happy. This is a demonstrable material fact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:15:07 2013 No.6218053 >>6218048 >You still haven't addressed my other problem that the core of christianity is false material beliefs what do you mean by false material beliefs?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:16:36 2013 No.6218054 >>6218053 That Jesus rose from the dead. That there is an afterlife. That prayer does anything beyond placebo effect. Christianity cannot survive without these false material beliefs.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:17:36 2013 No.6218058

>>6218035

You can value happiness all you like but it has nothing to do with morality and truth.

If you value morality you go to God. The justification is faith and your understanding. You might be wring since you are human but you have the possibility of being right. Because only when your foundation includes God can you possibly know what is good and true.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:18:37 2013 No.6218060

>>6218058
I ask again - why is it moral to follow god? You haven't explained that yet.

You've attempted to define "moral" to be "god's nature", but that's a completely unjustified assertion.

I'm asking you to justify that claim. I have not seen any justification of that. You are unjustified in your beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:19:06 2013 No.6218063 >>6218048 Hell is never ever duress. Since if you disbelieve in god/Jesus/bible you will disbelieve in hell.... Hell only matters to Christians and they have already made their choice and hell had no bearing on it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:19:06 2013 No.6218064 >>6218058 >>6218060 Put another way, if you can define god's nature to be moral, why can't I define my nature t be moral? This is a special pleading fallacy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:19:36 2013 No.6218062

>>6218054
>That Jesus rose from the dead. That there is an afterlife.

I am not sure what the problem with these beliefs are

>That prayer does anything beyond placebo effect

thats the most beneficial aspect a person can have from religion and some people need this when they have nothing else but hope even if it is false

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:21:06 2013 No.6218066

>>6218062
I have a problem with false material beliefs. False material beliefs almost always do more harm than good, because to have a false material belief, you generally need to abandon skepticism and science. Without skepticism and science, we're going to pursue bad public policy.

>>6218063
I have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Christians submit themselves as slaves to a (fictional) unelected celestial tyrant under purported duress. I agree that the threat of violence is fictitious, but it does nothing to change the beliefs of the christians. A believed fictitious threat is still duress. Christians still submit themselves as slaves under threat of violence.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:23:06 2013 No.6218070

>>6218060

I never said "gods nature"...you keep repeating this.

I ready explained why morality only exists via the will of an all knowing , perfect, good God. Everything else is mere human preference that changes from culture to culture and person to person...

If you value truth and goodness then obviously you follow their author...

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:24:06 2013 No.6218073

>>6218066
>because to have a false material belief, you generally need to abandon skepticism and science

You actually dont, the best part of having cognitive dissonance is that it works on all kinds of humans even scientists

Atleast 90% of scientists are religious but their dissonance allows them to separate science and religion without affecting their scientific works

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:25:36 2013 No.6218074

>>6218064
Preemptively again, you've already said and you're about to say that god is perfect, and that's why you can define god's nature to be moral and I cannot define my nature to be moral. I don't see why. Language is arbitrary. The word "moral" has a meaning to us only insofaras our consensus. "Moral" has no meaning to a non-English speaker. If you want to say that god is moral to a non-English speaker, you might as well say that god is foob, and it will carry just as much weight. You can define god to be foob as much as you want, but you have not given any reason why we should give a rat's ass, and you have not given any reason why it's any better than my caring about human happiness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:26:38 2013 No.6218076 >>6218070 How do you know that god is the author of goodness and not evil? You haven't answered this question yet. You are doing an equivocation between "perfect" and "good". Why? Why do you think that good is perfect and evil is not perfect?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:27:36 2013 No.6218078 >>6218064 You can define yourself to be god and decide that rape is good. Go for it. That'd what atheism leads to...anything goes because it had no foundation. Just your own biased desires and ideas which are fallible

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:28:37 2013 No.6218080

>>6218073
I say it again, those people who hold to false beliefs more often than not make bad public policy decisions.

Beliefs are operative. If they believe that they are true, then they will act on them, cognitive dissonance or not. Only by partitioning them so far away from reality can they avoid the bad effects, and basically no human being can do that. Such a human being does not exist. Your point is bunk.

