Is it possible to be a scientist and religious? This includes mathematicians, medical doctors, engineers, etc.. Why or why not? Should it matter? Please explain your answer /sci/

File: 121 KB, 2560x1600, Religion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:28:33 2017 No.8817362 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to be a scientist and religious?

This includes mathematicians, medical doctors, engineers, etc..

Why or why not? Should it matter? Please explain your answer /sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:32:17 2017 No.8817367 >>8817362 Yes in fact historically most (almost all) scientists have been deeply involved with the church if not clergymen, themselves. No it doesn't matter, this is old news.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:32:34 2017 No.8817369 File: 87 KB, 650x531, 1461287368909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8817362 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:40:12 2017 No.8817383 File: 104 KB, 927x1200, 1472260873519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8817362 Yes desu t. engineer

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:41:40 2017 No.8817386 Yes. The only people that think it's impossible to be a scientist and religious are le reddit fedoratards.

>>	Miniature Spacecraft Mon Apr 10 15:42:13 2017 No.8817388 File: 10 KB, 300x250, ThinkingApe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8817362 The more you know in science, the more you know there is a God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:44:09 2017 No.8817392 >>8817388 Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:48:45 2017 No.8817402 >>8817362 I think the pantheism of Spinoza works with science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 15:51:56 2017 No.8817409 >>8817392 Because religion makes one see beyond what is 'proven' to be true. If you say you do not believe in a god, at least TRY understanding WHY so many people 'believe' at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:32:02 2017 No.8817498 >>8817409 Science makes one see beyond what is 'fantasized' to be true. If you say you believe in a god, at least TRY understanding WHY so many people 'rationalize' at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:33:05 2017 No.8817500 >>8817362 Yes. The truth is...Scientists who believe in multiverse theory.... ... Gods...and them well.... they just... and... um ....

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:38:03 2017 No.8817516 >>8817362 >The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you Werner Heisenberg

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:40:13 2017 No.8817521

>>8817362
Possible? Yeah.
Plausible? No.
Dogmatic reasoning is literally the opposite of the scientific method.
Also, you can hypothesize about the existence of the supernatural of divinities outside of your work, but that's definitely not a scientific way to see the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:49:23 2017 No.8817536 Look up Jordan Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_-pfqFGJI personal favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:57:28 2017 No.8817555 >>8817498 you can't rationalize everything. You can't even answer why the universe started to exist.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:58:35 2017 No.8817557

>>8817362
Well, to truly be a scientist while being Catholic, Muslim or some kind of fundamentalist sect is avoiding some serious cognitive dissonance, as a rational person who believes in scientific inquiry to accept this entire body of beliefs and rules from religious leaders is simply weak-minded and ridiculous.

But there is absolutely nothing contradictory between being a scientist and believing in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or some protestant church open to a personal interpretation of the Bible and relationship with God, these explain and relate to spiritual matters beyond the realm of science and as an open-minded rationalist it is as absurd to reject the guidance and wisdom of others as it is to accept it as absolute truth.

Of course, if by 'religious' you simply mean 'believing in some form of a god', then yes, as a scientist asserting gnostic atheism is quite irrational and contradictory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 16:59:42 2017 No.8817559 >>8817555 .... One need only look at an artist. Tiny Gods. Tiny Gods everywhere....

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:00:22 2017 No.8817560 >>8817555 You don't have to. You're just assuming there IS an agent with agency responsible, and then justifying that as God without question

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:12:14 2017 No.8817580

>>8817362
Every single scientific theory, correct or not, ALWAYS starts with certain assumptions or observations, e.g. A is like this, therefore B, C and D, with these mathematical equations.
I doubt this will ever change, however deep we go, there's always more questions waiting for us. Another theory may be proposed that explains A, but it too will assume certain things about the universe.
This strongly indicates that our world has a creator. The very fabric of an ordered universe screams this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:13:48 2017 No.8817584 >go see a psychiatrist >first question he asks is "Why are you depressed?" >says "the big man up there won't help you if you don't help yourself" I dropped him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:14:43 2017 No.8817586 >>8817580 You forget that these scientific assumptions are usually based on observation, not feelings or random speculations

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:17:00 2017 No.8817592

>>8817521
>Dogmatic reasoning is literally the opposite of the scientific method.

>your teacher tells you something is true
>>you believe it
>your god tells you something is true
>>you believe it

Same difference.

