God damn ..... my nigga Neil DOMINATES!!!! Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8rxbN_SLs Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N22eMZP5phI

File: 129 KB, 1200x627, Black Science Guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 21:52:33 2014 No.6483768 [DELETED]

God damn ..... my nigga Neil DOMINATES!!!!

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8rxbN_SLs

Part2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N22eMZP5phI

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:00:04 2014 No.6483783 Bumping ... so that anons can watch Neil dominate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:16:03 2014 No.6483811 cool a liberal atheist circlejerk

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:17:03 2014 No.6483812 >>6483811 Have you even seen the video anon?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:19:03 2014 No.6483817 >>6483812 skimmed through parts of it why? is it not a liberal atheist circlejerk? are the usual characters are there

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:20:03 2014 No.6483821 >>6483811 And he's a Negro! A NEGRO

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:23:03 2014 No.6483829 File: 12 KB, 299x265, 1371830827073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6483817 >>>/pol/ >>6483821 >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:23:33 2014 No.6483826 >>6483821 i don't mind that he's a negro, even being a mediocre scientist is much more impressive than what most people accomplish

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:27:34 2014 No.6483833

>>6483768

Saw this a month ago and it was underwhelming as fuck. You would think with all the big names on stage it would naturally be awesome, but sadly it was not so.

Bill Nye actually was the best speaker, and I don't like much of his new stuff. Neil was just being a stereotypical loud black guy. Sad, because I read his book and it was really great and I usually enjoy him as a speaker.

Kraus is much better when he is just lecturing by himself. Dawkins is better when he is speaking specifically about something, or debating some dumb fuck.

The entire thing is brought down one level further by Hitchens not being alive to be there and make it interesting and not a total bore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:28:03 2014 No.6483834 >>6483833 Oh and Brian Greene is a fucking faggot who won't shut his face about garbage string theory shit. Sick of seeing him hypothesize endlessly about nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:30:03 2014 No.6483839 >>6483834 What are you talking about? The poor thing couldn't even say anything before he got interrupted by Neil.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:33:03 2014 No.6483844

>>6483839

Yeah well Neil was in bad form here. Not his best show. I remember watching this, and when the stage was fully introduced,just being so hyped for an awesome discussion. It was shit.

Love Krauss
Love Dawkins
Love Black Science Man
Loved Nye

How could this fail? I don't know, but it did. Just not an interesting talk for all these great minds. The whole thing should have been questions and answers, or some sort of debate. As it is, it is just each of them telling a dumb story while the other awesome folks wait patiently.

Waste of all that talent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:33:33 2014 No.6483842 File: 20 KB, 400x254, Walter White.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Newton>Tesla>Feynman>Einstein>Walter White>Neil

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:36:03 2014 No.6483849 File: 20 KB, 400x254, Walter White.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Walter White>Newton>Tesla>Feynman>Einstein>Neil

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:48:33 2014 No.6483872

I don't get it, if these people are supposed to be the smartest people in the world, why don't they invent anything? Why aren't they the richest people in the world? Don't tell me like, "there's more important things than money" or some shit because there's not a single person who wouldn't want to make more money. Hell, the only reason these guys are speaking on stage is because they're getting paid, otherwise they wouldn't

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 22:52:34 2014 No.6483883

>>6483872

Dawkins must be rolling in cash. Krauss is only known because of his work in physics. lack Science Man is like todays Sagan, minus all the published papers.

Also, no-one said they are the smartest people in the world. That is a retarded claim. They are just strong in their fields, and also have the ability to communicate to the public.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:07:03 2014 No.6483911 >>6483883 They are literally "science celebrities". The REAL scientists are busy discovering stuff.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:12:33 2014 No.6483923

>>6483911

Dawkins and Krauss are more than just celebrities.

Dawkins used to actually write computer programs for the shit he was thinking about. He has many great books and The Selfish Gene changed the way I think about life.

It is important for some scientists to choose to educate the masses. There has to be something to counter all the disinformation out there.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:14:33 2014 No.6483928

>>6483923
>It is important for some scientists to choose to educate the masses. There has to be something to counter all the disinformation out there.

That's not how it works. One side doesn't counter the other. Individuals choose which side they prefer and they defend it like lunatics.

Ken ham didn't convince anyone, bill nye didn't convince anyone. There is no debate.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:16:04 2014 No.6483937

>>6483928

This is bullshit. I was raised catholic and only due to reading and hearing about alternative views of the universe and existence did I make my way out of it. I know most people do not want to admit that what they have believed is wrong, but there are some who will have no choice but to change their beliefs. Also, it lets people who don't believe not feel like they have to hide it in order to be accepted in society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:18:03 2014 No.6483942 >>6483811 what does this have to do with liberals or atheist? And if your dealing with scientist(or even popsci speakers) your going to have to get use to liberals and atheists

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:19:33 2014 No.6483944 >>6483937 >did I make my way out of it Where did this language come from? Who told you that how you were raised was wrong? Were you just rebelling against your parents and you just happened to have books full of ammo?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:20:33 2014 No.6483949 >>6483942 >everything is black and white us vs them This is why nothing ever changes.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:23:03 2014 No.6483954

>>6483937
How does your beliefs change anything? If you believed in ghosts because you saw one doesn't make them real. Just because you don't believe in God won't change the fact that he is real. Also, Catholics are very liberal in their beliefs and their bible knowledge is very limited which is why a lot of people reject Christianity as a whole

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:26:33 2014 No.6483959

>>6483944

Dude I was indoctrinated as a child to believe in garbage. After elementary school I was introduced to Tool's album Aenema. Inside the CD sleeve was a picture of Bill Hicks. I looked into him and listened to his material. The way he destroyed the church with his satire was the start of my road to unbelief. Later on, guys like Hitchens and Dawkins further solidified my beliefs.

Also, going to college for Electrical Engineering really made me look at the universe in different ways.

Lastly, a few dozen LSD trips in high-school gave even more insight.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:27:03 2014 No.6483962 >>6483959 How the hell did LSD help?

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:29:03 2014 No.6483966

>>6483959
>Dude I was indoctrinated as a child to believe in garbage

And space time does not in any way act like a trampoline with bowling balls on it. Some garbage is meant to just get you through life. What happiness has the truth brought you besides that which you have decided to enjoy because you changed your values?

See though? you didn't start this out of a pursuit of knowledge, but as a means of attack against what you were led to believe were your tormentors.

You were indoctrinated? Did you grow up in an amish village? a colony in the desert? or were you just not allowed to watch violent tv or encouraged to watch bill nye?

