What is your opinion on Richie D? Is he doing God's work? Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people? Why does he look so young for his age? Would you touch his penis?

File: 405 KB, 363x473, dawky.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:24:52 2014 No.6391248 [Reply] [Original]

What is your opinion on Richie D? Is he doing God's work? Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?

Why does he look so young for his age? Would you touch his penis?

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:27:21 2014 No.6391252

>What is your opinion on Richie D?
Pretty cool guy, I have much respect for him and his bold approach.

> Is he doing God's work?
I can't answer this without knowing if there is a God or not.

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
Both I'd say.

>Why does he look so young for his age?
It seems like he takes care of himself.

>Would you touch his penis?
Probably wouldn't mind holding it or fondling it but I'm not sure about oral or penetration.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:29:21 2014 No.6391255
File: 8 KB, 250x220, shiggydiggy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I kind of feel sorry for him, he seems like he's really angry and always trying to put down others for their religious beliefs. I mean yeah some people are dumb, but what drives you to be so butthurt about it? Feelings of inferiority?

I don't think he's doing God's work, but what is God's work anyway?

Not sure, I don't keep up with his recent doings.

A combination of good genetics and probably a sedentary lifestyle.

No I wouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:31:51 2014 No.6391259 >>6391255 >that armchair psychology

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:35:21 2014 No.6391264

>>6391248
>What is your opinion on Richie D?
He was actually a pretty big early influence on me, I still find his writing to be very interesting.

>Is he doing God's work?
Haha...ha

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
>>6391252

>Why does he look so young for his age?
It seems old people are looking younger in general. Better western medicine and more ideal lifestyle?

>Would you touch his penis?
Maybe if he offered, but I don't know how I would feel about it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 3 21:36:52 2014 No.6391265
File: 21 KB, 251x250, 1389426927225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>What is your opinion on Richie D?

He's great. I've read a few of his books (Ancestors Tale, Greatest Show on Earth, Selfish Gene, God Delusion, Magic of Reality). I always chuckle at his subtle and not subtle jabs at creationists in his evolution books. If anything the man is committed.

> Is he doing God's work?

Absolutely.

> Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?

He doesn't debate religious people much at all actually. He's just well known for it because he's successful the times he has done it and not many other people really do. Or at least, on his level of fame and intelligence. Is debating a few religious people a year "too much"? Would "none at all" be preferred? Then we have an issue.

I don't know what he's doing personally right now though, but he did release the Magic of Reality recentlyish, which is aimed to educate younger people about the world. So I assume he's big on continuing to support STEM education among youth and raise, as he puts it, consciousness about reality rather than superstition.

I think in the Magic of Reality he mentions memes once or twice but doesn't go into detail. Of course he talks about genes a lot still since they're so key to evolution.

>Why does he look so young for his age?

Genes.

And he probably eats healthy and gets out often enough.

>Would you touch his penis?

N-No.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 00:21:52 2014 No.6391530
File: 852 KB, 2888x4636, Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6391248
I don't understand why he does what he does.
I used to be an atheist, and I could have cared less what theists were doing.

Christians are told to go and spread the word. Matthew 28:19
Not only that, but we really believe in God, we are genuinely concerned for others.
I honestly believe in hell, and I don't want anyone to go. Its easy not to. Accept God's gift of salvation.

If God is real, as I believe he is, getting people to seek him is of the utmost importance.
If God is not real, as Dawkins believes, who gives a shit what anyone believes.

Why does it bother him that I believe in God?

Assume that I am wrong about God.
I will spend my life trying to follow the teachings of Christ, and trying to get others to do the same. Which leads them to live a better life.
I think most can agree if everyone tried to lived the way the bible says to the world would benefit.
I will die happy thinking "I'm off to a better place". I will never know that I was wrong.

Now lets assume Dawkins is wrong about God.
He is spending his life denying God, and trying to get others to do the same. Which leads to their damnation
Darwinian evolution is the foundation for racism (pic related) It has been the basis for much wrongdoing.(debatable)
He will die thinking "This is the end" He will definitely know that he was wrong.

I do honestly believe in God. However I find the notion preferable, even if I were wrong.
Alright enough of that, and on to your questions.

>What is your opinion on Richie D?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

> Is he doing God's work?
He is doing the devils work.

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
Dunno.

>Why does he look so young for his age?
*looks up age. Almost 73 Wow he does look young for his age.
Must have made a deal with the devil.

>Would you touch his penis?
Nope.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:23:52 2014 No.6391535 >>6391248 We're all doing god's work, even the trees

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:27:52 2014 No.6391545

>>6391530
Atheists aren't really saying that your specific god isn't real, just that gods in general aren't. There's an opposite argument for each religion (there's nothing special about yours).

That said, I agree in the sense that I was raised without religion. It's silly to go around pissing off people over such ridiculous shit. I guess the dude thinks he's fighting some war against people who are trying to hold humanity back. Even then though, he's not exactly converting people left and right, all he's doing is preaching to the crowd and selling books.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:38:22 2014 No.6391561 >>6391530 Darwinian evolution is most certainly not the foundation for racism. That's not even close to being true. Racism existed just as much as it did before the birth of Charles Darwin as it did after Charles Darwin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:44:16 2014 No.6391567 >>6391530 You actually believe the devil exists? Hilarious. I recommend you go learn about the history of hassatan and the the clear evolution of that to Satan as the centuries of new authors and ideas go by.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:48:46 2014 No.6391572

>>6391561
Most biologists and anthropologists and those of higher education don't even really see "racism" among humans anymore. The genetic difference is too small. Racism in the classical sense "THOSE DAMN DARKIES, US WHITEYS ARE BETTER" just simply don't exist.

If anything the Bible is a large chunk of fuel for racism, what with interpretations that black people were the "marked" people, or that there's whole sections on how to own slaves and clear examples of genocide against other "races" to purge them because of the "Chosen people". Then there's the whole sexism thing that no sane person who understands the Bible will be able to say that men clearly aren't in almost every way superior to women according to the Bible.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 00:59:46 2014 No.6391585

>>6391530
>Why does it bother him that I believe in God?

It's because Christians make laws and rules based on a book written by people who thought illness was demons and sacrificed animals. They also indoctrinate children into believing this right from birth instead of letting a child decide on their own and teaching science (what we know to be true) first and then let them decide if they want to believe in things that conflict with what we know to be true.

That's the main issue really. Especially because American Christianity is almost genuinely retarded, as in how old the universe is, evolution, etc. These people vote and make laws and control America. Awful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:01:16 2014 No.6391587 >>6391572 >Most biologists and anthropologists and those of higher education don't even really see "racism" among humans anymore. What about Watson?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:20:50 2014 No.6391610 inb4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik o wait

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:23:19 2014 No.6391611 >>6391587 >Watson >steal others work >act like a douche >talk about a field you're in no way an expert in

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:28:49 2014 No.6391617 He is a Godless fedora that is poisoning the minds of the lost with his nonsense.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 01:51:50 2014 No.6391630
File: 267 KB, 1073x521, 1368497322193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6391545
>all he's doing is preaching to the crowd and selling books.
You could sell books on any topic.
This does not explain why he does what he does.

>>6391561
I stand corrected.
Nevertheless It provides justification for such beliefs.
I would ask you to read some of Hitler's work.
He used evolution as justification for his actions.

>>6391567
You actually deny that God exists? Hilarious. I recommend you go learn the truth.