If they believe that prayer works, than they will pray more often instead of doing sound policy more often than someone who believes prayer does not work. This is how people behave. There is no such human being who believes that prayer works who will never pray. It's a contradiction in terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:28:37 2013 No.6218081 >>6218073 >Atleast 90% of scientists are religious apparantly i am mistaken, 40% of scientists are religious But still these sientists accomplish good scientific work despite their beliefs thanks to dissonance

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:29:06 2013 No.6218084

>>6218078
Deflection. Why is god good? If it's by definition, then we might as well use the word "foob", and then you have to explain why "foob" is moral.

Why is god moral? Because you say so? That's a completely unjustified assertion. You can't just define god to be perfectly moral any more than you can define my dog to be perfectly moral. So what if god is perfect? I see perfectly evil just as plausible as perfectly good.

You're not answering the questions.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:30:36 2013 No.6218087

>>6218080
>those people who hold to false beliefs more often than not make bad public policy decisions.

false beliefs are not confined to cropping up from religion is what my point is

People will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of whether religion as a concept exists

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:30:36 2013 No.6218088 >>6218076 God is by definition Good. I don't see what is so hard to understand. Its like saying what if God was impotent and stupid...then that being is not God and your idea of him is misguided.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:31:36 2013 No.6218091

>>6218087
>false beliefs are not confined to cropping up from religion is what my point is
And that's why we should destroy false material beliefs wherever they are, religion and astrology and homeopathy, etc. You are not making an argument for religion. You're making an argument that we should also attack other false beliefs, and I agree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:32:36 2013 No.6218093 >>6218088 If you define god as moral, how do you know that god exists? The ontological argument and teleological argument and cosmological argument cannot get you that. They work just as well for evil gods as they do for good gods.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:34:07 2013 No.6218101 >>6218084 Justifications require justifications. The final justification is God. There is no other and there is no deeper justification. And there is no justification without god...

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:34:36 2013 No.6218100

>>6218091
>You're making an argument that we should also attack other false beliefs, and I agree.

Yes i am saying we should stop harmful false beliefs and i agree on that

But i think we have difference in our lists of what constitutes as harmful beliefs

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:35:06 2013 No.6218103

>>6218100
I think that believing in something without evidence is pretty damn high on that list. The first step to making a better society is good planning, which requires science and skepticism. Faith stands in direct contradiction with that, and needs to go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:36:07 2013 No.6218107 >>6218101 That's not an answer. How do you know that (good) god exists? How do you know that? The common arguments for a creator work just as well for an evil creator as a good creator. You have not demonstrated that a (good) god exists.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:38:36 2013 No.6218111

>>6218093

I have never used those arguments for God's existence since they are all deficient, except the cosmological one is partially good...

I'm not here to justify belief in God
I'm saying that without him all moral judgements are empty jokes and mere preferences.... Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:39:06 2013 No.6218119

>>6218103
>I think that believing in something without evidence is pretty damn high on that list

i can see why you think thats harmful but taking away everything even false hope seems extreme to me

>The first step to making a better society is good planning, which requires science and skepticism

Sure but there is no guarantee that a society with only science and skepticism will necessarily be better. It will still have the flaw of humans trying to enforce their beliefs

Bias will always exist in every society

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:39:36 2013 No.6218116 >>6218111 You have not demonstrated that your (good) god exists, thus your beliefs are equivalent to wishful thinking, e.g. delusional, which is just as bad as nihilism.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:41:06 2013 No.6218126

>>6218119
You are being unreasonable. Of course there is a high likelihood that a society based on truth and facts will end up better than a society based on fiction. The odds that you stumble across the better plans by luck is absurdly small. Do you not believe in the reliability of science?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:42:06 2013 No.6218129 >>6218116 Sure. As long as we agree atheism is morally bankrupt that's fine. I don t have time to justify God's existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:43:36 2013 No.6218130 >>6218126 >. Do you not believe in the reliability of science? Ironically i am skeptical of the bias nature in humans.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:44:07 2013 No.6218133

>>6218129
By your standards, I agree that atheism is morally bankrupt. However, your flaw is that under your standards, every world view is morally bankrupt. You have not demonstrated that your (good) god exists, and thus your world view is just as bankrupt as mine.