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:30:33 2014 No.6483967

>>6483954

I never say that there is no god, only that there is no evidence that proves a god does exist. There is especially no proof for any of the monotheisms that exist.

Of course there is a chance that there is some sort of god outside of our universe, but if there is, they do not take interest in our lives and likely don't even know that we exist.

But then to even say that a god may exist only invites questions as to who or what created that god, and so on and so on. It gets you exactly no-where. We are better off without it, and thankfully we have much more satisfying explanations for the reason why thing are the way they are.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:31:33 2014 No.6483968

>>6483949
in all honesty thats the same attitude many conservative/christians have, I'd even say its worse in that side. Its not like the big bad atheist liberal socialist are picking on the poor voiceless marginalized Christians who just want a fair voice in politics/science/education

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:33:03 2014 No.6483970 >>6483811 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:34:03 2014 No.6483974

>>6483967
Actually that really depends on the God/religion. There are some religions that have an origin story for their gods and other believe that the universe or reality is God. But I guess that would also raise the question of whether or not the universe is self aware.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:38:03 2014 No.6483978

>>6483966
>And space time does not in any way act like a trampoline with bowling balls on it

Actually it is a good way to explain the concept of mass warping space-time. I was explaining to my partner about how the planets think that tey are travelling in a straight line, and it is the warping of space that creates the illusion of going in circles. She got it right away.

>What happiness has the truth brought you besides that which you have decided to enjoy because you changed your values?

I like the idea of not believing things just because they make me happy or because I might wish that they were true. I think truth is a good thing to live for, and is far more rewarding than leaving it all up to a deity. I have experienced both ways of life.

Also, who the hell wants to live in a universe where the people who worship a sick god like those presented in monotheism are rewarded with an eternity of worshipping that same god, and those who reject the idea are condemned to an eternity in hell? I am personally thankful and glad that it is so clearly bullshit.

>See though? you didn't start this out of a pursuit of knowledge, but as a means of attack against what you were led to believe were your tormentors.

Actually it was a pursuit of knowledge. I didn't know that these people were actually my tormentors until I realized that they were not infallible as they so claim.

>You were indoctrinated? Did you grow up in an amish village? a colony in the desert? or were you just not allowed to watch violent tv or encouraged to watch bill nye?

Telling children that if they do not follow the rules of a religious text that they will go to hell is indoctrination. It is using fear to force the belief on children. My family didn't have a TV when I was a kid, and I did grow up in the country. What does violent TV have to do with anything?

These is some weak ass shit. Try harder.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:38:34 2014 No.6483980

>>6483967

>only that there is no evidence that proves a god does exist.

Why would there be? maybe god isn't the stupid one that some unhinged people imagine, hiding bones everywhere and shit. A good manager does things without being noticed. There's no evidence that technology is exponential or that we will ever have another singularity like the industrial revolution, but do you believe that we'll get science fiction tech?

sounds like cherry picking to me.

>We are better off without it

That's a personal decision. Surely there are people you would not rob the hope of seeing their dead son again, right?

>satisfying explanations
>the universe just exists
>life just exists because of fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics
>objectively you only exist to further your DNA
>every emotion you feel is just your evolutionary baggage directing your actions to further the above goal
>your memories only exist to further that goal, your personality is just the method of picking which memory fits which event.

Yeah, can you really blame people for wanting fairies at the bottom of the cesspool? At least a garden would be beautiful. stop thinking you have all the answers because you read it in a book. Make your own opinions, no matter what they are. You'll have lots of sets of beliefs in life, but only one set of parents.

Prioritize.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:42:05 2014 No.6483988

>>6483980

Funny how you skip over everything between the first two quotes. It is an endless regression and it gets you NO WHERE! That is why we are better off without it.

>Surely there are people you would not rob the hope of seeing their dead son again, right?

Unlike the religious, I do not wish to force my views on anyone. All I ask is that they do not try and force their beliefs on me or my children, which they are not able to do by definition. They won't be happy until I believe it too.

No moral athiest would go to a person grieving and tell them that they will never see their loved one again. Only a sickly religious person would go to a person in grief and try to peddle their bullshit about an afterlife, and how all you need to do is surrender yourself to a clearly man-made god.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:42:05 2014 No.6483989

>>6483978

>Actually it is a good way to explain the concept of mass warping space-time.

Actually, it's completely wrong. Like Bohr model wrong. It's like saying the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean.

>I like the idea of not believing things just because they make me happy or because I might wish that they were true.

Do you need to rephrase that?

>I think truth is a good thing to live for, and is far more rewarding than leaving it all up to a deity. I have experienced both ways of life.

So your parents are dead?

>Also, who the hell wants to live in a universe where the people who worship a sick god like those presented in monotheism are rewarded with an eternity of worshipping that same god, and those who reject the idea are condemned to an eternity in hell? I am personally thankful and glad that it is so clearly bullshit.

There are more choices than christianity or buddhism, you know.

>I didn't know that these people were actually my tormentors until I realized that they were not infallible as they so claim.

>tormentors

Dude. The fuck. You can read, you can write, you're not living in a box. Do explain how you were tormented.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:46:33 2014 No.6483995

>>6483988
>It is an endless regression and it gets you NO WHERE!

As i understand it, the exact circumstances of what created the universe can never be known because it happened before time. Are you saying science is pointless regression that gets you no where because it can answer no further than any religion?

>Unlike the religious, I do not wish to force my views on anyone.

Could have fooled me.

>Only a sickly religious person would go to a person in grief and try to peddle their bullshit about an afterlife, and how all you need to do is surrender yourself to a clearly man-made god.

Yeah, and when you tell people to look forward to new tech to save lives and prevent diseases, you're just furthering the goals of big pharma and monsanto, right? Neither party could POSSIBLY have a better motivation, however misguided?

God damn man. Get a clue.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:47:33 2014 No.6483996

>>6483989

Once again you gloss over what you can't refute.

>Do you need to rephrase that?

No try reading comprehension.

>So your parents are dead?

Technically no, but I have not seen or spoken to them in many years for other reasons not at all related to faith. What does this have to do with what I said?

>There are more choices than christianity or buddhism, you know.

Add them onto the pile of shit that I have no use for.

> explain how you were tormented.

One example: told I would go to hell for masturbating.

Other obvious examples: having genitals mutilated, being molested by the clergy, etc, etc.

I really shouldn't need to spell this out to you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:50:03 2014 No.6484000

>>6483996
>What does this have to do with what I said?

You haven't tested your beliefs yet.