>>6391572
I would ask you to read the title of Darwin's book again.
>PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES

>what with interpretations that black people were the "marked"
>interpretations

> whole sections on how to own slaves
They were not specific as to which race. Anyone could be a slave. i.e. Not racist

> clear examples of genocide
Justified by God
Could you say the same of Hitlers Genocide?

>sexism
Are you saying the bible says to treat women badly?
It does say for men to rule over them. Perhaps you should consider (pic related)
Also justified see Genesis 3:1-16

>>6391585
>let them decide if they want to believe in things that conflict with what we know to be true.
I agree that individuals should decide for themselves what the truth is. I do not believe in indoctrination.
That being said I have no problem teaching kids the bible.
Speaking of believing in things that are in conflict what what we know to be true
Your supposed spontaneous origination of life remains to be seen. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis
It is standing in opposition to known law. i.e. biogenesis

I would remind you that one of the greatest scientific minds the world has known was a Christian. Sir Isaac Newton
Do you presume he was likewise retarded? Or does that only count for us "American Christians"?
ps Religious kids make better grades. Fact. http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/august/081808teensreligion.html

If this thread is still up. I will have to make my replies in the morning. Good night, and good luck with the thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:53:19 2014 No.6391632 File: 1.99 MB, 350x300, 1391567059470.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6391630 >Justified by God You're a nutjob.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:56:19 2014 No.6391636 >>6391617 >Average brainwashing victim

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:56:49 2014 No.6391637 File: 36 KB, 366x334, RiversHURRRRRR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6391630 Female mechanical engineer here. Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:57:50 2014 No.6391638

>>6391630
>>6391630

Why did you retort with

>You actually deny that God exists? Hilarious. I recommend you go learn the truth.

God and the Devil are two different things. I said nothing about God not existing. I said the Devil is clearly made up f you follow the evolution of him in the bible from hassatan to Satan.

>>6391630

>I would ask you to read the title of Darwin's book again.

We've learned a lot since then. Darwin kickstarted a fantastic idea and now we're learning about it. Darwinism is evolution through natural selection. His misunderstandings about how it technically worked or "races" play no bearing in what we think now. This is why science is so great, and the Bible is not. Because the Bible is set in stone and never changes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and contradictions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 01:58:49 2014 No.6391640 >>6391630 You are a fairly well researched troll. But still a little too obvious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:00:19 2014 No.6391641 >>6391630 Isaac Newton wasn't a normal Christian. He was a hermit and believed he was divine. Stop using people pre-Darwin to satisfy your appeals to authority.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:03:50 2014 No.6391645

>>6391630
>I would remind you that one of the greatest scientific minds the world has known was a Christian. Sir Isaac Newton

He also believed in astrology. Just because you have great scientific ideas and understanding of physics and mathematics does not mean you know everything or are immune to believing absolute bullshit.

You must realize scientific minds back then did not have near as much understanding of the universe as we do now. They did not know about evolution. Things appeared designed. They did not know there were 100 billion galaxies. Everything looked designed and centered on them, which would make them assume "well a god surely did it".

I would say most of these "Christian Scientists" of yesterdays you theists always cite would more than likely be at most deist, if not atheist. This is besides the point, but basically see -

>>6391641

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:04:49 2014 No.6391646

I don't like Dawkins. He's had some pretty good ideas, but I don't understand why people like him when he's a dickhole all the time.

His book "The Selfish Gene" or something came under scrutiny, and he had the gonads to stick to his book without any concessions as to its accuracy, even though, since the time of its writing, genetics has been ever more studied and clarified in its relation to evolution. He really sounds like a man who is full of himself.

He's pretty smart, though. Still, it's no excuse for being arrogant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:05:49 2014 No.6391647 >>6391637 He is a man. How dare you talk to him like that. He rules above you. His appeal to authority by means of a fucking Queen means he is right. Now quit school and go make some babies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:18:07 2014 No.6391662 >>6391646 Anything you say to religious people is "being a dickhole". Literally anything, they are the world's easiest offended group of people. The good thing is being offended doesn't mean a single thing, so.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:23:36 2014 No.6391664

>>6391662
I didn't mean that. He's just kinda a dickhole ALL the time. I've never seen him not arguing or something.

Other science personalities fill me with wonder or information. Remember reading Asimov, or watching Sagan? They were good "science role models."

He carries himself in a manner I find displeasing. Just a personal preference, I suppose.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:25:07 2014 No.6391666

>>6391664
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes he does come off as a bit... blunt... sometimes, but I cannot deny he also isn't filled and does not fill me with wonder. I've read many of his books and Dawkins does make me feel many of the same things Sagan did.

Dawkins just has a more fierce agenda and it's probably left him a bit bitter in his experiences.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 02:29:38 2014 No.6391668

>>6391666
I judge a bit early without reading any of his books. Of all the popular science writers, he's the one I know least about, really. Anything recommended? I'm thinking Selfish Gene. I know a bit about genetics, and it seems like a good introduction into genetics in evolution.

I don't want anything to do with God or anything. I'm comfortable with my beliefs already. I prefer something a bit crunchier, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:35:55 2014 No.6391703 Richard Dawkins is a cunt.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:38:55 2014 No.6391705 File: 78 KB, 600x750, 1390393459287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] He's annoying and seems butthurt half the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:43:55 2014 No.6391710 >>6391705 I'm pretty butthurt half of my country thinks the universe is less than 10 thousand years old because of religion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:44:25 2014 No.6391712 >>6391637 That's exactly why I hate you, bitches. Because of your attentionwhoring I had no choice but to open this thread and read his post. And write this post; btw now that I'm writing >mechanical engineer Enjoy going down on your sisters in craft.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:46:55 2014 No.6391713 >>6391630 >You could sell books on any topic. It just so happens that his books on this topic sell. >This does not explain why he does what he does. It does.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:47:26 2014 No.6391714 >>6391710 Why would you be butthurt over that? You got anger problems bro?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 03:51:25 2014 No.6391717 >>6391712 >guys posts that that women are inferior/beneath men >woman naturally responds >the mere act of a female using the same website as you flings you into a rage >>>/r9k/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:00:28 2014 No.6391721 >>6391717 >irony >being this autistic >>>/r9k/ is waitin 4 u today

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:01:58 2014 No.6391724 >>6391721 >ironic shitposting >ironic shitposting is still shitposting >>>/v/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:04:58 2014 No.6391725 >>6391255 >I kind of feel sorry for him, he seems like he's really angry and always trying to put down others for their religious beliefs. I mean yeah some people are dumb, but what drives you to be so butthurt about it? Feelings of inferiority? rofl

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:05:58 2014 No.6391726 >>6391724 >whining about shitposting in a troll thread full of troll posts >>>/asp/ie plz

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:09:58 2014 No.6391730 >>6391530 why are you even here

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:12:58 2014 No.6391739

>>6391248
>Opinion
I appreciate what he's going for, but I don't particularly like the man. He seems kinda angry and very serious about stuff, just going by his Twitter. I don't know if I've only seen a bad side of him, or if he's just plain jaded.

>God's work
Lolno.

>Only debate
Mostly debate, but I've seen him talk about other stuff too.

>Looks young
Looks to be about 60, maybe 65 to me. Isn't that roughly his age?