In the meantime, I'm going to be a decent human being and care about the happiness and well being of my fellow humans, while you continue to give fellatio to your unelected celestial tyrant who orders and commits genocide, mass rape, condones slavery, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:51:36 2013 No.6218147 >>6218130 I have no time for someone who doubts the efficacy of the scientific method and in evidence based reasoning in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:52:07 2013 No.6218151 >>6218147 >someone who doubts the efficacy of the scientific method and in evidence based reasoning in general. i dont doubt those necessarily but bias can easily make us sway away from the truth

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:53:37 2013 No.6218155

>>6218151
The scientific method is not a platonic ideal. It is something done by humans. Thus you doubt the efficacy of scientific reasoning, and I have no time for you. Take your cultural and epistomological relativism to /lit/ or some other shithole. We don't have time for that here. Here, we're concerned with truth, not bullshit. Take anthro - they'll love you there.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:57:06 2013 No.6218161

>>6218155
>Take your cultural and epistomological relativism to /lit/ or some other shithole.

what the fuck you are being hostile for no reason

Also my point is society or life is more than science. Science cannot exactly dictate how every aspect of our life should be since there are social aspects unrelated to science

There lies the vulnerability of human nature and bias which science annot exactly remove

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:58:06 2013 No.6218163 >>6218155 >The scientific method is not a platonic ideal. It is something done by humans which is why it will have the flaws that humans have

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:58:36 2013 No.6218162

>>6218129
>don't have time
Hypocrite. And wishful thinking.

There is no possible argument you can make to show the existence of a (good) god under your standards. Invariably, you are going to make an unjustified moral assertion, or you are going to violate Hume's is-ought distinction. You are doomed. Your world view is just as bankrupt as mine.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 08:59:36 2013 No.6218164

>>6218161
>what the fuck you are being hostile for no reason
I am being hostile to you. You are a shite. You are standing in the way of improving the human condition just as much as the Jesus-fucker in this thread. You are standing in the way of the advancement of the scientific method, truth, and human well-being.

You can either get on board that science (as done by humans) works, and is better than faith, or fuck off to /lit/.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:04:36 2013 No.6218171

>>6218164
>You are standing in the way of the advancement of the scientific method, truth, and human well-being.

No i am not

advancement will happen despite religion, there will be similar problems of false beliefs despite only being a scientific society because the problem is humans and neither science or religion

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:07:36 2013 No.6218181 >>6218171 No no. You don't get to deflect and dodge that easily. You clearly stated that you are not with me that science (as done by people) is a more reliable path to truth than faith. Repent and apologize, or fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:10:06 2013 No.6218189

>>6218181
>You clearly stated that you are not with me that science (as done by people) is a more reliable path to truth than faith.

I am not sure if it will be better or not because the problems we have today wont exactly vanish with a scientific society

We dont live in a society that is completely faith based or completely scientifically based. Going one way or the other wont be better or worse since human nature will dictate how that society will be

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:14:36 2013 No.6218191

>>6218189
As I said, I won't have a conversation with you until you clearly state that you agree that science (as done by humans) is the best and only reliable method we have to determine truth of our shared material universe, and that faith is an entirely useless method for determining truth - equivalent to throwing darts at a dartboard or rolling dice to inform your beliefs.

We're going to put an end to this epistemological relativism right here and now.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:18:36 2013 No.6218196

>>6218191

you are not getting my point

whether a society is religion based or science based is irrelavant, the state of the society depends on the people of that society

I in good faith cannot agree that a completely Science based society would be any better than the current society we live in, it will completely depend on the people of that scientific society whether they can be better than us or not

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:22:06 2013 No.6218199

>>6218196
You're not getting my point. We can improve the human condition. The only way to improve the human condition is to take out the bad beliefs, and put in good beliefs. Belief in the scientific method good. Belief in faith bad. Thus religion has to go, because religion cannot survive without faith. All other things staying equal, the society will get better. Or you think that it's impossible to improve the human condition.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:23:06 2013 No.6218202

>>6218196
Again you fucker, let me ask you - do you think it's a good thing to attack fascist communism and say we should get rid of the belief that it's a good thing? How the fuck is christianity any different? Both are largely wildly fictitious, and both result in very harmful behaviors.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:30:06 2013 No.6218209

>>6218199
>All other things staying equal, the society will get better. Or you think that it's impossible to improve the human condition.