>Add them onto the pile of shit that I have no use for.

Careful with that edge.

>One example: told I would go to hell for masturbating.

Oh, no. How awful. I was told i would go blind. What awful parents we had. I mean, some people get acid thrown on them or beheaded for it but we just got yelled at. How tormentous.

>having genitals mutilated, being molested by the clergy, etc, etc.

None of those things happened to you. Should we could bikini atoll among science's greatest works as well?

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:50:03 2014 No.6484001

>>6483995

>As i understand it, the exact circumstances of what created the universe can never be known because it happened before time. Are you saying science is pointless regression that gets you no where because it can answer no further than any religion?

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers like religion does. It can change based on new evidence, something religion cannot do.

>Could have fooled me.

Show me where I did this?

>Yeah, and when you tell people to look forward to new tech to save lives and prevent diseases, you're just furthering the goals of big pharma and monsanto, right?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you denying that advances in technology have saved lives? Religion claims man to have dominion over everything, but science has shown us that we do not, and that micro-organisms actually have dominion over us.

>God damn man. Get a clue.

Get better arguments because you are being a fucking bore right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:53:33 2014 No.6484006 >>6484000 If you keep skipping points then I see no reason to continue wasting time on you. Why should I bother if you can't be bothered to respond. I have not selectively quoted you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:58:03 2014 No.6484020

>>6484006

I skip the points that don't need addressing or i agree with. If there's anything specific you want me to respond to then be specific.

>>6484001
>something religion cannot do.

Catholics believe in evolution. Good god man, are you this 17 in your portrayal of religion?

>Show me where I did this?

>This is bullshit. I was raised catholic and only due to reading and hearing about alternative views of the universe and existence did I make my way out of it.

>What the hell are you talking about?

That if a person tells someone sick or dying or is trying to comfort someone who has just lost someone by saying that heaven is there or whatever, that the last thing you should assume is malice of any form or any attempt to decieve. They truly believe that's how it works, and they want you to be happy. Isn't that why you try to educate people? Can't you see how both sides have the same goals in mind and it just always ends up in a squabble, just like any time you try to help someone and they refuse to listen?

>Get better arguments because you are being a fucking bore right now.

Give it time. You'll stop listening to the books on both sides and find an opinion somewhere in the middle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:58:33 2014 No.6484018 >>6483967 >who or what created that god you read "the God Delusion", didn't you. There's no such thing as "created Gods", just as there's no such thing as self-materialization of matter

Anonymous Wed Apr 16 23:59:03 2014 No.6484021

>>6484018
>you read "the God Delusion", didn't you

Yes, I have. Dawkins did you create this argument.

>There's no such thing as "created Gods"

Please tell me how you have come into this knowledge that is apparently not available to people such as myself?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:01:34 2014 No.6484023 >>6484021 Until you can say where the universe came from, you cannot shit on where gods come from.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:03:33 2014 No.6484027 >>6484018 So you can accept causeless gods but not a causeless universe? Why is that?

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:05:33 2014 No.6484030

>>6484020
>Catholics believe in evolution.

Some do. Young earthers do not. Modern religion has had to change some of it's beliefs because the evidence is so overwhelming now. I hardly see that as a point in religions favour.

>some quotes

Ok but you accused me of trying to force others to believe as I do. I asked you to show me where I did this. You respond with those quotes that do nothing of the sort.

>That if a person tells someone sick or dying or is trying to comfort someone who has just lost someone by saying that heaven is there or whatever, that the last thing you should assume is malice of any form or any attempt to decieve. They truly believe that's how it works, and they want you to be happy. Isn't that why you try to educate people? Can't you see how both sides have the same goals in mind and it just always ends up in a squabble, just like any time you try to help someone and they refuse to listen?

Wow, you see religion as this benign thing. It is only this way because it no longer can control people by force. At first I thought you were just playing devil's advocate, but now I see that you actually believe in the things you are saying. Good luck to you. I see you love your chains.

>Give it time. You'll stop listening to the books on both sides and find an opinion somewhere in the middle.

I never read something and then accept it wholesale. I am only interested in truth and I will never take anything on faith.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:05:33 2014 No.6484031

>>6484027

you can accept a causeless universe but not causeless gods?

Maybe they pulled a galactus and used all the energy in one universe to bust into ours, or the act of doing so created our universe.

Stop thinking and saying things just because bill maher does.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:06:33 2014 No.6484034 >>6484023 >Until you can say where the universe came from, you cannot shit on where gods come from. Until you can say where god(s?) came from, or where you have gotten access to this information, you can go sit in the corner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:07:03 2014 No.6484037 >>6484031 I might accept causeless gods if I could get a little evidence of them being necessary. Until then they seem like an extraneous element.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:12:33 2014 No.6484043 File: 20 KB, 280x289, derail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:12:33 2014 No.6484044

>>6484030

What percentage of religious people are young earth creationists? I'd love to see some data on that. Last i heard they were the extremists.

>Ok but you accused me of trying to force others to believe as I do.

The quote where you say it's bullshit, yada yada, you were indoctrinated and tortured is your reasoning, yada yada.

>Wow, you see religion as this benign thing

Churches can do no good as long as it stems from a lie? I guess we should just close all the food banks staffed by church volunteers. The truth will feed people. You seem to be unable to see it as anything but the be all and end all of every single one of mankind's problems. I bet you think the world would be much improved without it?

It'd be like a world with no drugs. Sober people aren't always nice, because fuck sobriety.

>I am only interested in truth and I will never take anything on faith.

In some small quantity, maybe. But if you took that sort of thing seriously, you would have to constantly check the rooms of your house for fire. Can't take it on faith, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:13:33 2014 No.6484046

>>6484021
Why would you assume God was created in the first place? The rationale of the creationist is that there must be something that preceded everything and also given the historical ramifications, that there lived a person on Earth born in the year 0 who did and say things that affected mankind through the things he said and did, and with all things taken into account, God must exist. And unbeknownst to you, that knowledge isn't unavailable to you if you looked in your bible.
>>6484027
Because the universe is ultimately made of tangible matter which must by its inherent properties have a beginning.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:14:03 2014 No.6484048

>>6484044
>What percentage of religious people are young earth creationists? I'd love to see some data on that. Last i heard they were the extremists.

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

>The quote where you say it's bullshit, yada yada, you were indoctrinated and tortured is your reasoning, yada yada.