>Touch Dick's dick
I would not touch his penis unless it would somehow help one or both of us. I have no reason to otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:15:58 2014 No.6391742 >>6391255 Do you have autism? Because he doesn't come off as being angry at all. The most you'd ever seen is excessive blinking but only when the guy he interviews is a complete twat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:18:28 2014 No.6391744 >>6391742 Watch his Wendy Wright video if you think he gets angry. This man is fucking amazing at keeping his cool.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:20:58 2014 No.6391747 >>6391664 >He's just kinda a dickhole ALL the time nah m8 u just dont know british folk

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 04:31:28 2014 No.6391755 Liked "Selfish Gene" Did not appreciate "God Delusion" - nothing new or interesting in it really, more of a crowd-pandering book. Like some of his talks, dislike others.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 05:12:04 2014 No.6391788

>>6391248
>What is your opinion on Richie D?
I don't have much respect for him and I'm vehemently against those who use his words to argue for the defense of Atheism or in a debate vs. Religion. He tries to debate Theological Philosophies, but he has absolutely no idea what he's arguing other than, "I think that's wrong. I think that's wrong". He let his war on religion overshadow his works on Evolutionary Biology. He is a brilliant Evolutionary Biologist and he should stay a brilliant Evolutionary Biologist.

>Is he doing God's work?
I don't know the agenda of God, therefore I do not speak about it.

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
It feels like all he does is debate religion anymore.

>Why does he look so young for his age?
Botox

Would you touch his penis?
No, it's probably an inferior race uncut penis and slathered in ooey gooey penis cheese.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 05:20:34 2014 No.6391793 >>6391530 >believing in the devil AND U SAID U WERE A CHRISTIAN!

>>	poland Tue Mar 4 05:46:04 2014 No.6391810 >richard dawkins >doing gods work top fucking lel 10/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 05:53:04 2014 No.6391815 He is using techniques that are known to not work. He does nothing but make religious people think atheists care what they believe. So long as separation of church and state is maintained there is no need to try and play chess with a pigeon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 05:53:34 2014 No.6391814 >>6391530 You're acting as if this is a 50/50 chance that God exists. From Dawkins perspective, God's existence is as likely as the existence of dragons or any other mythical being that we don't have evidence existed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 06:02:04 2014 No.6391821 >>6391815 America only has separation of church and state in theory only

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 06:03:35 2014 No.6391822

I agree with a lot of he says, he seems like a really intelligent guy. I don't think he's a good author though, he's very longwinded and dare I say full of himself sometimes.

I don't know what to think about his work on religion. I totally agree with him on the validity of religion but I don't know that being belligerent is the best way to go about it. I prefer the approach of people like Niel DeGrasse Tyson (as much as people take the piss out of him here) who seeks to educate people rather than disabuse them of their beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 07:05:34 2014 No.6391857 File: 144 KB, 508x657, 1390122054821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Is he doing God's work? don't know about him but you sure are doing it OP

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 10:16:42 2014 No.6392025 >>6391857 I'm not a big fan of Dawkins but this makes about zero sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:20:27 2014 No.6392178 >>6392025 It's saying that people can't comprehend God, like how the clay horse can't comprehend the boy who made it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:30:27 2014 No.6392188 >>6392178 Yea, but it isn't adressing the point being raised (no matter if it is a strawman or not); if you think god must exist because someone must have created man, then someone must have created god. Yet most religious-fags would not recognise this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:31:57 2014 No.6392189 >>6392178 I got that far. I think my problem is I'm trying to look too far into a political cartoon. >inb4 thread derailed into science v. religion

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 12:35:57 2014 No.6392192 >>6392188 >>6392189 Well by being an atheist, Dawkins is implicitly wrong so any bullshit religious argument proves everything he says wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 13:01:57 2014 No.6392212 File: 529 KB, 625x626, 1374622420424.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6391530 >>6391630 >Guaranteed replies

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 13:04:57 2014 No.6392215 File: 127 KB, 460x690, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6392192 >Well by being an atheist, Dawkins is implicitly wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 13:05:57 2014 No.6392216 id yank his cock off 4 no belieing in the ayatollahs wizdum

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 13:19:28 2014 No.6392236
File: 185 KB, 950x713, delk-track.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6391632
For believing in God?
>>6391637
I'm glad to see you have enjoyed my post.
>>6391638
>The devil is clearly made up.
I'm not sure you are reading the same bible as me.
>This is why science is so great
Because it has been wrong in the past?
I am not trying to say that it was wrong before so it is wrong now.
However I fail to see how previous errors make something great.
>the Bible is set in stone and never changes,
Agreed
> even in the face of overwhelming evidence and contradictions
[citation needed] Science does not disprove God.
Do not attempt to apply your interpretations of the evidence to your interpretations of the bible and count that as error.
This is known as conformation bias.
>>6391640
I know you wont believe me, but I am completely serious. I believe in God.
>>6391641
>>6391645
My point was that not all "Christians" are ignorant as argued in the post I was replying to>>6391585
Perhaps a different approach. http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.
>>6391713
I see your point, but I still find it to be lacking.
>>6391793
I got the notion from the bible.
Since when did Christianity give up the notion of a devil?
>>6391814
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I contend the possibility for God's existence is 100%. i.e. He is definitely real.
>God's existence is as likely as the existence of dragons or any other mythical being that we don't have evidence existed.
The word Dragon was used to describe the large reptiles. i.e. Dinosaurs. Do you deny that dinosaurs have lived. also (pic related)
>>6392212
I realize that my posts might make it seem that I am a troll.
I can only state that I am sincere. I know no way to prove it to you. Sorry

Well I think that was all who had replied to me. I shall have to go and read the thread.

I will read any replies I receive, but I might not reply again.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:11:22 2014 No.6392297

>>6391630
>Are you saying the bible says to treat women badly?
>It does say for men to rule over them.
That is literally sexism.

>>6392236
>Because it has been wrong in the past?
>I am not trying to say that it was wrong before so it is wrong now.
>However I fail to see how previous errors make something great.
Because science isn't a belief, like Christianity. It's a method. It looks at evidence and tries to figure out what happened; if new evidence is found that suggests old guesses were wrong, they accept this and change their beliefs.

What reason do you have to assume the Bible is correct? It was written by people, and people are far from infallible.

Why assume that it is a more correct documentation of God than any other religion? Or just some guy who says God talked to him?

>[citation needed] Science does not disprove God.
>Do not attempt to apply your interpretations of the evidence to your interpretations of the bible and count that as error.
>This is known as conformation bias.
You'd have to do some pretty crazy mental gymnastics to assume that the evidence doesn't contradict what the Bible says happened.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:25:27 2014 No.6392313 >people who don't know what religion is Pls stop, you guys are embarrassing yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:28:57 2014 No.6392317 >>6392297 This this this this this

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:29:57 2014 No.6392320

>>6391248
>What is your opinion on Richie D?
Breety gud guy. I think its about time secularist stop pussy footing around and actually get some one whos a bit more aggressive
>Is he doing God's work?
nope.avi
>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
Little bit of column A, and a little of B
>Why does he look so young for his age?
Older People are generally living longer and longer, maybe he has/had a healthy lifestyle

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 14:34:27 2014 No.6392323 Havent Dawkins' new book been published already? That life story making scientist thing. cant wait for translated version. His life has been interesting and as evolutionary biologist I respect his work

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 15:02:27 2014 No.6392361 bumb

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 15:16:27 2014 No.6392384

I like him, but I've only read The God Delusion and seen a few of his talks.

He does sometimes seem to come off as arrogant, but I do kind of have an appreciation for the aggressive way he's fighting religion.