I dont think being a completely scientific society would guarantee improving human condition

>>6218202
The problem is i see the root cause of the harmful behaviour is not the belief but the humans who have it in their nature to behave harmfully intentionally or unintentionally. The belief is just an excuse to enforce the harmful behaviour. It will happen regardless of the belief

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:36:36 2013 No.6218219

>>6218209
>I dont think being a completely scientific society would guarantee improving human condition
Strawman. I never said that. Engage my actual argument.

>>6218209
>The problem is i see the root cause of the harmful behaviour is not the belief but the humans who have it in their nature to behave harmfully intentionally or unintentionally. The belief is just an excuse to enforce the harmful behaviour. It will happen regardless of the belief
Do you think that we can improve the human condition by removing harmful beliefs? Do you think we're better now that we have eradicated the belief that slavery is ok?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:44:06 2013 No.6218235

>>6218219
>>6218219
>Engage my actual argument.

the honest answer is i dont know human condition will improve or not in a completely scientific society. The problem still lives with flawed humans

It can get better sure but it also can get very worse

>>6218219
>Do you think that we can improve the human condition by removing harmful beliefs?

yes

>>6218219
>Do you think we're better now that we have eradicated the belief that slavery is ok?

yes

But the nature to not enslave wasnt exactly be dictated by science.

People saw slavery as wrong decided and got it abolished

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:54:36 2013 No.6218256 He's a biologist that acts like a theologian. I side with Chris Hedges on him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 09:55:36 2013 No.6218262 >>6218256 >I side with Chris Hedges on him. what did Chris hedges say about him

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 14:11:36 2013 No.6218786 >>6217900 Hell isn't punishment. Punishment requires consequences intended to ensure amendment of future behavior. Hell doesn't have any of that. Hell isn't punishment. It's revenge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:11:48 2013 No.6218904 >>6218786 Hell is the logical consequence of separating yourself from god...its full of sorrow because being apart from truth and goodness and love is unpleasant ... Its simply a choice ppl make for themselves

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:15:19 2013 No.6218908 >>6218904 I'm cool with being apart from god. That guy's a monster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:27:18 2013 No.6218921 >>6218908 Sure, just realize you will be perpetually displeased and in an endless search trying to fill that emptiness with distractions...and when you die there will be nothing to distract your from the reality of your choice...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:37:49 2013 No.6218934 >>6218921 I'm pretty happy right now. Don't see why I should be any less so if you're correct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:40:18 2013 No.6218941 >>6218934 It'll pass and you will require new distractions to make you happy, its a temporary effect. Soon the phenomenal world will end for you and there will be no thing to distract you anymore...you won'tbe able to obtain even a moments happiness...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 16:12:48 2013 No.6218982 >>6218941 OKAY DAVEY

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:44:18 2013 No.6219131 >>6218941 >You are a miserable human being who can only be happy by submitting yourself as a slave to an unelected celestial tyrant Yep.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:46:18 2013 No.6219135 >>6219131 I don't know about you, but I voted for God. You don't get a vote unless you come to church.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:48:18 2013 No.6219146 >>6219135 >She doesn't know i'm god How sad

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:48:48 2013 No.6219141 >>6219135 Oh, what other options were on the ballot? Were there election observers to guarantee a fair result? When are the next elections? The tyranny of the previous generation is as bad as any tyranny - see the work of Thomas Paine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:52:18 2013 No.6219164 >>6219141 >Oh, what other options were on the ballot? buddhism, odinism, hinduism, pantheism, atheism, materialism, etc you can pick whatever incorrect philosophy you choose and face the effects. Up to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:55:48 2013 No.6219174 >>6219164 That's not the same as voting (the christian) god out of office. Thus, if the christian god exists, it is an unelected celestial tyrant.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:00:19 2013 No.6219187
File: 2.92 MB, 291x300, 1386802841128.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6219174
>Thus, if the christian god exists, it is an unelected celestial tyrant.

