[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 604 KB, 1608x1760, 1387074193090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226445 No.6226445[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Can you be atheist person and claim you are rational person at the same time? In my objective opinion no. What are you're thoughts on this matter?

t: agnostic

>> No.6226466

Why is it irrational to not believe in something that has no evidence for its existence? Is it irrational that I don't believe in unicorns?

>> No.6226472

>>6226466
No evidence that it exists but no evidence that says it cant exist either

wheres the evidence that the big bang actually happened and the universe just exploded out of nothing

>> No.6226477

It's false that people believed the world was flat before 1500. Even the ancient Egyptians and Mayans knew the world was round.

>> No.6226478

>>6226466
There is plenty evidence of intelligent design. Not to mention majority of earth's population believe in him. You can't declare that something doesn't exist just because you can't at this moment prove it doesn't. You can have doubts, but then you're not an atheist, but agnosti, because you acknowledge the possibility that god may exist.

>> No.6226485

>>6226478
>There is plenty evidence of intelligent design.

Like?

>> No.6226486
File: 21 KB, 367x384, 1387075341517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226486

>>6226478
>You can't declare that something doesn't exist just because you can't at this moment prove it doesn't.

Yes I can, until it is proven otherwise.

Now go kill yourself and when you are in front of your god tell him to revive you and then come back and tell me.

>> No.6226488

>>6226485
Animals, you tard

>> No.6226492

>>6226478
There are tons of different Gods that have been created and discarded, and many different ones being worshiped today. Which one is the real one? Are they all real? How can we be sure? And please inform us of all the evidence for intelligent design.

>> No.6226501

>>6226485
>>6226492
Like the laws, how did order come from chaos? Repeating infinite logical patterns.

>>6226486
You can declare that it's your opinion, but that's all it is, your opinion.

>> No.6226502

>>6226488
They're evidence of evolution by natural selection, actually.

>> No.6226507

>>6226472
>>6226445

When you propose the existence of something, it's not atheists' job to "disprove" it. The burden of proof is on the religtards. Just like you when you say, "no evidence that says it cant exist either". Science isn't limited only to direct observations. Scientists gather inferences to come to ideas for the big bang from the way subatomic building blocks behave to Hubble's Law that says galaxies travel away to their redshift until their light can no longer reach us. But the big unraveling of time and space could have never actually happened, but it did some how. How exactly? We don't know. We have no idea. But how is "no evidence that says it cant exist either" more of a case for the Judea Christian God than it is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How is that even repeatable OP? Protip: It's not, so you should probably leave /sci/ and migrate to /x/.

>> No.6226510

>>6226501
You not understanding something is not evidence for a creator.

>> No.6226512

>>6226507
But you just just confirmed that agnosticism is the only rational stance, as atheism and theism are equally irrational. Thank you for agreeing with me :) There is no rational atheism, only rational agnosticism :)))

>> No.6226513
File: 10 KB, 500x341, 1387076404426.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226513

>>6226512
See pic, there are more than 3 stances on the matter.

What you are referring to agnostic, is in fact agnostic atheist.

>> No.6226514

>>6226445

Is it irrational to not believe in the tooth fairy?

Is it irrational that I don't believe in Santa?

Is it irrational that I don't believe that Megan Fox is standing outside my door right now in a pink onesie waiting to fuck me?

I have no evidence for or against any one of these right now. I don't claim to know whether any are true but I definitely don't believe any of them.

>> No.6226515

>>6226512
define atheism, please

>> No.6226518

>1500 AD
The ancient goddamn egyptians knew it was round buttmunch

>> No.6226521
File: 23 KB, 425x295, 1387076549523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226521

>>6226445
actually, about 600 years before christ the fact the earth is round was known.

>> No.6226520

>>6226510
I didn't say creator, I said intelligent design. The laws governing this universe are logical and intelligent, part of an order. In quantum test it has been shown that without observation particles exist in a state of chaos, but when they are perceived they get order. Therefore universe can only get order through perception, otherwise it would be in a state of chaos, which it clearly isn't.

>> No.6226522

>>6226520
>In quantum test it has been shown that without observation particles exist in a state of chaos, but when they are perceived they get order.
someone has been watching to much pop science.
how the fuck do people get teh double slit tehory so fucked up?

>> No.6226524

>>6226515
lack of belief in god. However that definition no longer applies to modern atheism as majority of modern atheist deny god in it's entirity.

>> No.6226525

>>6226512
You seem to define atheism as the stance that it is 100 percent certain that no god exists. When arguing with atheists, I think you better start accepting that there is a definition of atheism that is only a tiny bit less narrow than yours, that is still considered atheism.

>> No.6226529

>>6226514
>ave no evidence for or against any one of these right now. I don't claim to know whether any are true but I definitely don't believe any of them.
Isn't that the definition of irrational?

>> No.6226530

>>6226472
>>wheres the evidence

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060911/PowerSpectrum300.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrYF_hxxUM

>> No.6226547

>>6226529

If that's what you want to make your definition yes. But I guess that would also make me irrational for not believing in a pussy monster hiding underneath my bed.

If that is indeed the case, then I think any 'rational' person is clearly insane.

>> No.6226548

>>6226512
You beat around my questions for you so read carefully. All atheism is is a standpoint that demands proof from the religious who claim that their imaginary friend is part of reality; nothing more. So by definition, you're saying that disagreeing with such claims is irrational. I said -- for argument's sake -- that the big bang could have never actually happened. You confirmed already by saying, "wheres the evidence that the big bang actually happened and the universe just exploded out of nothing" that you don't know much about the big bang. Neil Degrasse Tyson even says in one of his youtube videos that he considers himself to be more of an agnostic. I know agnostics who understand the case for the big bang and are rational in their stance, but hold their own definition for the term "god". Which relates to shit like Higgs bosons and mechanisms and shit that is repeatable that can be brought to a laboratory than a personal, insecure god-being who made planet Earth 6,000 years ago, wrote a little book in a dumbed down stupefied illiterate part of the Middle East, who cares about who you're sleeping with and who you jerk off to.

>> No.6226550
File: 23 KB, 500x409, 1387077464001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226550

>>6226501
>You can declare that it's your opinion, but that's all it is, your opinion.

No, it's a fact.

If there was a god, he'd manifested himself long ago, and he'd fixed his buggy creation.

If he is all powerful, of course.

>> No.6226553

>>6226525
Positive atheism is like religion, negative atheism reduces god to the same category as unicorns and elves.

Skepticism is the main concept here, atheism is merely a subclass of skepticism regarding the dogma of god.


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

>> No.6226554

>>6226525

That doesnt really make sense for a word that literally means 'Without God(s)'

>> No.6226556

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci3

pls report

>> No.6226560
File: 128 KB, 308x308, 1387077683379.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226560

>>6226445

10/10

>> No.6226585

>>6226477
greeks too

>> No.6226599

>>6226477
This.
The ancient Greeks even calculated how large the planet's sphere was, and were within 1%.

>> No.6226604

>>6226445
>Earth is flat
>scientific fact till 1500 AD

Prime bait.

>> No.6226635
File: 2 KB, 126x101, 1387080506702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226635

>>6226488
>only a person can create something.

>> No.6226654

>>6226445

Science makes everyone look like a BITCH

>> No.6226661

>>6226445
>Earth is flat
>Scientific fact until 1500 AD
Just kill me.

>> No.6226668

http://vimeo.com/69970735