Still not me forcing my beliefs on anyone. I can say what I think without it being pushed on you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:14:03 2014 No.6484049 >>6484037 Extraneous would imply purpose to things in the universe. There is no purpose to anything in the universe. It just is. We certainly have no purpose and we're in no way necessary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:15:33 2014 No.6484050 File: 36 KB, 700x465, It Will 404 Soon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:19:33 2014 No.6484052

>>6484046
>Why would you assume God was created in the first place?

I wouldn't. As of this point I have to assume that there is no god. Introducing a god only complicates matters. Occams razor and all that.

>The rationale of the creationist is that there must be something that preceded everything

How do you get from that to monotheism?

>unbeknownst to you, that knowledge isn't unavailable to you if you looked in your bible.

So where is the knowledge, if not in the bible? Or did you mean to say that it IS in the bible? In that case I would say that I have read the bible and it is a sick and twisted piece of history and I am glad I live in an age where we can say with confidence that it is man-made bullshit.

>Because the universe is ultimately made of tangible matter which must by its inherent properties have a beginning.

Still doesn't require a god.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:19:33 2014 No.6484053

>>6484048
>http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

>Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-6, 2012, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

That is a single, small, and tenuous because of the sample size, data point. It's nothing close to a conclusive answer. That's not 46% of the world, it's not 46% of america, it's not 46% of a state. It's 46% of the 1024 people who are so out of touch they responded to a fucking gallup poll. C'mon. That's like pointing to piltdown man for science not knowing shit. It doesn't count.

>Still not me forcing my beliefs on anyone. I can say what I think without it being pushed on you.

So how can you push it on someone aside from parent/child?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:21:33 2014 No.6484054 File: 45 KB, 480x359, If it 404's It 404's.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:21:33 2014 No.6484055 >>6484046 >Because the universe is ultimately made of tangible matter which must by its inherent properties have a beginning. But does that beginning have to be the actions of a conscious being?

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:22:33 2014 No.6484058

>>6484053
>That is a single, small, and tenuous because of the sample size, data point. It's nothing close to a conclusive answer. That's not 46% of the world, it's not 46% of america, it's not 46% of a state. It's 46% of the 1024 people who are so out of touch they responded to a fucking gallup poll. C'mon. That's like pointing to piltdown man for science not knowing shit. It doesn't count.

You asked for data so I googled it and posted some data. Do your own fucking research. It isn't some fringe extremist group like you claimed.

>So how can you push it on someone aside from parent/child?

Well your example of going up to a vulnerable grieving person and telling them there is no god would be an example. To be honest, I think you question to me here actually proves my point about me not pushing my beliefs on anyone. Athiests don't tell people they will suffer for eternity if others don't believe as they do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:23:33 2014 No.6484059 >>6484049 Extraneous as in not necessary to explain anything. This isn't about purpose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:23:33 2014 No.6484060 >>6484055 Could have been galactus. Could have been random nothingness. Neither of us can say. It's a great big multiverse, it could all be a simulation. god might be the User, binome!

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:25:04 2014 No.6484064

>>6484058
>Do your own fucking research.

Oh how quickly we abandon the scientific nobility of providing evidence for your claims. You can't even prove that creationism is a real problem outside of the skeptical/atheist community.

>Athiests don't tell people they will suffer for eternity if others don't believe as they do.

Tell me what's wrong with creationism again and why people shouldn't believe in it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:26:03 2014 No.6484068 >>6484059 Why is that a requirement? Maybe a god came in late from some alternate universe with screwy physics?

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:28:03 2014 No.6484073

>>6484064
>You can't even prove that creationism is a real problem outside of the skeptical/atheist community.

Are you actually serious?

>Oh how quickly we abandon the scientific nobility of providing evidence for your claims.

So would you like me to go out and poll the entire globe between responses? Also, I never claimed any figure for the number of young earthers. You claimed that catholics believed in evolution, and I let you know that your statement was not actually factual.

You aren't fun to have a discussion with because you haven't challenged me in any way yet. Feel free to keep trying, though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:31:03 2014 No.6484075 >>6484068 That could be true, but it's not necessarily required to be true. Now not everything that is true is necessarily provable I admit, but where does that leave us?

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:33:33 2014 No.6484076

>>6484052
>I wouldn't. As of this point I have to assume that there is no god. Introducing a god only complicates matters. Occams razor and all that.
But you did assume that if God existed, he had to be created because you put forth the question "who created God?" And the idea of God has existed far longer than atheism. Every early civilization believed in some representation of God.

>How do you get from that to monotheism?
You mean why did I choose to believe in Christianity with its only one God? Because of its legitimacy. Because every prophecy that was written before its time came true. Because its wise beyond words and beyond the incredulity of men.

>So where is the knowledge, if not in the bible? Or did you mean to say that it IS in the bible? In that case I would say that I have read the bible and it is a sick and twisted piece of history and I am glad I live in an age where we can say with confidence that it is man-made bullshit.
You haven't read the bible though. Reading 1-2 pages isn't considered having read the bible. Even 20-40 pages isn't. And even if you read the bible in it's entirety, you'd have to have the wisdom to truly understand what it's saying.

>Still doesn't require a god.
Then what does it require? Obviously you don't know. But now you'd retort that I don't know either. But the fact is that I'm content with my beliefs, you're the one saying it's wrong.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:34:03 2014 No.6484079

>>6484073
>Are you actually serious?

Yes. Has creationism killed more people in the USA in the last 30 years as handguns? the Anti-vax movement? disease? anything?

How is it harming them? By not telling them about the shit that will never matter in their short lives? Be specific.

>So would you like me to go out and poll the entire globe between responses?

Well you seem to believe so fervently that these people are actively destroying the world en masse, and you've stated a great passion for only believing in things you have evidence for that i thought, surely, you would have more than just empty rhetoric to substantiate your claims.

>You aren't fun to have a discussion with because you haven't challenged me in any way yet.

Because you're as reluctant to look at your own beliefs as any christian.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:36:33 2014 No.6484082 >>6484075 At the point where neither side can shit on the other's interpretation of where the universe came from and what resides in it etc etc.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:41:33 2014 No.6484088

>>6484076
>But you did assume that if God existed, he had to be created because you put forth the question "who created God?"

I put that forward in response to someone claiming god exists. I was asking them a question using their logic. I can still hypothesize about the possibility of a god existing without actually believing one exists. Do I actually need to spell this shit out to you?

>Every early civilization believed in some representation of God.

Yeah, and I don't blame them. They had no other good explanations like we do now. Most ancient civilizations worshipped the Sun as a god. Pretty damn easy to see why. I don't think any less of those people and I would have believed the same thing had I been born then.