You can't vote on whether a triangle has 3-sides or 1+1 = 2. These are just facts of reality.
Do you think mathematics is an unelected platonic tyrant?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:02:18 2013 No.6219194 >>6219187 Math doesn't send me to hell and choose to do nothing while I rot there. Math doesn't choose to not resurrect me from the dead to avoid the pain of hell. Math doesn't order and commit genocide, mass rape, condone slavery, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:03:18 2013 No.6219198 >>6219194 >Math doesn't send me to hell and choose to do nothing while I rot there. Actually it does. Math classes are worse than hell.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:03:48 2013 No.6219196 >>6219187 Mathematics doesn't control people's lives, order and allow death, rape, and torture, or administer eternal vengeance. If it did, I would call it a tyrant. Oh yeah, Mathematics also exists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:07:48 2013 No.6219209 File: 2.28 MB, 2274x1516, 1386803231051.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6219198 >being this shit of a troll fennec finds you distasteful

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:08:18 2013 No.6219214 >>6219209 >What are jokes

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:09:18 2013 No.6219216 >>6219209 Completely missing the joke .jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:10:18 2013 No.6219225 File: 34 KB, 600x450, 1386803456354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6219214 >>6219216 >being this shit at jokes harpy will never suck your cock

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:12:19 2013 No.6219231

>>6219194
>Math doesn't send me to hell and choose to do nothing while I rot there

Hell is a distance from God that you chose.
It's like walking away from the Sun and complaining that you are cold and freezing.

Sorry if punching yourself in the face hurts, that's reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:14:18 2013 No.6219243 If you have ever seen him talk to a creationist, it is amazing how he keeps his cool

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:14:48 2013 No.6219240 >>6219231 Again, if we're talking about the biblical god, cool. Could he just destroy me forever, actually? Because any kind of eternal existence sounds terrible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:14:48 2013 No.6219241 >>6219225 That's okay. I don't even have a cock.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:16:48 2013 No.6219246 >>6219231 No, it's more like walking away from a genocidal powermad dictator. Have you actually read your bible and seen what crimes against humanity and war crimes your god commits?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:18:49 2013 No.6219254 >>6219241 Are you the same troll bitch pretending that people who say life might have developed on other worlds are claiming absolutely that aliens exist? How about some tits?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:20:18 2013 No.6219256 >>6219246 Have you read the New Testament? Go read the gospels, from start to finish, then read some of the epistles. Come back to me then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:22:48 2013 No.6219268 >>6219256 Jesus was alright, but he was kind of an empty-headed hippie. Said and did some brain-dead things. Stuffing demons in other people's pigs and cursing other people's fig trees. Overall, not one of my favorite heroic journey myths.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:23:19 2013 No.6219270

>>6219256
>>6219256
Where the part where Jesus tells the slave to go back to his master? Where one of the books says that slaves should obey their christian masters to bring glory to christianity? Where Jesus tells you to make no thought for tomorrow, live like a bum, because the end is nigh. (2000 years later, and I'm still waiting.)

The new testament is also where the idea of infinite eternal suffering is introduced. Infinite eternal suffering is completely and wholly unjustifiable in any situation. In fact, the new testament is even more horrid than the old testament.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:33:19 2013 No.6219297 >>6219256 Protip: Atheists in christian countries usually know the bible better than christians. Fact. Reading the bible is one of the best ways to become an atheist.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:51:48 2013 No.6219340

>>6219270
>Where the part where Jesus tells the slave to go back to his master?

What about it? Jesus tells christians if someone steals from you to give them more. If someone makes you run a mile with them, run two.

>Where Jesus tells you to make no thought for tomorrow, live like a bum, because the end is nigh.

This is more subtle than you think. It has to do with a perspective on life and overcoming anxiety. People dwell on the future and worry constantly about material goods, when they should be thinking about the present and doing what is good instead.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:54:48 2013 No.6219347

>>6219340
Sorry - you don't get off supporting slavery by also supporting socialism.