I was raised by religious parents, so it's been interesting learning about why religion sucks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 15:24:27 2014 No.6392396 >>6391788 >he has absolutely no idea what he's arguing other than, "I think that's wrong. I think that's wrong" lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:13:26 2014 No.6392530 >>6392396 I disagree. Even if that were true at least he's thinking, unlike the other side which is MUH BIBLE, MUH MISUNDERSTANDING THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, MUH OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 16:18:57 2014 No.6392539

>>6392297
>That is literally sexism.
ok
Because science isn't a belief
Do you not believe in science?

>What reason do you have to assume the Bible is correct?
I have a great number of reasons, but for the sake of /sci/ I will limit them to ones related to science.

You don't seem to understand what [citation needed] means, as you have provided none.
Let me give you some examples of citation.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This verse indicates that the universe has a beginning. Science has confirmed this fact to be true.
Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. This verse indicates that the earth floats in space. Science ....I think you get the point.
Job 38:16 - Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? This verse indicates there are springs in the sea.
Isaiah 40:22 - [removed] that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: This verse indicates the universe is expanding.

Many more examples could be given. Although I think they would just be ignored.
Perhaps it is you who is performing "pretty crazy mental gymnastics" to hold on to your beliefs that the bible is false.
As previously demonstrated by the faith in a "supposed spontaneous origination of life" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

The truth is you don't want to believe in God, so you look for reasons to justify denying him. Its not that the evidence leads you to that belief.
There is no reason at all to assume abiogenesis could occur. Aside from the notion that God cannot be. A notion that has absolutely no justification.

I guess no one had any thoughts on.
http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html

>>6392317
Doesn't take much to convince you that you were previously correct.

Getting back on topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:22:56 2014 No.6392548

>>6392539
my favorite part of the bible is when the donkey starts talking to his owner about what a good donkey he has been

man, ancient life was CUHRAAAAAZY. it's interesting how donkey's evolved to not speak human language in only 2.5 thousands years though

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:38:56 2014 No.6392559

>>6392539
You can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in science, only use or not use it.

I don't deny the Bible being accurate because I want to, but because it claims stuff like the story of Noah, when that only fits the evidence if you interpret it broadly enough that it loses all meaning.

There's also the paradox of an entity being omniscient and omnipotent, and still punishing or rewarding people for their actions.

If a person sins, then a God like the one described in the Bible would be ultimately responsible for that sin, by knowingly creating the circumstances that led to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:39:26 2014 No.6392561 >>6392539 in my opinion science has "buried" god. God is no longer necessary, we cant disprove god, but there i no need for him and is only believed through wish thinking really.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 16:43:56 2014 No.6392574

>>6392548
I believe that God has created the universe.
Getting a donkey to speak is a minor feat by comparison.

Perhaps a bit more science to back up the bible.
The bible has said.
In the beginning God created one man, and one woman.
Science has confirmed the notion of one man and one woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
"Analogous to the Mitochondrial Eve is the Y-chromosomal Adam, the member of Homo sapiens sapiens from whom all living humans are descended patrilineally. The inherited DNA in the male case is his nuclear Y chromosome rather than the mtDNA. "

Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood
Although this may seem obvious to us now. That was not always the case.
Quite recently in history we have found the practice of bloodletting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
Eventually however science has once again confirmed the bible.

Although the bible is not a science book. It seems to be quite accurate when it speaks of things regarding the natural world.

>>6392559
>You can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in science
Absurd.

>If a person sins...
I would remind you of free will. God cannot give you free will, and simultaneously make you be good.

>>6392561
You are free to form what ever opinion you like.
As am I.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:56:57 2014 No.6392593

>>6392574
It's not absurd. Science isn't a belief; it's a method for determining beliefs.

In what sense do we have free will? If God did create the universe and was indeed all-knowing, then everything that happens is exactly what God intended to happen. Effects don't happen without causes; if a man chooses to do something, it's because previous events brought him to that decision.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 16:57:57 2014 No.6392596 File: 77 KB, 509x497, lenielman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6392574 >You can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in science >Absurd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:00:56 2014 No.6392600 File: 15 KB, 480x360, 1391759065544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6392596 Terrible example.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:02:26 2014 No.6392605

>>6392574
>I would remind you of free will. God cannot give you free will, and simultaneously make you be good.

Why not? This is the thing that created 100 billion galaxies and 13.7 billion years of space and time. Why can't he give us free will and be good? He could very well construct a universe where those laws could be true, even if they don't seem like it to us because those laws are not true here. (I'm throwing you a bone and saying free will even exists here, which is debatable highly).

If you say he cannot make a universe where you can be both good and have free will, then he isn't omnipotent.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:02:57 2014 No.6392602

>>6392530

I don't know why you're trying to rationalize his irrational behavior towards religion. He's debating with people who hardly passed high school when they were younger and went on to become pastors. He's not debating with people who have actually studied theology and their philosophies. He has no understanding of that field other than his own experiences from his childhood in a Christian environment. Through that small, insignificantly small perspective, he argues.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:03:26 2014 No.6392606 >>6392574 >Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood False, blood caries oxygen and nutrients, blood is the carrying mechanism, not the source of what sustains the life of flesh

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:06:26 2014 No.6392611 >>6392600 this is false, but thats a whole other debate, besides at least you should agree with evolution

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:09:26 2014 No.6392617 >>6392574 >God cannot give you free will, and simultaneously make you be good. God can do whatever the fuck God wants if you believe God is all powerful. >implying we can determine what God can and can't do since he is beyond our realm of awareness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:12:26 2014 No.6392620 >>6392611 >this is false This is false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:14:56 2014 No.6392624 >>6392620 This is false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:14:56 2014 No.6392625 >>6392620 >this is false THIS is false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:15:56 2014 No.6392627 >>6392625 this is FALSE.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:15:56 2014 No.6392628

>>6392574
M-Eve and Y-Adam were neither the first or even the only humans of their time period. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that they were alive within each others' lifetimes, much less that they met or procreated together. Not only that, but Y-Adam isn't even a fixed indivisual- it's a title for the most recent common patrilineal ancestor, which shifts to a more recent individual as bloodlines die out.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 17:17:57 2014 No.6392633

>>6392593
>In what sense do we have free will?
In the sense that God has given it to us.

God knowing what you will do is not the same as God making you do that thing.

>>6392596
The good thing about sceince is its true whether or not you "BELIEVE" it
>>6392600
I was about to say the same thing.

>>6392605
Very good point.
I haven't the time or the understanding to explain this fully.
In my opinion God wanted us to have an experience of good and evil, hence the tree was in the garden.
He could not force that upon us because he is Holy. So he gave us the option knowing we would choose the knowledge.
It was so that he might enact his plan to overcome sin.
Sin can arise with but the knowledge of evil. As seen with Lucifer.
Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
God knew this and devised a plan so that the knowledge of evil might exist, and sin could be overcome.
I realize this is not a full explanation. Its all I can offer at this time.

>>6392606
The life of the flesh is IN the blood
>IN

>>6392617
God cannot perform logical impossibilities.
It is impossible that you can do what you want, and be forced to do what you don't want simultaneously.
God is all powerful, but he is not necessarily omnipotent, even if he were he could not do logical impossibilities.
Can he make a married bachelor ? How about a square circle?

God is Holy, and as such he cannot sin, God cannot lie.