>not a scientific way to see the world
>scientific

Science just models the world. It's not the arbitrator of truth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:19:03 2017 No.8817596 >>8817580 >a universe where the harmonic series diverges >ordered

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:21:25 2017 No.8817601 >>8817584 Wait a licensed psychiatrist told you to find God? Really? I guess that's not illegal outright, but fuck, as somebody who works in the field that's beyond unprofessional.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:25:34 2017 No.8817611 >>8817536 Truly a good selection there.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:28:23 2017 No.8817618

I know this philosophy, but I think that one of the main scientific questions about religion is the possibility of revelation as a historical phenomena, i.e. the factual nature of any possible connection between humanity and God. Kierkegaard's examination of the issue in Fear and Trembling to me seems inadequate, because he believes that the teleological ethical duty can be suspended if God communicates to the human, but what proof is there of this God being God? Hegel handles this issue better in the Philosophy of Right where he examines the "law of the heart" which drives all faith based fanaticism. The law of the heart makes any subjective correlation with "god" a truth and subverts the intersubjective agreement of the law of a nation state. The issue is can revelation be scientifically accepted: no. But I do think that faith can be a connection of truth or trust with the universe as a knowable entity. While I believe this to be an anthropomorphism I think there is a dialogue between subject and object and that there is an immanent intelligence within the universe, even if it is beyond reason or experience.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:30:41 2017 No.8817624

>>8817586
>You forget that these scientific assumptions are usually based on observation

>Every single scientific theory, correct or not, ALWAYS starts with certain assumptions or observations
>assumptions or observations
>observations
Idiot.

>>8817596
What are you babbling about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:33:29 2017 No.8817630 >>8817362 Is it possible to be religious? Define God. If you want a sky daddy I can introduce you to a few lmaos who would be more than happy to ayy your lmaos.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:36:56 2017 No.8817638 >>8817624 True I overlooked that part, sorry about that. However, the idea that because scientific theories may use assumptions, that this demands an intelligent creator is still not founded on anything

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:41:32 2017 No.8817647

>>8817638
>However, the idea that because scientific theories may use assumptions, that this demands an intelligent creator is still not founded on anything
That's not what I said. My point is that there must be something or somethings in the universe which just "are". The fact that these things probably have certain, exact properties implies choice by the creator.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:42:56 2017 No.8817652 >>8817630 God == the universe. Ticks the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient boxes.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:43:06 2017 No.8817653

>>8817557
>serious cognitive dissonance
>simply weak-minded and ridiculous

You're not making an argument, just belittling those different than you.

>as it is to accept it as absolute truth

If you assume God isn't lying to you then if God tells you something, you have to accept that it's true. Do you have trust issues?

>personal interpretation

Something is either true or it isn't true. People don't live in their own personal realities. It's irrational for one person to think big foot is real and another think big foot isn't and both of them to be correct.

>grouping Catholic & Muslim together and Judaism separate

10/10 troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:43:25 2017 No.8817654 >>8817647 Why does this imply choice by a creator? In fact, you have yet to define what this "creator" is?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:43:52 2017 No.8817660

if you believe in fucking Dog you are retarded. Do you actually enjoy being forced to go to church, i mean seriously? I wouldn't mind it being made illegal for parents to inflict that torment on their children just because they happened to be born in family afflicted by skydaddy fundamentalist cult.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:44:03 2017 No.8817661
File: 84 KB, 900x675, hmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8817555
>Implying the universe has a purpose.

Someone once asked a scientist, "What is the meaning of life?"
The scientist responded by saying, "Where did you get that idea? Before we can answer your question, we must first ask "Is there a meaning to life?"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:45:07 2017 No.8817663 File: 9 KB, 575x322, Bigotry definition.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8817584 >being intolerant of people of different beliefs Way to be a bigot

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:48:09 2017 No.8817670

>>8817654
How else can the fundamental properties of the building blocks of a universe be set but by an outside power?
>In fact, you have yet to define what this "creator" is?
We're discussing the existence of the creator, not the nature of the creator itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:49:28 2017 No.8817671 >>8817362 >3 pm rolls around >suddenly thread is filled with fedoras fresh from middle school

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:52:11 2017 No.8817682 >>8817369 >tips miter

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:53:28 2017 No.8817684 Is it possible to be a scientist and believe in leprechauns?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:55:39 2017 No.8817687

>>8817670
It is not verifiable yet, but that is no reason to presuppose a creator at all. That urge to assign intention and meaning to everything is basic human instinct, and there is no reason that instinct is validated by reality. Im not asking about its nature, but what feature this presupposed creator has at all. No features verifiable, no features at all, and therefore this is good reason to reject the hypothesized creator.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 17:58:10 2017 No.8817690

>>8817684
>Is it possible to be a doctor and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a detective and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a politician and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be an actor and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a writer and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a plumber and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be an hero and believe in leprechauns?