And his advice was not to worry so much. His command was to abandon your family and give no thought for tomorrow because the world will end while some of the audience are still alive. 2000 years later, and no world ending. Ergo failed prophecy. Ergo Jesus is a fraud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:02:48 2013 No.6219366 >>6219340 >this is more subtle than you think Wonderful, this shit again.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:10:18 2013 No.6219376

>>6219347

>end times prophecy

He is referring to the future generation that will experience it, since he is talking about the future. He is saying it will happen quickly, once it starts, it'll be over in the life time of the generation that experiences it.

>you don't get off supporting slavery by also supporting socialism.

no need to be ethical, it's a choice you can make. Christians choose ethics over selfish hedonism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:13:18 2013 No.6219380 >>6219376 No. Read your bible. He says that some people he is talking to will be alive when he comes back.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:14:18 2013 No.6219383

>>6219376

protip: don't talk to Christians about the bible. It means whatever the fuck they want it to mean, even if it says the exact opposite of what they're claiming.

I pointed out a bunch of times in the bible that god ordered slaughter of innocents and rape, and every time this dude claimed that some word was mistranslated and actually they had only killed enemy combatants. They shape reality to their lunacy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:14:18 2013 No.6219384 >>6219376 What the fuck does supporting slavery have to do with ethics? Supporting slavery is the opposite of ethics.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:27:18 2013 No.6219414

>>6219380
>He says that some people he is talking to will be alive when he comes back.

No he doesn't, he says the generation that sees the beginning signs will see the end of times. Which generation it will be, at what time is unknown.

Also if you read it in it's context he literally says there will be many tribulations through many ages, wars, pestilence, and his followers will die and be persecuted.

How can they die and also be the ones to witness the end of times lol? He's talking about a future generation

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:30:18 2013 No.6219420 >>6219243 The Wendy Wright interview. Shit, I'd be an anti-theist if I had to deal with that for 50 years too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:32:19 2013 No.6219424 >>6219384 >What the fuck does supporting slavery have to do with ethics? Supporting slavery is the opposite of ethics. what do you mean? Everyone is a "slave" to someone else, it depends how you are treated.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:37:18 2013 No.6219439

>>6219414

Mark 13:30 - Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

To be fair, there are bits of Mark 13 where he could be referring to future generations, but he also refers to signs of the end times specifically addressed to the audience at hand. I see no good reason to conclude he isn't talking about the current generation, and you can't present one that would be acceptable.

But you'll still go on thinking he wasn't. Good thing there's no concrete reason to believe that, if there was a person such as Jesus, he ever actually said these things or that, if he did, there would be any reason to take them seriously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:47:19 2013 No.6219479 >>6219424 I am no one's slave.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:55:18 2013 No.6219489

>>6219439
>I see no good reason to conclude he isn't talking about the current generation

Well it's a prophecy into the future...the time is at least after the gospel is preached to all nations ( mark 13:10)...after many false prophets pretend to come in his name, many wars will be fought, many nations will be destroyed, earthquakes, pestilence, will come and go...the time frame seems to be more than 1 life time.

The end of times will happen AFTER the tribulations, but more importantly no one knows when that time will be, not angels, not even Jesus.

>"“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is." mark 13:32

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:58:18 2013 No.6219500 >>6219489 Yes, and that makes him even doubly wrong. Not only did the endtimes not come, but the gospel was not preached to the world, many wars were not fought, etc etc.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:59:22 2013 No.6219505

>>6219500
>Yes, and that makes him even doubly wrong. Not only did the endtimes not come, but the gospel was not preached to the world, many wars were not fought, etc etc.

You're reading the passage from end to start. You should try reading it from start to end instead.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:01:22 2013 No.6219514

>>6219505
Whatever. Side tangets.

Recap:
There is no even remotely compelling evidence that any of the interesting parts of the bible are anything but fiction. There is plenty of evidence that a lot of the interesting bits are complete fiction, including all of Genesis, Moses in his entirety, and Jesus in his entirety.

The god described in the christian bible orders and commits genocide, mass rape, condones slavery, and demands that you submit as a slave to him, under penalty of infinite eternal suffering.