>You mean why did I choose to believe in Christianity with its only one God? Because of its legitimacy. Because every prophecy that was written before its time came true. Because its wise beyond words and beyond the incredulity of men.

This is too much. It was written by men so it cannot be beyond them. Prophecies? They are all self-fulfilling. It even says so in the bible. "and when the messiah arrived he was riding on an ass, so that the prophecies may be fulfilled". Not convincing in the least.

>You haven't read the bible though. Reading 1-2 pages isn't considered having read the bible. Even 20-40 pages isn't. And even if you read the bible in it's entirety, you'd have to have the wisdom to truly understand what it's saying.

Fuck you asshole. Not only did I read it, I was forced to read and memorize many passages. I went to church 3 times a fucking week and had to sit and listen. Actually, as a child, I liked it so much that I was able to recite the entire mass along with the priest.

Fuck you for your baseless accusation. If you actually read the bible you would see how disgusting of a text it actually is. Genocide and slavery are mandated in the bible. Fuck you scumbag.

(cont)

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:42:03 2014 No.6484091

>>6484076
>Then what does it require? Obviously you don't know. But now you'd retort that I don't know either. But the fact is that I'm content with my beliefs, you're the one saying it's wrong.

I never said it is wrong. I simply said that there is no evidence for believing it and that we are much better off without it.

Your insecurities are showing. It's ok, friend, I went through all of this as well.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:44:33 2014 No.6484093 >>6484091 >I simply said that there is no evidence for believing it and that we are much better off without it. you've also said that this does not apply to everyone. So stop forcing your beliefs with rhetoric like "better off"

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:46:05 2014 No.6484096 >>6484088 Dude, stop feeding the trolls.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:47:04 2014 No.6484097

>>6484082
Oh I understand where you're coming from completely. My decision to jump into this was more a knee-jerk defense of an agnostic position than about defending the guy who's talking about being indoctrinated. Now I just look silly. What do I care, right?

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:49:34 2014 No.6484099

>>6484079
>Yes. Has creationism killed more people in the USA in the last 30 years as handguns? the Anti-vax movement? disease? anything?
>How is it harming them? By not telling them about the shit that will never matter in their short lives? Be specific.

It doesn't have to harm anyone to be wrong. That said, it is harmful and also likely wrong. Telling children that they will go to hell for not obeying god is not a good thing. Also, like I already said once, religion has been neutered in this modern age. It no longer has the power to cause the amount of harm that it used to. Don't think for a second that it wouldn't if given the chance, though. It only scaled back it's extreme bullshit in the hopes that it would not be completely eradicated.

>Well you seem to believe so fervently that these people are actively destroying the world en masse, and you've stated a great passion for only believing in things you have evidence for that i thought, surely, you would have more than just empty rhetoric to substantiate your claims.

I never said they were destroying the world en-mass. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Any person with a thinking brain can see that I never said that.

>Because you're as reluctant to look at your own beliefs as any christian.

This is simply not true. Also, my beliefs are not comparable to those of people of faith. I am able to change my beliefs when faced with the evidence, while they, as I stated before, cannot, by definition, change theirs. You are not comparing like with like.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:51:05 2014 No.6484102

>>6484093
>you've also said that this does not apply to everyone.

Unfortunately you will actually have to show me where I said that since you keep pulling shit out of your asshole and claiming I said it.

If you have to make shit up in order to prove your points, then maybe you should consider that the points are actually pretty weak.

>>6484096
>Dude, stop feeding the trolls.

Actually I don't think he is a troll. I did at first, but I see all the signs of an actual believer. I could play devils advocate much better than this misguided fellow.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:54:04 2014 No.6484107

>>6484099
>It doesn't have to harm anyone to be wrong

That is one of the primary motivators of something being called wrong.

>Telling children that they will go to hell for not obeying god is not a good thing.

Neither is telling them about santa claus. Both are used to get the kid to do what you want. You ever try reasoning with children? You think Santa is wrong because it's training wheels for religion?

>I never said they were destroying the world en-mass. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Any person with a thinking brain can see that I never said that.

I just figured there had to be a motivation for this crusade aside from personal revenge or principles.

What does it matter to people? If they were atheists they would think the singularity was going to save everyone. Big difference, they'll still sit around waiting.

>I am able to change my beliefs when faced with the evidence

So you say, but you have also demonstrated that you will hold opinions based on very flimsy and self-admittedly cherry picked information like the gallup poll, so i am skeptical.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 00:59:06 2014 No.6484111

>>6484102
>Unfortunately you will actually have to show me where I said that since you keep pulling shit out of your asshole and claiming I said it.
>If you have to make shit up in order to prove your points, then maybe you should consider that the points are actually pretty weak.

So you would go to the terminal ward and tell people there is no god and to get ready for the big nothing? I thought you said the opposite.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:01:05 2014 No.6484113

>>6484107
>That is one of the primary motivators of something being called wrong.

Well when I say 'wrong' I am meaning 'incorrect'. You seem to be interchanging it with 'right and wrong'.

You think Santa is wrong because it's training wheels for religion?

I actually like the fact that parents lie to their kids about Santa. I think it is a great stepping stone for kids to say to themselves "If my parents lied to me about Santa, what else have they been lying to me about?".

>
I just figured there had to be a motivation for this crusade aside from personal revenge or principles.

What does it matter to people? If they were atheists they would think the singularity was going to save everyone. Big difference, they'll still sit around waiting.

So you admit you are just pushing your assumptions onto me because I do not believe as you do. Atheists do not believe that they are going to be saved. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. The sooner you get that fundamental point right, the sooner you can move on with your arguments.

>So you say, but you have also demonstrated that you will hold opinions based on very flimsy and self-admittedly cherry picked information like the gallup poll.

I used the first hit on google as a quick way to show you that it isn't some fringe group like you claimed. I grew up in a small town in Canada and it was full of young earth creationists. There is a fucking young earth museum in the states that shows people walking with dinosaurs. I didn't even realize that this was a disputed point. I always knew that these people existed and in no way viewed them as some extreme minority.

>so i am skeptical

This was all worth it because that made me piss my fucking pants.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:03:04 2014 No.6484119

>>6484111

Well as I already said(here I go repeating myself again...) I would never do that, nor would any morally decent person.

That said, at least it would be honest. At least they could live their last moments as a free individual, and not as a slave, hoping that they were good enough to avoid eternal fire.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:07:34 2014 No.6484121
File: 1.64 MB, 1280x720, 1394428051751.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6484113

>I actually like the fact that parents lie to their kids about Santa. I think it is a great stepping stone for kids to say to themselves "If my parents lied to me about Santa, what else have they been lying to me about?".