Stop mythicizing scientists.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:00:15 2017 No.8817691

Yes, it is possible to be a scientist and religious. It is not impossible because at least one person exists who is a religious scientist.

I am a devout Christian, but my academic track record includes Latin honors from an Ivy, a graduate degree supported by an NSF fellowship, peer-reviewed publications solving open problems in my field, and even a seminal paper creating a new sub-field within my field.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:06:40 2017 No.8817699 >>8817362 Most were. Even the ones atheists like to use to justify their disbelief were. Like Darwin for example.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:06:49 2017 No.8817701

>>8817580
>This strongly indicates that our world has a creator.
No it doesn't. It indicates that our attempts to understand the universe through the human mindset (which includes the idea of an paternal intelligent creator) will fail because the universe was never made for us to understand in the first place. We were made by the universe, there is no reason we should have the faculties to understand it. Or maybe we do. But none of this indicates a (clearly pathological) sky daddy.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:07:04 2017 No.8817703

>>8817601
I admit this is not great if you look at things in a vacuum, he could have just been old and not really cared. Honestly, there has been a lot of research that implies frequent church goers are happier people...but honestly given the state of psychology its hard to trust much of the research from the past twenty years.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:08:00 2017 No.8817706

>>8817687
>It is not verifiable yet, but that is no reason to presuppose a creator at all.
You say this and follow up with same vague statement about human instincts. You do not say which part of my logic is faulty.
If a universe has certain fundamental properties, upon which everything else in that universe functions, then it is logical to ascribe those properties to an outside power, since, by definition, nothing inside that universe can influence those fundamental properties.

>Im not asking about its nature, but what feature this presupposed creator has at all
>but what feature
>but what feature
So basically asking about its nature? Again, we're not discussing what features this creator has, we're discussing its existence.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:08:53 2017 No.8817709

>>8817691

How would you justify being a leader in STEM and rational thinking, while also believing that ancient myths are true?

I'm honestly not trolling. On the contrary, I'm pretty intrigued. I'm interested in how someone could be such a rational thinker in one hand, yet fall for such simple obvious nonsense on the other hand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:10:58 2017 No.8817711 >>8817663 >wow you're dumb, please stop spouting nonsense at me >that makes you a bigot! /pol/ please leave

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:14:12 2017 No.8817725

>>8817706
You completely ignored my point. I am directly saying your logic is deeply flawed because it presupposes something, rather than looking at any actual verifiable evidence. This creator has not been verified and by most accounts is not verifiable AT ALL, therefore your logic is broken. Also, if something has no desribeable features and has no verifiable features and there are no discrete features present, then why predicate your hypothesis on its existence? Also, you have yet to state why an isolated system lime our Universe requires a creator at all.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:16:34 2017 No.8817730

>>8817725
>presupposes something
What? That our universe has certain fundamental properties?
>Also, you have yet to state why an isolated system lime our Universe requires a creator at all.
Dude, can you read? That's what I've been arguing all this time.
See >>8817706
>If a universe has certain fundamental properties, upon which everything else in that universe functions, then it is logical to ascribe those properties to an outside power, since, by definition, nothing inside that universe can influence those fundamental properties.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:17:31 2017 No.8817733 >>8817709 The answer is simple: I have applied my own rationality to what I believe, and I have found that it is not nonsense. I treat my religious beliefs as rigorously as I do my work as a scientist.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:22:05 2017 No.8817740

>>8817362

Yes, it is common knowledge that this is quite possible - though perhaps much less common nowadays, now that it is socially acceptable not to adhere to any particular religion, now that being irreligious is an option, which it really wasn't in centuries and even decades past.