So, the god described in the christian bible is a dick, the evidence shows it does not exist, and I'm glad such a creature does not exist.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:29:18 2013 No.6219587

>>6219514
>There is plenty of evidence that a lot of the interesting bits are complete fiction, including all of Genesis, Moses in his entirety, and Jesus in his entirety.

genesis and moses are mostly metaphorical anyway, so it's no big deal.

Jesus as a historical figure is well established in modern scholarship basically all historians agree that he was a person.

His divinity is beyond historical evidence and a matter of faith.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:33:21 2013 No.6219594

>>6219587
No, the consensus of scholarship looking into the issue is that every attempt at establishing a historical Jesus uses fallacious methods or applies them fallaciously.

Furthermore, the only record of a historical Jesus is the 4 gospels of the new testament, and the gospels are obvious myth and fiction, moreso than Genesis.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:38:19 2013 No.6219603

>>6219594
>, the consensus of scholarship looking into the issue is that every attempt at establishing a historical Jesus uses fallacious methods or applies them fallaciously.

huh? this is simply false.
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Existence

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:41:24 2013 No.6219608

>>6219603
I'm sorry - I wasn't quite clear enough.

The consensus is that Jesus existed. The consensus is also that every attempt at describing the historical Jesus uses fallacious methods or applied methods fallaciously. Every paper published which looks at attempts to establish facts about a historical Jesus come to the conclusion that the methods used are bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:47:18 2013 No.6219622 >>6219608 >Every paper published which looks at attempts to establish facts about a historical Jesus come to the conclusion that the methods used are bullshit. Citation required.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:55:19 2013 No.6219647 >>6219622 IIRC, see Richard Carrier's book "Proving History". Citations are in there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:01:24 2013 No.6219661 >>6219647 Richard Carrier is a lone hack, his scholarship is refuted over and over, with regards to Hitler and Jesus. Do you have any reliable sources? I'll side with 99.99% of serious scholars than a lone quack with a weird agenda.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:07:18 2013 No.6219676 >>6219661 >Carrier >lone quack How so?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:46:18 2013 No.6219750

>>6219594

Many people accept that there may well have been a Jewish rabbi and philosopher called Jesus, or Yeshua, or whatever.

No serious scholar accepts anything in the biblical accounts as historically accurate, and knowing anything about his life is probably impossible.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 23:22:28 2013 No.6219944

Where I come from, personally, in a rather closed life, but travelled.
I do not see militant behaviour, I have not read all his work but the most promising statements have passed my vision on occasion, no doubt nowhere near all of them.

The thing of it is, to me, militancy is construed from requirement to put forward all views available for all views to be studied, in order that a scientist can then collate exactly what the people would expect.

Fact is, hard things sometimes save lives.
The line we draw, whether on the receiving end or not, is as versatile as the very idea that logic in infinity will be sole keeper of all.

Briefly scanning this thread I ponder, what exactly are the worst ideas that bother people so much.
Would anyone care to cite the major issues for me please?.
Unusual for me to ask, I do doubt anyone will.
But thank you, if you do.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:00:22 2013 No.6220066

>“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Reasonable suggestion, The dynamic of religion is tainted by diversity and the final block of believing we have clear will is hard to grasp, if, one does not believe one can begin to do such.

'You refer to yourself as one' -Simplest solution.

-----
>“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”

― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

----
Dying as a lucky concept within, is clearly forever flawed in moments, or forever grand in moments. The level to which it is grand only very rarely exceeds the potential of the alternate perception, this is true even through deliberate psychological torture. I do know this to be certainly true based on personal experience, even to the greatest reasonably expected potential of rational test procedures, which deny some but not all ethical boundaries.
Of interest at this point is that after such techniques are finalised, a person such as myself does steadily recover to total reasonable state of acknowledgement that life is better when not waiting to die.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:32:27 2013 No.6220146 >>6217942 http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-strange-geometries

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:47:19 2013 No.6220174
File: 10 KB, 276x183, 1386827253288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6217839
>How is it free will to keep someone in hell against their will?

Order of unitary compliance sometimes prohibits reintegration immediately, no paranoia must be the situation for said soul.
IE: No irrational fear, at very least.