>>6392611
>>6392620
>>6392624
>>6392625
>>6392627
Really guys

>>6392628
All humans descended from one man and one woman deal with it.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 17:20:56 2014 No.6392641

>>6392633
>God wanted us to have an experience of good and evil
Perhaps that would be better said
God wanted us to have the knowledge, and also be provide the means for it to be overcome.

I don't think he wanted us to suffer. Perhaps it is the only way.

I have a limited understanding, as I am not God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:22:26 2014 No.6392645 >>6392633 >All humans descended from one man and one woman deal with it. The only true thing you've said all day. But of course that man and woman were descendant from one male and female amphibian. And then going back fish, and etc.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:22:57 2014 No.6392646

>>6392633

>All powerful
>Can't be omnipotent
>What.

In all seriousness though, why are you speaking on the illogical possibilities of a being that transcends our own senses? If he wants to make a burrito too hot for him to eat, then he can. If he wants to make a squircle, then by damn, he will.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:23:26 2014 No.6392647

>>6392633
>God knowing what you will do is not the same as God making you do that thing.
It is if God created the universe, and wasn't limited in what he could do.

Every decision is based on a combination of that person's genes and their previous experiences. They did not choose either of these things, but if God exists then God knowingly set these things up to happen.

We can only act independently of God if God is either limited in power or can make mistakes. Christianity claims neither is the case.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:23:56 2014 No.6392648 File: 2.31 MB, 390x277, 1392640030091.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6392633 >people like this are sincere and not trolling

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:24:56 2014 No.6392650 File: 66 KB, 450x421, 1393971869152.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6392645 GROSS

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:26:56 2014 No.6392656 >>6392650 god's a weird fucker waits 13.7 years for homo habilis to finally evolve then decides to pop in and make humans to fuck homo habilis just so he can get bored in a few years and flood everything i cant believe people believe this schlock

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:27:26 2014 No.6392658

>>6392574
>"Analogous to the Mitochondrial Eve is the Y-chromosomal Adam, the member of Homo sapiens sapiens from whom all living humans are descended patrilineally. The inherited DNA in the male case is his nuclear Y chromosome rather than the mtDNA. "

How about actually reading your source? Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are NOT widely accepted facts in science, and even among those who agree, nobody believes that they were alive at even remotely the same time. [spoiler] they were also african, which adam and eve and friends clearly were not

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:27:57 2014 No.6392659
File: 97 KB, 531x683, chesnuts-preblight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm butt-hurt about children being brainwashed into believing threatening stories about fictional places like hell, being terrorized with stories about demons and hell, being lied to about life after death and the essential nature of existence.

Its fraud perpetrated on children. What could be worse? Tell me what is worse.

What is the fundamental character flaw in a supposedly all-powerful entity which allows, I dunno, to pick one thing, child-rape to go on every day?

It doesn't take much to show that "God"', as such, is a ridiculous notion without any empirical basis and absolutely without any moral basis.

The token believer in this thread is free to answer any of these questions. And maybe they'll answer your questions.

Today, all over the world, people believe. They believe and do not act. They profess, but do not act. They don't follow their own book, to the letter, in spirit or in acts. Religious belief does not exalt, but diminish human dignity. It discounts reality. It abuses hearts and minds.

The other week I was handed a tract by a 6 year old kid in the street, followed by her apparent "guardians". It was a brief paragraph describing all the good parts of the bible, namely, if you ever lied, cheated or stolen, you're going to hell. The parents I noticed wouldn't look me in the eye; for shame. Shame on them for being so inadequate and depraved they would try and inculcate their sick thoughts in a defenseless adolescent. They passed before I could respond, but, they'll be out next weekend, and so will I. I'll find them, and break through by telling the kid, "There is no such place as hell". And it will stick in her mind, and maybe she will use that as a basis for questioning and eventually rejecting the prejudices and brainwashing her parents subjected to.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:32:56 2014 No.6392671
File: 163 KB, 1040x425, Peter-Popoff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6391530
Remember Peter Popoff?
Saving people from their own stupidity is worth it. And if you don't believe me just listen to James Randi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2izaEqs0pE

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:34:56 2014 No.6392674

>>6391248
>What is your opinion on Richie D?

He criticizes the most superstitious primitive form of religious belief: theism. He debates people who are obviously not "religious" in the true sense of the word. He does not look at the positives in panentheism or the way religious traditions encouraged intellectual growth in the past. He has admitted to liking Christian culture, but he ignores Islam's period of intellectual growth too during Central Asia, with Persians such as Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Rhazes, and Omar Khayyam. He refuses to be broad in how he interprets religion in sociopolitical contexts, and he seems to assume reductionistic and physicalism models of reality are complete.

He does not understand what it means to "operationalize one's hypotheses". He makes inadequate metaphysical claims on the basis of limited empirical data.

He is correct in his criticisms of creationism, theism, and so forth, but these are obviously stupid, and they are stupid not because they stand in opposition to institutionalized science. They are simply stupid because lived experience refutes them... You don't need to frame it in a normal distribution either.

>Is he doing God's work?

Mu. N/a

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?

It seems he picked up on the latter moreso as a way to make money and gain prestige.

>Why does he look so young for his age? Would you touch his penis?

I don't think he looks young. His facial structure looks like Emma Watson's. I also don't have homosexual inclinations, and I do not look down on people who do. I look down on swingers and "vigilant" polyamorous people who are willing to break up stable relationships for their hedonistic pursuits though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:40:26 2014 No.6392683 >>6392659 Or you could kidnap that child and raise her as your own. You'd be doing her a service since nothing is worse than teaching your offspring about religion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:45:56 2014 No.6392690 >>6392674 > He debates people who are obviously not "religious" in the true sense of the word. WHat the fuck does this mean?

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:51:25 2014 No.6392699

>>6392690
>> He debates people who are obviously not "religious" in the true sense of the word.
>WHat the fuck does this mean?

>STORY OF HOW TUKLA WAS REBUKED BY A DEVOTEE

Tukla, king of Persia, once visited a devotee and said: "Fruitless have been my years. None but the beggar carries riches from the world when earthly dignities are passed. Hence, would I now sit in the corner of devotion that I might usefully employ the few short days that yet remain to me."

The devotee was angered at these words.

"Enough!" he cried. "Religion consists alone in the service of the people; it finds no place in the rosary, or prayer-rug, or tattered garment. Be a king in sovereignty and a devotee in purity of morals. Action, not words, is demanded by religion, for words without action are void of substance."
- From Sa'di's Bostan

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 17:51:26 2014 No.6392701

>>6392646
Did you read the part about him being Holy?
God could limit himself, and he has partially by being Holy, if he chose to be.
Another way he is limited is by humans having free will.
He cannot force you to do something you don't want to, else you have no free will.

>>6392656
That's not how it happened. see Genesis for more info.

>>6392659
>It doesn't take much to show that "God"', as such, is a ridiculous notion
And yet you have not

>without any empirical basis and absolutely without any moral basis.
Perhaps you have missed my previous posts>>>>6392574, >>6392539

>Its fraud perpetrated on children.
I agree that religion should not be forced upon anyone >>6391630
God has given us free will, why should we try to take that free will from anyone.

But it is no fraud.
PS Your story fails to account for the fact that kids naturally believe in God.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

>>6392671
I do not remember.
54 minutes ehh. I might watch some of it. I make no guarantees.