One notably religious scientist that not everybody knows about was Charles H Townes, who does not seem to have been mentioned ITT thus far. Townes is credited as being (one of) the inventor(s) of (a particular version of) the laser. He died about two years ago, just shy of his 100th birthday.

t. fedora

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:22:33 2017 No.8817741

>>8817592
>your teacher tells you something is true
>>you believe it
You believe it or ask for the source of their information which should eventually end up with scientific research or reasoning.

>your god tells you something is true
>>you believe it
You mean your priest? Because there is no way to verify anything in religion, in fact you are not supposed to verify, just have faith.

Totally different. Science seeks to understand the world, religion seeks to convince you the world is already understood. One is a process, the other is not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:25:24 2017 No.8817749 >>8817647 The universe itself just is.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:33:23 2017 No.8817764

>>8817730
No, your presumption is that "fundamental properties" require a creator. After all, nothing within the bounds of our Universe necessitates an intelligent creator(besides man-made creations), so why should the Universe itself be different? That is why asked why it requires a creator. You logic is this: The Universe has verifiable properties--> these properties are fundamental to its existence--> this necessitates a creator--> a creator is proven by the Universe's properties--> repeat from start. Its a simple case of grossly circular reasoning.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:34:28 2017 No.8817767

>>8817653
>You're not making an argument, just belittling those different than you.
Actually he's just belittling those who have stupid beliefs. But so what?

>If you assume God isn't lying to you then if God tells you something, you have to accept that it's true. Do you have trust issues?
I don't think the average religious person thinks god talks to them. Maybe the average mental patient. This completely distorts the issue by pretending that religion = talking to god, when religion = believing someone who interprets someone from thousands of years ago who claimed to talk to god.

>Something is either true or it isn't true.
How exactly does that make someone else's dogma better?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:35:00 2017 No.8817770 >>8817733 >rationality >religion Pick-a one

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:37:41 2017 No.8817773 >>8817670 >How else can the fundamental properties of the building blocks of a universe be set but by an outside power? Why do you think fundamental properties were "set" at all? Why are religious people so susceptible to this circular reasoning?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:38:52 2017 No.8817776 >>8817690 The point flew way over your head buddy.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:42:45 2017 No.8817785
File: 21 KB, 364x344, I agree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8817741

>"There is no way to verify anything in religion, in fact you are not supposed to verify, just have faith.
Science seeks to understand the world, religion seeks to convince you the world is already understood. One is a process, the other is not."

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:43:01 2017 No.8817786 >>8817770 I chose both.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:44:47 2017 No.8817791 >>8817786 So, believing in something, based solely on faith,and zero evidence, is a rational thing to do?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:45:43 2017 No.8817794 >>8817786 Congrats, that's broken logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:46:53 2017 No.8817798 More importantly, is it possible to reconcile the moral value of religious texts with the patent falsehoods they are all so liberally riddled with?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:48:08 2017 No.8817801

>>8817764
>>8817773
>The Universe has verifiable properties--> these properties are fundamental to its existence--> this necessitates a creator--> a creator is proven by the Universe's properties--> repeat from start
>repeat from start
You just added that last part yourself.
>circular reasoning
What I'm saying isn't circular reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
>Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with
>Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
I started with the fact that there are certain things in this world that simply "are", and have properties independent of anything else. I then concluded that a creator must exist. This isn't circular reasoning.
>After all, nothing within the bounds of our Universe necessitates an intelligent creator
I'm arguing that those basic building blocks (which are obviously part of the universe) require a creator. Everything else we see in the universe is built upon these fundamental properties. Those building blocks couldn't have just popped into existence, how can you not see this?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:49:45 2017 No.8817808

>>8817362
I think people too often misrepresent Religion and Science as having some kind of polarity between them.
Spirituality is essentially a personal journey, Science is a humanitarian one at its core. No number of advancements in Science will suddenly uncover the 'meaning of life' or save us from our 'tragic mortality', Religion will always provide a comfort and reconciliation with that. They have completely different purposes so I don't understand why the question even needs to be asked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:53:43 2017 No.8817821 >>8817711 wow you're dumb, please stop spouting nonsense at me

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:55:59 2017 No.8817833

>>8817801
Aaand back to the presupposition. "I'm arguing that those basic building blocks (which are obviously part of the universe) require a creator." and "...building blocks couldn't have just popped into existence...". Both of these you assume to be correct, but they aren't at all.

A.Why do these supposed building blocks require a creator?