Christianity does that too.

>Atheists do not believe that they are going to be saved.

So, what then? We all die out in the next few thousand years like every other species that has ever existed, without ever colonizing space or living on another planet?

I somehow doubt that as it is an extremely rare thing to believe.

>I used the first hit on google as a quick way to show you that it isn't some fringe group like you claimed

And your careless approach to backing up a preconceived idea backfired. You clearly believed that creationists had huge numbers and were a huge problem and THEN you went looking for the evidence to support it. Shit, that's creationist science.

>This was all worth it because that made me piss my fucking pants.

Then you don't know what it means to be skeptical. It's more than just reading and parroting chris hitches or dan denett or sam harris.

>There is a fucking young earth museum in the states that shows people walking with dinosaurs.

Who fucking cares? Cosmos showed this as a "possible" future for the earth and that's just as much nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:08:04 2014 No.6484122 More young earth info http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-believe-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/ So this puts it at about 1 in 10, so still over 30 million people. It also criticizes the gallop pole.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:09:05 2014 No.6484123

>>6484119

So then you agree it does not apply to anyone. Should they choose to go into that dark night willingly, good for them. But don't disparage them for being afraid of nonexistence, for wishing they could see their parents again, just to say they're sorry for all the petty bullshit they put them through.

I wish i could. I wish i could believe in god and all that. But as you said it's not true.

But it's a personal choice. Leave people be. Religion isn't what's destroying the world, basic human nature is, religion is just one small symptom.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:15:04 2014 No.6484126

>>6484121
>I somehow doubt that as it is an extremely rare thing to believe.

It being a rare belief in no way discredits it.

>You clearly believed that creationists had huge numbers and were a huge problem and THEN you went looking for the evidence to support it.

No I never said any of that. I merely said that they exist, and it was in response to you claiming that christians believe in evolution. Funny how you are still clinging to this.

>Who fucking cares?

Oh, ok I guess when something isn't in your favour, you can just say 'who cares?'.

I think this discussion stands on its own and anyone reading it will see the holes in your 'logic'.

>I wish i could. I wish i could believe in god and all that. But as you said it's not true.

Again, I never said that. I said that there is no evidence for believing that it is true.

If you keep repeating yourself after being corrected, it shows a disconnect in your thought process. You just can't handle anything not fitting in line with your view of existence.

>But it's a personal choice. Leave people be. Religion isn't what's destroying the world, basic human nature is, religion is just one small symptom.

I already said I don't care what people believe as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try and force it on me or my children. I also already explained that religion has been tamed and that they did not behave so nicely when they had all the power.

Nice chatting with you, but this is becoming a waste of time when I need to keep repeating myself. It is one thing to be misunderstood in conversation, but the things I am saying are right there on the page and you choose not to comprehend them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:15:04 2014 No.6484127 What has Krauss ever achieved other than speak about atheism and promote neo-logical positivism? Everybody else at least has some level of genuine celebrity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:18:34 2014 No.6484133 >>6484126 >but the things I am saying are right there on the page and you choose not to comprehend them. Because all you want to do is argue. Good luck.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:21:04 2014 No.6484136

>>6484133
>Because all you want to do is argue.

Everything I said was in response to questions directed at me. I am open to differing opinions, but yours are incredibly boring seeing as I was raised to think the same way and no longer do. I do not push my beliefs on anyone, but I will most certainly voice them in response to others questions/accusations.

Good luck breaking those chains. Remember, a guilded cage is still a cage.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:22:34 2014 No.6484137

>>6484088
>I put that forward in response to someone claiming god exists. I was asking them a question using their logic. I can still hypothesize about the possibility of a god existing without actually believing one exists. Do I actually need to spell this shit out to you?
And I effectively dismantled that notion of a "created God" because as I stated, it's not even a valid premise nor a conclusion to the argument. A "created God" is by definition an oxymoron. (I'm just gonna repeat a debate speech) If you say "who created God" that means you're reduced to thinking about created Gods. None of us believe in "created Gods" (Jews, Muslims, or Christians). The God that created the universe was not created. He is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist, he did not. This is precisely the point the Christian apostle John makes at the beginning of his gospel, "in the beginning was the Word, the Word already was. All things came to be by Him." God was uncreated. I don't know whether you have difficulty with the concept of the uncreated, that matter and energy and the laws of nature were always there because if they were you do believe in something eternal so perhaps your difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person. Because I don't see you debating whether the laws of the universe always existed or not, and you probably never questioned the matter. Your disbelieve only stems from a negative perception of the Catholic representation of the bible's contents.

>Yeah, and I don't blame them. They had no other good explanations like we do now. Most ancient civilizations worshipped the Sun as a god. Pretty damn easy to see why. I don't think any less of those people and I would have believed the same thing had I been born then.
And there's also Gods that preceded Sun worship including the worship of the Christian God.

(cont'd)

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:23:34 2014 No.6484139

>>6484137
>This is too much. It was written by men so it cannot be beyond them. Prophecies? They are all self-fulfilling. It even says so in the bible. "and when the messiah arrived he was riding on an ass, so that the prophecies may be fulfilled". Not convincing in the least.
The birth of Jesus was prophecied literally around 1,000 years before his birth. There's literally no way for it to have been coordinated by fallible men through several generations. And you're implying that all the nations and tribes who had no contact with the bible or its prophecies invaded nations and overcame them as prophecied by the bible? keep in mind that these prophecies were written hundreds of years beforehand.

Fuck you asshole. Not only did I read it, I was forced to read and memorize many passages. I went to church 3 times a fucking week and had to sit and listen. Actually, as a child, I liked it so much that I was able to recite the entire mass along with the priest.
So you had to recite the bible. That's far from understanding it. I'm not surprised by your outburst either because as I mentioned, Catholics have very little knowledge of the bible and their religion is corrupt from within their highest ranks and has been for quite some time. Since 313 ad to be exact. Not to mention all the child rape that goes on inside its church.