I almost forgot.
>>6392559
> the story of Noah
I realize you probably wont read this article. I just wanted to say that there is evidence for a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

>>6392690
>He debates people who are obviously not "religious" in the true sense of the word
He has obviously missed the previously linked video>>6392539

I can assure you John Lennox is indeed a Christian.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:55:55 2014 No.6392708

>>6392701
>I can assure you John Lennox is indeed a Christia

Was Meister Eckhart considered Christian? Was Mansur-al Hallaj considered Muslim? They were both considered heretics due to their panentheistic leanings. Hell, even Mansur-al Hallaj was killed because of it.

Religion is more about personal understanding. It shouldn't be tied to dogma or rigid doctrines, yet at the same time, it should be made into nebulous "spirituality" with all its New Agey tinges where people take shrooms and think such aberrations of perceptual mechanisms constitutes something "real".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 17:56:55 2014 No.6392713 >>6392708 should not be made into nebulous*

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:06:25 2014 No.6392736 >>6392701 Genesis gives two conflicting stories of how it all happened. You cannot go off of that.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:07:25 2014 No.6392740

>>6392701
>I realize you probably wont read this article. I just wanted to say that there is evidence for a global flood.
Unfortunately, a global flood is flatly contradicted by several other observations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:07:55 2014 No.6392743
File: 115 KB, 560x375, 1391566669194.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6392701
>I realize you probably wont read this article. I just wanted to say that there is evidence for a global flood.

I'M DONE, THIS THREAD HAS REACHED THE LIMIT THAT MY STOMACH MUSCLES CAN HANDLE FROM LAUGHTER

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:13:25 2014 No.6392757 >>6392701 Holy is a man-made concept.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:39:37 2014 No.6392811

>>6392701
>using "news" articles as proof
See this is why Dawkins is so vocal about it.

It's not just that you believe in god. But believe the most stupidest things, and spread your mentality to other people.

news articles have lost their credibility a long time ago. No source given. Sensationalist title that's taken out of context. Full of speculation, ect...
"Academic claims." does not give anything any credibility.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 18:47:37 2014 No.6392828

>>6392671
I could have saved you the trouble.
I too strongly disagree with "faith healers"
I do believe in Miracles.
However people who take advantage of the faith of others are despicable.

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is.

>>6392708
I see your point.

>>6392736
I assume you mean the creation of the earth, and the additional creation in the garden.
It is two separate events. It is not a contradiction.

>>6392740
You can believe what ever you like, but I would point out a few flaws in that article.
These will be numbered as they appear in the article for easier reference.
1.They have failed to account for the fact that God was present on the ark. They have also not adequately demonstrated that it was impossible.
2.Noah did not gather the animals. The same God that created the universe lead them to it. Again no contradictions here
3.see http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark Again I do not see this as an impossibility. I would also remind you that "with God all things are possible"
4.Again I would remind you that God was on the ark. Also the previously linked article deals with this issue
5.http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html
6. Fails to consider the mountains formed as a result of the "fountains of the deep" breaking open. The ice cores have failed to account for multiple snowfalls in one year.

You know what I give up.
Believe lies if you want to. I don't intend to refute every piece of nonsense put forth.

>>6392757
speaking of made up >>6392740 7. The geological column is made up
>>6392757
Thanks guy.

>>6392811
>The news is lying to us its a conspiracy.
>>>/pol/
also ad hominem.
You have refuted nothing.

I offer your post as evidence that you are ignoring the evidence.

You guys have a nice thread. I'm done for today.
Perhaps I will make some replies tomorrow, but I make no guarantee of that.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:51:07 2014 No.6392839

>>6392828
>Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is.
le no true scotsman face
>Believe lies if you want to. I don't intend to refute every piece of nonsense put forth.
decades of work by countless scientists are simply dismissed as lies? you ingrate!

and what do you propose?
that your holy book is correct?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:51:07 2014 No.6392840 >>6392828 If you're just going to excuse every impossibility with "God did it, he can do anything", then you're not really debating at all. You could believe literally anything with that kind of logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 18:52:37 2014 No.6392844 SCIENCE VS RELIGION THREADS ARE EXPLICITLY AGAINST THE RULES ON /SCI/ YOU ARE ALL NIGGERS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Tue Mar 4 19:01:38 2014 No.6392869
File: 116 KB, 500x458, 1368744440143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6392839
>decades of work by countless scientists are simply dismissed as lies

Yet you easily dismiss the Law of biogenesis.

>>6392840
I admit that's what it looked like I was saying.
I did not intend to refute the whole article.
However if you are considering the notion that the story is true, it would be illogical to fail to account for supernatural intervention.
>>6392844
May the Mods have mercy on my IP address.

I really am going now. You guys have worn me down.

Perhaps tomorrow. If the Mods allow it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 4 19:03:37 2014 No.6392873 >>6392869 >Yet you easily dismiss the Law of biogenesis. Belief in the Bible being literal requires dismissing many more laws, conservation of energy especially.

Anonymous Tue Mar 4 19:12:06 2014 No.6392891

>>6392828
>>the news is lying to us its a conspiracy
please. It's not a fucking conspiracy. I know it's hard, but at least try to think even a little.

> host news for free.
> Still need to make money.
> Host adds
> More views = More money.
> Writers of articles get paid per views.
> How to get more views?
> No time to check your sources anymore.
> Sensational titles that are out of context to lure people.
> Lol who needs facts? Just post total crap because that's what people eat up. I present yourself as evidence, you provide these articles as evidence yet they have no credibility at all.

I'm not saying all news is bad. But it's often distorted and not fact checked.

>I offer your post as evidence that you are ignoring the evidence.
But you didn't post any evidence, so i can't ignore things that you don't post.

Unlike you i'm willing to change my point of view, just give me some hard evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 00:26:33 2014 No.6393531 File: 41 KB, 640x480, 1393997216082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 00:42:05 2014 No.6393569 >>6392701 >The source of all evil >Holy

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 00:56:05 2014 No.6393595 >>6393569 Opposites attract.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 01:05:35 2014 No.6393606

>>6393595
Are you saying evil is completely outside of the power of God as its polar opposite?

And God is so attracted to that evil and powerless over it that all his creations are dependent on evil for survival (nothing can survive in this world without killing something else to eat it and killing has been deemed evil by god's laws)?

How is he holy and omnipotent if evil is the only thing that is omnipresent and is the driving force of god's various creations?

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 01:06:35 2014 No.6393607

He's either a sad man who is so troubled by what other people personally believe in or he's a smart guy who found a way to make money off of teenagers.

I like the part in his books were he says he will address the argument for god then forgets to address it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 01:09:05 2014 No.6393616 >>6393606 That sounds like a rainbow area to me. Maybe it is you who are happy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 01:12:05 2014 No.6393621 >>6393616 What, I know making reasonable sense isn't your strong suit, but maybe you could try again?

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 06:57:45 2014 No.6393983
File: 1.39 MB, 2272x1704, 1336150853077.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6392844
It would appear that the Mods allow it.

Our founder, who lives in New York, shallow be thy name.
Thy rules be followed, on /sci/ as they are on 4chan.
Give us this day our daily thread, and forgive us our violations.
Lead us not into shitposting, but deliver us from trolls.
MAYHEM

Note: I do not condone praying to anyone but God. The above was meant to be funny.
Also
Is there another version of moots prayer?
It seems like I have heard a similar adaptation of the Lords prayer in the past.

>>6392873
We have the law of conservation of energy because only God can create Matter/Energy.

If energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form.
How is it that there is energy?
A: God can, and did create it.

Also nice way to dodge my question.