B. Why couldn't they have popped into existence? We do not yet know the previous history of the non-existence before our Universe, so why presume a creator at all?

Also, yes, you have committed circular reasoning. I'll use your definition given: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

"A creator exists because the Universe has fundamental properties, the Universe has fundamental properties because a creator exists."
or if you are going to split hairs, you began with this:
"The Universe has fundamental properties because the creator made it that way, the creator exists because the Universe has fundamental properties."

This is common circular reasoning.(Also, please define these building blocks?)

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 18:57:31 2017 No.8817841

>>8817362
>Is it possible to be a scientist and religious?
>This includes mathematicians, medical doctors, engineers, etc..

I used to wonder the same thing. Why are all my associates who are very intelligent still somewhat religious or continue to adhere to an unscientific view of the world.

Answer is simple. Intelligence is compartmentalized.

A smart intelligent doctor may be terrible at accounting. An engineer may have no idea how to cook. Most of these productive people are intelligent as well. They better manage their time and simply don't invest as much interest or energy in disseminating religious propaganda.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:02:10 2017 No.8817850

>>8817791

You are correct in your implication. Believing in something based solely on faith and zero evidence is not a rational thing to do.

I, however, do not simply believe solely on faith and zero evidence. I myself have been presented with enough personal evidence to have faith. This initial faith has since grown since I have sought and found even more evidence as I walk this path.

It's not unlike the manner in which I and my colleagues will have opinions as to various open problems and conjectures; nothing of value comes from idling because we don't know the answer. To blindly reject or accept without performing meaningful work is useless to science. In the same way, to blindly reject or accept the things of God without giving meaningful thought and seeking thorough validation is of little value to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:03:21 2017 No.8817856 >>8817794 My logic is not broken, but I don't fault you for your lack of understanding. I'm sure you have much to learn about many things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:04:27 2017 No.8817863 >>8817856 That's not a refutation. I thought you would give something a bit better than just quitting like a child.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:06:19 2017 No.8817873 >>8817863 You have claimed that I in some manner have broken logic without any further qualification. I have responded in kind. If you desire a more rigorous description, I encourage you to qualify what, precisely, you mean in your claim.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:07:05 2017 No.8817876 >>8817856 Different anon here >stops arguing with someone over the Internet >how childish

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:07:16 2017 No.8817877 >>8817362 >engineers, engineers literally just do cookie cutter copy+pasting from mathematicians and physicists as their career so you would certainly expect theyd be religious

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:08:16 2017 No.8817881

>>8817873
Actually, I deleted my comment because I though you were someone else in the thread. That response wasn't in the right vein, considering that our conversation wasn't as formal or serious, so I got rid of it. Basically, I was too aggressive and serious

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:09:42 2017 No.8817887 >>8817881 No worries. Aggression is common when discussing such topics; it's at least constructive in the sense that it shows engagement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:10:50 2017 No.8817892 >>8817887 Yeah, I should've checked which anon you were, sorry mang. Got frustrated over nothing

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:13:36 2017 No.8817900

>>8817555
Not knowing everything just means that you know that you can't confirm or deny that there is a god. If you really were smart, you would say something like science teaches us to question what we know, and to not accept that things just are. Whichever side you start on, you should question whether or not there is or is not a god, and eventually you should realize that there is no way of knowing with any certainty. The key is to pick a side if you want, god or no god, but also be self aware of the fact that both are possible.

Personally, with everything that we know so far, I don't believe that a god has a place in our understanding of the universe. But I also recognize that our understanding of the universe is far too incomplete to ever come near a conclusive answer to that question.

If asked a question that you do not know the answer to, would you simply guess based on the little that you know, and then recognize that your answer is likely incorrect? Or would you make a guess, and then claim that you are correct and everyone else is wrong and that the little bit of logic that brought you to that conclusion is anywhere near enough evidence to definitively support your answer? I find it frustrating when people don't address the extreme ambiguity surrounding the question and claim to be right.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:14:45 2017 No.8817903

>>8817367
>historically
I believe OP was wondering about the present day situation. Not to mention that the church power was strong enough in the past to stifle non-religous thought, scientific or otherwise, so a person would have to conform to their ideas/practices to gain access to their books/means.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:20:10 2017 No.8817923