>Why can you only choose before you go to hell?
Choice is forever, it has been prescribed as none present, by the validity of Hell as a prison system of sorts. It is, however, always part of what goes on, in terms of marginal rebuttal to all situations eventually (considering override is pure deliberate action constantly). Though, this can be overridden for some unlucky souls who are isolated for assorted concerns and hey are left to be mastered due to world issues or their own.

>People should be allowed to leave hell after they get there. Where's your free will in hell?

In short, free will is wherever no will is, agreement to remain in Hell occurs to some extent because the logic which puts you there should technically not be possible to refute.

>Infinite punishment for finite crime, etc
Infinite punishment is a myth to most who find themselves in Hell, rare exceptions occur but punishment is sometimes not the result of those exceptions anyway, eventually due to the walls becoming less important the concern.

Time Heals the above, the world may just not like it.

>>6217864
>forgiven may be understood as a complete elimination than as an infinite punishment

Negative.
There is an existence based plausibility in two potential ways of ceasing to be present in the now as 'will', but these options are too far out of mans grasp AND SHOULD REMAIN SO. Hitler MAY HAVE RISEN DUE TO THIS ALONE.
I Will not discuss it, but many figure it out, so we must be organised and ethical. Not arguing over religions. 'sacrilege' is almost me today.
Perhaps the reason there are so many walls, but no fool would consider this ideology reasonable food for thought for long. We must not allow it and no-one does. (Even still both are revertible).

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:48:19 2013 No.6220177 >>6220174 >(word salad) Can you speak English?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 00:58:19 2013 No.6220197
File: 25 KB, 228x285, indigenous_image_wins_national_portrait_prize_image1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6220177
In short, I am 'electrocuted kid, meets LSD, minus most concerns with school, plus demons and a portion of free humanity which rivalled any my demons had met' Hence the argument.

Nothing wrong with abos Either, school or not, is there now?.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:02:27 2013 No.6220210 File: 85 KB, 512x440, 1386828137809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6220197

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:04:19 2013 No.6220218 File: 129 KB, 960x720, 1386828261364.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6220210

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:12:24 2013 No.6220236 >>6220218 Doges!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:22:10 2013 No.6220260 >>6220174 >considering override is pure deliberate action constantly At the time present, that is. I am calm.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:26:10 2013 No.6220266

>>6220197
'High hopes you can make a difference kid'

Last statement then you can see the back of me.

Urban pacification requires acceptance to function in the system, current situations alternate or not, to Hells or lack of them in alternate societal structures.

My apologies if I put a Demon in this scientific thread and it stings. (Science explaining Hell, I reckon).

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 05:00:57 2013 No.6220546 >>6220266 Are you copying this from somewhere? Do you have a word salad generator? I hope you're not typing this out by hand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 10:26:05 2013 No.6220797 >>6220174 >In short, free will is wherever no will is Inaccurate minorly but totally true in absolute terms.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 10:41:58 2013 No.6220819
File: 883 KB, 1440x960, 1386862893228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6220546
There is a lot of that going around.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10512672/Fake-sign-language-interpreter-at-Mandela-memorial-claims-it-was-schizophrenic-episode.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 10:50:57 2013 No.6220834 >>6220819 If you see how hard 'some' peoples lives are daily.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 11:11:58 2013 No.6220872
File: 47 KB, 628x442, 1386864701652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6220210
>>6220218
Moments.
Nothing but mere moments, you think dogs notice colour?.
I know cats seem to.

>Schizophrenia can be very mild and quite surprisingly balanced. It can even reach that point. Psychosis can be internal only and no major threat to the world sometimes. This too subsides often, to my knowledge and experience.

Maybe God just works in mysterious ways.

>An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous; And he that is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked.
Proverbs 29:27

Should have said 'aboriginals'. Hey to they.

>"Yes, you put one man in charge of the world and the rest of you fuckup, this does occur". :)

>Definition of evil:
Some other living being looks peculiar to yourself for some reason!.

-Agnostic recedes to less myth than usual.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 11:29:58 2013 No.6220905

>>6220872
>>"Yes, you put one man in charge of the world and the rest of you fuckup, this does occur". :)

Poor Joke, man.
One man will never be in charge of the whole world again, if one ever came close at all. Even Richard Dawkins probably asserts this logic.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math