>>6392891
I think you have failed to understanding the meaning of ad hominem.
You have provided examples as to why it's important to not just believe everything you read.
However you have not discredited any of the statements from the articles I have linked to.
Even if you had "discredited" the specific sources, it would not refute the statements.
If you would have me believe the articles are lying, you will have to show where they are in error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>But you didn't post any evidence, so i can't ignore things that you don't post.
Perhaps you have missed my previous posts. I am posting with a name.

>>6393569
God has not directly caused evil. He did however provide the means for it to occur.
With God all things are possible. I would remind you he has a plan to overcome sin.

>>6393606
The evil seen in the creation is a result of the fall of Lucifer, and the subsequent fall of man.

As previously stated I personally feel like it is the only way to overcome sin.

God had created the angels with knowledge of evil, and free will.
Lucifer used that knowledge, along with his free will, to disobey God.
So if we are to have both, sin must be overcome.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 07:08:45 2014 No.6393989

>>6393983
>The evil seen in the creation is a result of the fall of Lucifer, and the subsequent fall of man.
So evil is ultimately a creation of God?

>God had created the angels with knowledge of evil
That means god created knowledge and evil but was not powerful enough to control it or create something that was not easily corrupted by mere knowledge, either way god is still the source of evil which is the antithesis of holy.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 07:18:44 2014 No.6393996

>>6393989
>So evil is ultimately a creation of God?
No.
Evil is a corruption of something that is good.
The truth is good.
Lying is bad

Love is good
Hate is bad

Evil is not a new creation, but rather a perversion of something that already was.

>That means god created knowledge and evil but was not powerful enough to control it or create something that was not easily corrupted by mere knowledge, either way god is still the source of evil which is the antithesis of holy.

As previously stated I have a limited understand of God.

God has devised a plan to overcome evil.

>but was not powerful enough to control it
How quickly you forget about free will.

God could have very well made robots to worship him.
This however is not love.
God wants to love and to be loved, for this he needs freewill beings.
God wants us to know the difference, between Good and Evil.
Hence the pan.

God is in effect doing what you say he cannot. Just not in a way that you approve.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 07:21:44 2014 No.6393999 File: 94 KB, 500x370, 1394022081413.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6391630 >>6392236 >>6392539

>>	Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 07:24:44 2014 No.6394002 File: 122 KB, 566x748, interpretation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6393999 A more accurate representation is (pic related)

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 07:25:14 2014 No.6394004

>>6393996
lying is not a corruption of truth it is the opposite of truth and both are types of obsession and obsession is not necessarily good
hate is not a corruption of love it is the opposite both are types of feelings and feeling are not necessarily good

god is not holy it is the opposite
god is not unity it is the opposite

>How quickly you forget about free will.
How quickly you forget it wasn't about free will, it was about knowledge of something created by God and evil could easily have been by controlled knowledge of evil without affecting people's free will to do choose among infinite levels of good or neutral.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 07:28:14 2014 No.6394007 >>6393996 how can you really postulate free will when in multitude of biblical episodes He acts on earth and influences man to carry His plan

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 07:47:15 2014 No.6394027

>>6393999
Here is a an observed fact for you.
All that has ever been observed, or demonstrated is life comes from life.

The evolutionist conclusion. Life must have created its self.

If your pic was accurate this conclusion could not have been made.

>>6394004
I completely disagree in that I see lying as a corruption of the truth.
I have no other way to describe it. Believe it or don't. I'm not going to argue the point.

>been by controlled knowledge
Controlled is not the same as free

>>6394007
>He acts on earth and influences man to carry His plan
>influences
Influencing is not the same as controlling.
Did God assume control of these people like they were some sort of puppet?

Let me give you an example.

Suppose someone is about to jump off of a bridge.
Along comes someone and talks them out of it.
Did the "jumper" willfully change his mind?
Clearly it is not the same as if someone just snatched him away from the ledge kicking and screaming.

Likewise God has influenced people, but ultimately the decision was theirs.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 07:54:44 2014 No.6394033

>>6394027
I guess sleeping is a corruption of being awake.
Vacation is a corruption of work.
Silence is a corruption of sound.
Up is a corruption of down.

Then that settles it, humans have free will, so god has no control over reality which is the same as not existing in reality. You officially proved that god does not exist.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 08:03:44 2014 No.6394045

>>6394033
I never said
"sleeping is a corruption of being awake.
Vacation is a corruption of work.
Silence is a corruption of sound.
Up is a corruption of down."

You have said that.

I said lies are a corruption of the truth.

A lie is not necessarily the opposite of the truth.

1+1=2 Truth
1+1=5 Lie
Clearly 5 is not the opposite of 2

The earth is a sphere Truth
The earth is a cube Lie
Is a cube the opposite of a sphere?

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding this concept.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 08:15:36 2014 No.6394056

>>6394045
try plugging those into Boolean values
One will return true and one will return false because the statements have opposite mathematical validity.

No but the statements are opposed, they are not diametrically opposed (ie exact opposites) because you did not provide a binomial framework, so exact opposition does not apply to that situation, but those statements will produce opposite result, one has been observed to be valid, one has not been observed to be invalid, so they have opposite validity.

I am sorry you don't understand statistics.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 08:37:06 2014 No.6394083

>>6394027
>All that has ever been observed, or demonstrated is life comes from life.

The key point is that we draw this conclusion from repeated observations. We observe similar effects, then by operation of our mind we infer that similar effects, must have similar causes. This train of thought breaks down at the most fundamental level, when we ask things like where the first life came from, or what the beginning of the universe was product of.

In essence, your argument is the watchmaker analogy, successfully refuted I'd say, by people like David Hume.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 08:48:23 2014 No.6394106

>>6392297
Hey guy are you still around.
I have an example concerning "crazy mental gymnastics" for you.
Check out this guys logic >>6394056

Seems to me an attempt to justify his belief.

>>6394056
What ever you have to tell yourself to believe your own nonsense.

> they are not diametrically opposed

Yet your previous examples were >>6394033
Why is that?

Obviously the truth has an opposite validity from a lie.
That was never my point.

Anyways I do not care to argue my point. It should be clearly seen. Believe what ever you like.

We are way off topic anyway.
Perhaps a new video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0

>>6394083
>The key point is that we draw this conclusion from repeated observations.
When have we observed life arising?

Anyways I seem to be causing the thread to get derailed.

So do not expect anymore replies from me.

You guys have a nice thread.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 09:00:53 2014 No.6394133

>>6394106
binomial choice - you either sleep or are awake, there are not more than two choices, but there are many more than two choices in shapes

You can not argue your point because you have already admitted that you are not using a valid definition of corruption that can be defended.

Also, we have never observed life to arise because as you pointed out we can only see life split from other life, but we have never observed an life originate unless you mean when the sperm meets the eggs since in which case those two things are not really independent living beings, but result in a living being who can eventually achieve independence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 09:36:25 2014 No.6394199 >>6394106 fuck you its people like you that make me really mad I just think your to dumb to understand the truth

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 09:45:26 2014 No.6394215

>>6394133
>you either sleep or are awake, there are not more than two choices

Or dead, or in a coma, or in a hypnotic state, or in a meditative state, or in cryogenic stasis.

>You can not argue your point because you have already admitted that you are not using a valid definition of corruption that can be defended.

When was it that I admitted this?

I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite" >>6394027
>lying is not a corruption of truth it is the opposite of truth

I was willing to drop my argument because I do not see it as having been refuted.

If you think that it has. Fine.
If others think that it has. That is fine as well.