>Fuck you for your baseless accusation. If you actually read the bible you would see how disgusting of a text it actually is. Genocide and slavery are mandated in the bible. Fuck you scumbag.
No, they were mandated at the time. For reasons that were required for civilization to exist as it does today. Had you read the bible and understood it, you wouldn't have put forth the assumption that God was created, even if it was just a matter of question.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:28:34 2014 No.6484150

>>6484137
>And I effectively dismantled that notion of a "created God" because as I stated, it's not even a valid premise nor a conclusion to the argument. A "created God" is by definition an oxymoron. (I'm just gonna repeat a debate speech) If you say "who created God" that means you're reduced to thinking about created Gods. None of us believe in "created Gods" (Jews, Muslims, or Christians). The God that created the universe was not created. He is eternal. This is the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. It came to exist, he did not. This is precisely the point the Christian apostle John makes at the beginning of his gospel, "in the beginning was the Word, the Word already was. All things came to be by Him." God was uncreated. I don't know whether you have difficulty with the concept of the uncreated, that matter and energy and the laws of nature were always there because if they were you do believe in something eternal so perhaps your difficulty lies in believing in an eternal person. Because I don't see you debating whether the laws of the universe always existed or not, and you probably never questioned the matter. Your disbelieve only stems from a negative perception of the Catholic representation of the bible's contents.

This is white noise.

>And there's also Gods that preceded Sun worship including the worship of the Christian God.

Christian god came before sun worshippers? No.

>The birth of Jesus was prophecied literally around 1,000 years before his birth.

You asked for this.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

Go ahead and educate yourself. Being a skeptic and all, I am sure you will be interested to read how much bullshit actually exists in the bible. As for myself, it is exactly what you would expect from something that is so clearly man-made.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:29:05 2014 No.6484153

>>6484091
>I never said it is wrong. I simply said that there is no evidence for believing it and that we are much better off without it.Your insecurities are showing. It's ok, friend, I went through all of this as well.
If you're saying that we shouldn't believe it because it's not true, then you are saying that it's wrong. If you're saying that it is true, but we shouldn't believe it because it's bad for us in some way, then you're supplying your own dishonest precepts for people to hear

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:31:34 2014 No.6484156 >>6484153 >If you're saying that we shouldn't believe it because it's not true, then you are saying that it's wrong. No, because the atheist knows that they cannot disprove god. All they can say is that there is no reason to believe it is true.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:32:34 2014 No.6484157

>>6484139
>The birth of Jesus was prophecied literally around 1,000 years before his birth

"Additionally there is no evidence outside the statements of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, and even they do not agree on the details. Luke has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem from Nazareth for the dubious reason of partaking in a census in 6 CE, while Matthew has them starting in Bethlehem and escaping to Nazareth by way of Egypt at least ten years earlier."

Even your precious bible can't agree on this.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:45:05 2014 No.6484173

>>6484150
>This is white noise.
Because you can't refute it? Okay then.

>Christian god came before sun worshippers? No.
And you have proof for this? You understand that the Christian God existed to the very first people who ever lived on Earth and that these people believed in the Christian God, right? The belief of the Christian God pre-existed the Christian religion.

>You asked for this.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
Why am I not surprised that you'd go and google "prophecies that didn't come true" so you could post a link to an atheist wiki database, that doesn't disprove any of the prophecies at all. The fact is I'm already familiar with the claim of those failed prophecies. You submit the link like it's some ultimate negation of bible prophecy when there's literally thousands of prophecies that came true.

>Go ahead and educate yourself. Being a skeptic and all, I am sure you will be interested to read how much bullshit actually exists in the bible. As for myself, it is exactly what you would expect from something that is so clearly man-made.
You've never read the bible, yet you actually think you're a credible source for critiqueing it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:47:04 2014 No.6484177 >>6484156 No, atheism is the rejection of God. They believe that God doesn't exist.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:50:34 2014 No.6484182

>>6484177

Actually you are completely wrong. Atheism is not a belief. It is simply non-theism.

The atheist does not say that there isn't any god because that is a statement as dumb as the one that there is a god. Neither can be proven, both would have to be taken on faith.

Many people even believe that there shouldn't be the word Atheism, because we don't make up special words for every single thing we don't believe in, like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:52:34 2014 No.6484187

>>6484157
>"Additionally there is no evidence outside the statements of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, and even they do not agree on the details. Luke has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem from Nazareth for the dubious reason of partaking in a census in 6 CE, while Matthew has them starting in Bethlehem and escaping to Nazareth by way of Egypt at least ten years earlier."
This is false. See what I mean? You're quick to believe anyone else but the bible. You've been brainwashed and conditioned by the liberal agenda and its media whore to think that way. Let me guess. You're a millenial

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:54:04 2014 No.6484191

>>6484173
>And you have proof for this? You understand that the Christian God existed to the very first people who ever lived on Earth and that these people believed in the Christian God, right? The belief of the Christian God pre-existed the Christian religion.

whelp.

>rant about prophecies

I posted that because it refutes the specific claim you made about the birth of jesus.

>You've never read the bible, yet you actually think you're a credible source for critiqueing it.

I guess you missed the multiple times I said I actually was raised catholic and had to read and memorize parts of the bible. I even read it in my private time because I believed what I was told about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:54:34 2014 No.6484189 >>6484182 There's no proof either way, therefore it's just a belief.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:56:04 2014 No.6484194 >>6484182 Are you choosing to define "atheism" to suit your own disposition because if you look in any dictionary it will tell you that atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:57:04 2014 No.6484195

>>6484187

How is it false? Open your bible and see for yourself.

> Let me guess. You're a millenial

I had to google this. I see it was just used as ad-hominem. It seems to mean anyone born since 1980. I am 30 years old. What an amazing guess you made! Someone on 4chan being 34 or younger, what are the fucking odds!?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 01:59:05 2014 No.6484200 >>6484189 No, one is belief, the other is non-belief. Theism - Belief in god Atheism - lack of belief in previously mentioned god

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:01:35 2014 No.6484202 >>6484194 "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." -wiki

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:10:35 2014 No.6484212 >>6484043 i think the direction was OP's intention from the start

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:13:05 2014 No.6484214

>>6484194
That is absolutely not true. Theism is any belief which asserts that at least one god exists; atheism is everything else. This includes beliefs which assert no god exists and beliefs which make no assertions about god(s) at all. The former is called strong/positive atheism, and the latter is called weak/negative atheism. Strong atheism is, obviously, a belief. Weak atheism is not.

Note: weak atheists (who respond to an absence of evidence with an absence of belief) can still call theists (who respond to an absence of evidence with a belief) dumbasses in a coherent and non-contradictory manner.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:16:05 2014 No.6484217

>>6484212

It is funny because I am the Atheist defending myself from these religious creeps, and yet I was the one who first voiced my disappointment with the OP's video. It was here >>6483833

Being a free thinking means being able to see the flaws in your own beliefs and heroes/role models/'gods'

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:19:36 2014 No.6484222 >>6484195 >How is it false? Open your bible and see for yourself. For example, Micah 5:2 Also, the census in question occurred in 5 bc not 6 ad. Herod prolonged the course of it due to his falling out with Caesar at the time

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:20:35 2014 No.6484225 >>6484222 There is no evidence of this census ever being conducted.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:23:06 2014 No.6484228

>>6484222

Also, even if you could prove this, it wouldn't prove any of your other claims. If you base your faith and belief in god on these fucking stories you are disgustingly diluded and you are absolutely wasting your time trying to convince me of any of this. Like I have said, I know all of your arguments already, and there is nothing new you could ever present to me. Religion can never offer anything new. You can never convince me because I have heard it all before and seen it proven false by my own study of the text. I grew up in it.

You can never prove that god exists, let alone your one specific christian god. Not even all believers believe the same thing. You must be pretty damn solipsistic to believe that you have access to the one real truth. You sicken me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:25:05 2014 No.6484231 >>6484225 If it didn't happen, then why did Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem and why were they so short on temporary accommodation? Iron Maiden sure as hell weren't touring that year (their first tour wasn't until 120AD).

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:27:35 2014 No.6484233 >>6484231 Hint: They didn't because it never happened. It is a story.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:28:05 2014 No.6484236

>>6484202
>"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

The only people who can have an "absence of belief" are the dead, anon. From the moment you considered a belief or identified against a belief, you've judged it.

This whole "absence of belief" business is a rhetorical technique.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:33:05 2014 No.6484240 >>6484236 ok now we are into trolling territory. I do not believe in what you believe in. This isn't a difficult concept.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:33:35 2014 No.6484241 >>6484225 in his Res Gestae, Augustus notes that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, with the earliest dated at 28 bc. And in between each there were several other censuses that happened locally to account for smaller villages.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:35:36 2014 No.6484242 >>6484240 >I do not believe in what you believe in That's a belief, anon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_nihilism

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:36:05 2014 No.6484244 >>6484242 >lack of belief is a belief Some serious mental gymnastics required for this shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:37:05 2014 No.6484245 >>6484244 >Some serious mental gymnastics required for this shit. No, just withdrawing ones head from ones ass.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:37:05 2014 No.6484246

>>6484236
This is a peculiar view.

I have at this moment open in another window a random number generator set to generate either a single 0 or 1. By the time you read this post, it will have generated its number. I want you to tell us, in your response, which number you believe it generated.

I can tell you that right now (having not yet generated the number), I have no idea what the output will be and absolutely no belief concerning what it will be. I would feel stupid even pretending to. I could pick a number and guess, but that's certainly not a matter of belief and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to discover I ended up wrong.

But if you can muster up some way to convince yourself to believe that it will be one result and not the other, please, by all means, tell us how you managed to pull that off.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:39:35 2014 No.6484248 >>6484246 You want agnosticism, not atheism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:40:06 2014 No.6484250 >>6484245 you first

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:41:05 2014 No.6484253

>>6484246
>I have no idea what the output will be and absolutely no belief concerning what it will be. I would feel stupid even pretending to. I could pick a number and guess, but that's certainly not a matter of belief and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to discover I ended up wrong.

Your belief is that you should not have a belief about this. It's parallel to agnosticism.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:47:05 2014 No.6484260

>>6484248
>agnosticism
You don't know what that word means. Colloquially, people use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism" all the time, and while I'm generally not a stickler on that sort of thing because I know what they mean, it is still incorrect and you can't call people using the terms correctly wrong because you're used to the incorrect ones.

Formally, (a)gnosticism is a belief about the knowability of god's existence, with agnostics believing god's (non)existence is unknowable and gnostics believing god's (non)existence is knowable.

You can be an agnostic theist. It's not even uncommon - faith over reason (belief without or in spite of evidence) is a core tenet of modern Christianity. (A)gnosticism answers a distinct question from a(theism). It's not a third option, and it's not an adjective on atheism that turns it into weak atheism.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:51:05 2014 No.6484262

>>6484253
"I believe I shouldn't believe either" is not an answer to the question "do you believe it will be 1 or 0?"

You can't dodge this by being meta. You said we have to have a belief about the event in question. You are now telling me I don't have to. Except instead of doing it to admit your wrongness, it's... supposed to be a defense?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 02:54:05 2014 No.6484264 >>6483872 it isn't a far cry to say some people make enough money to where they don't care to make more of it.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 03:00:05 2014 No.6484270

>>6484262
>You said we have to have a belief about the event in question

I said that once you've heard about the possibility of something existing, your brain has to make at least some sort of belief in the way it processes that information.
Examples:
-"I believe it"
-"I don't believe it"
-"I'm not sure"
All three of these are beliefs.

Perhaps I should re-frame this differently:
The only people who don't have beliefs about something are

a) People who have never heard about that something
b) Dead people

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 03:00:35 2014 No.6484269 >>6484260 >>6484262 Just admit you're agnostic and move on. Stop trying to define words to win an argument. It's not even worth it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 03:09:05 2014 No.6484282 >>6484264 But anyone would take free money.

Anonymous Thu Apr 17 03:11:05 2014 No.6484285

>>6483872
>supposed to be the smartest people in the world, why don't they invent anything?
They are not supposed to be, and afaik they dont claim anything like that either. The notion that the smartest people = invent stuff is just fucking childish.
>Don't tell me like, "there's more important things than money"
If money would be the only thing that motivates people there would be no physicists, only people with BBAs or some shit. There is a difference between being a cynic and being retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 06:56:25 2014 No.6484438 >>6483811 And that's what >>>/sci/ is all about!

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 07:02:55 2014 No.6484441 >>6483811 go waste time to church

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 15:42:54 2014 No.6484975 Anyone notice how Dawkins didn't sit next to the nigger? Is he racialist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 15:50:24 2014 No.6484989 Brian Greene is based as fuck, also a legit physicist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 17:06:58 2014 No.6485102 >>6484975 Fuck, who wants to sit next to a loud, agressive monkey like that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 17:11:28 2014 No.6485104 >>6484989 He ran like the bitch he is when Neil came after him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 20:20:28 2014 No.6485434 >>6483768 >Dawkins I suddenly don't feel like watching.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 21:04:58 2014 No.6485498 >>6485102 Oh come one, Dawkins isn't that ugly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 17 21:08:57 2014 No.6485504 >>6483923 Sorry to break it to you, but Dawkins can't into search algorithms. Or basic systems logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 18 00:29:49 2014 No.6485623 >>6485504 You are wrong. He used to be obsessed with programming. Read his books.

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