You guys are all free to believe what ever you like. In my opinion lies are a corruption of the truth. I stand by that statement.

>>6394199
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Speaking of too dumb. Perhaps you missed this. http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html

Of those willing to say. 49% of Mensa members are Christian.
Are they likewise too dumb to understand the truth?

Now if you will excuse me(or even if you wont) I must get going.

You guys have a nice thread.

>>	Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Wed Mar 5 09:47:25 2014 No.6394220 >>6394215 >I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite" >>6394027 Should have been I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite>>6394004 My mistake.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 10:03:00 2014 No.6394247

>>6394215
>When was it that I admitted this?
see
>>6394027
>I have no other way to describe it. Believe it or don't. I'm not going to argue the point.

>I contend you are not using a valid definition of "opposite"
Its pretty convenient for you to jump on all the semantics in every argument and ignore the base paradoxes of your assertions and can't refute that God created evil and corruption and can not be holy and can not be all powerful.

Instead of opposite how about in conflict with?
>lying is not a corruption of truth it is in conflict with the truth and both are types of obsession and obsession is not necessarily good

>hate is not a corruption of love it is in conflict with love and both are types of emotions and emotions are not necessarily good

>god is not holy it is in conflict with the holy
>god is not unity it is in conflict with unity

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 10:56:30 2014 No.6394305 >>6392236 Read the bottom of that mensa page you linked >Last edited: March 28, 1996. Version 1.02.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 11:08:05 2014 No.6394313

>>6394305
plus that really only proves that Christians overwhelmingly seek validation for their intelligence from mensa

I would like to see that compared to IQ in the general population, but I don't know if IQ tests generally ask religious affiliation, and I wonder what the percentage of mensa applicants looks like.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 11:17:34 2014 No.6394322 >>6394313 I havent read that much into it, but most test suggest that the irreligious are more intelligent, or at least better educated than the religious, and the more fundamentally religious you are the less educated you will be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 11:29:34 2014 No.6394339 irreligious people are not necessarily smarter. I would like you to prove that; do you have any experimental data? No? That's sad. I'm religious and you probably already knew that from my biased reply. I also believe in evolution.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 11:33:34 2014 No.6394341
File: 23 KB, 500x281, 1394023726394.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If fluctuations in quantum fields generate virtual particles, and that caused what we now call the big bang (which I believe is true), then answer this question: Where did the laws of physics come from? Not here to argue, but I do think Rich D is really fucking committed. It's hard to find people like that these days.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 12:07:36 2014 No.6394375

>>6394339
take a two second search on google and you that almost all studies show irreligious have a higher IQ and that the generally speaking, more irreligious regions tend to be better educated. Hell even within the United States the less religious ones the smarter it tends to be. Its not a perfect correlation but generally speaking this is how to falls.

I dont see how you can really disagree with it, at least personally speaking, the least intelligent people I know are vehemently religious and the most intelligent are either totally irreligious or hold very moderate and liberal interpretations. They aren't very religious and generally just cherry pick the good parts from the Bible witch is fine with me, but at that point I would just say why bother with it to begin with?
>>6394341
>Where did the laws of physics come from?
We made them up, laws of physics are descriptions of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 12:11:53 2014 No.6394390 You're essentially evading his question; why is the universe (designed?) like that? He's bringing up the fine tuning of the fundamental constants in physics.

Anonymous Wed Mar 5 12:33:23 2014 No.6394436

>>6393996
>How quickly you forget about free will.

But why do you assume that free will exists? Our actions are a direct result of what has happened in the past. A man who sins does so because his genetics and personal history led him to do it.

>An all-knowing, all-powerful creator would be responsible for this scenario. If God exists, then He caused that person to sin.

God could have very well made robots to worship him.
>This however is not love.
>God wants to love and to be loved, for this he needs freewill beings.

But if God created everything, and knows exactly what every part of his creation will lead to, then he did "program" us to feel exactly as we do. Our decisions can't be independent of God unless God is fallible, which you claim He isn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 12:34:53 2014 No.6394438 >>6394436 Oops, greentexted the wrong lines.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 12:48:53 2014 No.6394457 File: 1.85 MB, 1842x2838, an-appetite-for-wonder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] is this shit any good?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 13:45:22 2014 No.6394548 >>6394457 bumb

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 15:26:06 2014 No.6394715 >>6392891 Speaking of news being bullshit, what are some news sites that aren't?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 15:33:36 2014 No.6394728 >>6394715 Wikinews Alternet

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 5 20:05:30 2014 No.6395219 >>6394215 that site looks really ligit and not all like its from 1999 and most are American you don't need to know shit to get into mensa you just gotta have a high IQ

sage goes in every field (except name) Anonymous Thu Mar 6 00:31:07 2014 No.6395616

>>6391259
>>6391725
>>6391742
Shocker, all of these posts confirm everything you need to know.
>Being this fedora
>Richard Dawkins
>Not pop-science
He's a faggot. It amazes me how far the scientific community has fallen that they don't even have the basic knowledge of epistemology necessary to tell you that the fedoras are just as delusional as the god bags.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 6 00:36:35 2014 No.6395622 >>6395616 Its better than people who think they understand science but can only use nonsense language like delusional fedoras to describe their "knowledge"

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 6 00:43:09 2014 No.6395631 File: 33 KB, 373x330, 1394084629761.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6395616 I bet you think you're special for being "agnostic"

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Thu Mar 6 11:58:01 2014 No.6396221 [DELETED]

File: 146 KB, 1139x581, Silencing the opposition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Sorry for the delayed response.(pic related)
Did anyone miss me?

I'm not angry about the ban. I was defending religion.
Besides that my inability to post here, led me to start a thread in /mu/.
As a result I have a whole bunch of new music to check out.
However I would like to point out a few things.
My posts are not threads in themselves. "Religion vs. science THREADS are not allowed." (If defending religion is the rule, perhaps it should be rewritten.)
It seems to be perfectly fine for you guys to bash religion, but not alright for me to defend it.
(The thread is about Dawkins, whose sole purpose in life is to attack religion)
I have never pitted religion against science. I contend science confirms the bible. (Surely one theory does not count as the entirety of science.)
The only "science" I oppose is the notion of a common ancestor, and the notion that life can just "arise". (The former being assumed, and the latter being in opposition to known science law.)

I would remind you. "Beware the sound of one hand clapping."
If you wont allow opposing views. The discussion turns into a circle jerk, or dies out.

>>6393983
>It would appear that the Mods allow it.
I stand corrected.

>>6394133
>binomial choice

Life has created its self.
God has created life.
One is true the other is a lie. This is literally the only two options. They are not opposites.

>>6394305
>>6395219
>Last edited: March 28, 1996. Version 1.02.

I suppose we should take into account the recent decline in atheism.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/3/20050303-115733-9519r/?page=all

>>6394313
>>6394339
My point was never that I'm smarter, or that religious people are smarter. I do not believe that.
My point was Christians are not necessarily ignorant.

>>6394436
We have free will. God has not "programed" us.
I do not care to argue about it. Believe it, or don't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 6 12:36:31 2014 No.6396252 >>6396221 If you want to talk about religion go to another board. End of discussion.

Follower of the way !YeshuaToPc Thu Mar 6 12:48:01 2014 No.6396267 [DELETED]

>>6396252
"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein.

I do post on other boards, however I also have an interest in science.
Science was founded by religious people. To suggest they have no place in it is absurd.

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