>>8817801
>I started with the fact that there are certain things in this world that simply "are", and have properties independent of anything else.
If there are independent properties then they can't depend on a creator. You're contradicting yourself. If there are fundamental properties then there is no god, as properties are not an intelligent being. If they are not fundamental, then we must ask what they depend on. Perhaps a fundamental property, perhaps infinite regression, perhaps a causal loop, or something outside of our imaginative/perceptual abilities. But clearly this does not necessitate a fundamental intelligence. The universe would appear to operate in some fashion regardless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:21:29 2017 No.8817930 What's keeping you from turning to nihilism, /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:22:04 2017 No.8817931 >>8817808 >No number of advancements in Science will suddenly uncover the 'meaning of life' or save us from our 'tragic mortality' Neither will any religion or spirituality.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:23:51 2017 No.8817937

I'm an occultist and it doesn't affect my outlook on science or the integrity of my experimental method.

A good scientist will be able to separate their beliefs from their work. Maybe not perfectly, because I don't think it's possible to be completely unbiased in many cases, but very much so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:24:20 2017 No.8817940 >>8817930 The idea that because there is no meaning, its up[ to humanity to forge our own and impress it on the Universe

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:25:01 2017 No.8817943 >>8817930 What's the point?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:25:47 2017 No.8817948

Until humans find a way to prolong life indefinitely or finally solve that age old question "why", then yes, religion still has a place.

Life is far too short to play that game of "prove it". The chance we make any meaningful progress towards answering all the "why does this exist/happen" questions is low to none in the span of our life. Religion is there to fill that void; to help us deal with our unknowns: Death, Creation, etc.

Those who prefer to believe in facts of the scientific world are believing in their own form of religion. They have faith that an answer exists at the end; that we can answer why with certainty. Concepts like "it's a law of nature" are faith based. What is nature? Why does it exist the way it exists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:26:35 2017 No.8817954 >>8817940 What makes you think we're capable of that? If all of humanity vanished in this instant nothing in the universe would have changed. We are just optimized vessels that carry and propagate a repeating chemical, and nothing more.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:27:14 2017 No.8817960

>>8817592
When my teacher tells me something, I don't just believe it. Sometimes you might, but the majority of the time there is rationale behind everything you learn, and there is legitimate evidence for it.

When I learn stuff about science, it is all interconnected. Stemming from the most basic observations, like watching things fall, we eventually learn why they fall, and we are told how we learned this, and how to figure it out for ourselves independently.

If I'm told that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass, I don't have to just accept this. I can go outside and drop a football and a tennis ball and watch it for myself.

If I'm told that god created the earth, there is no observable evidence for this at all, besides the fact that a lot of people believe it.

I don't think you entirely understand what the scientific method is, and if throughout school you really did just believe everything your teachers said without question, then you're simply a sheep who never thinks independently or critically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:30:11 2017 No.8817970 >>8817954 Precisely. The reality of our existence as biological creatures defines our potential to become something more. I firmly believe that we will ascend to machinehood sooner rather than later, allowing us to make our own meaning, our own order.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:31:45 2017 No.8817974

>>8817948
>Those who prefer to believe in facts of the scientific world are believing in their own form of religion. They have faith that an answer exists at the end; that we can answer why with certainty. Concepts like "it's a law of nature" are faith based. What is nature? Why does it exist the way it exists?
You couldn't be more wrong. Rational people know that there is no answer to such questions. There is no reason why the universe is the way it is because the universe was not created by an intelligence. The universe created intelligence. You are projecting a human mode of thinking onto something which is not human. Making up an answer to a nonsensical question is clearly the inferior choice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:33:04 2017 No.8817978 >>8817362 Yes, it is possible to believe something correct while also believing something incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:36:28 2017 No.8817995 >>8817931 Religion is based on faith and emotion so it does provide us with 'answers'. Science is based on observation and rationality, so looking to Science to answer these questions is pointless.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:37:52 2017 No.8817998

>>8817362
There is no contradiction in being a scientist and religious. Here are a few notable contemporary examples.

>mathematicians

Laurent Lafforgue

>computer scientists

Donald Knuth

>medical doctors

Ben Carson

I'd say most scientists are non-religious, but it's certainly possible to be a scientist and religious. (1)

1)http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:39:01 2017 No.8818000 >>8817970 I believe that too, but wouldn't that just reaffirm the futility of humanity?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:39:15 2017 No.8818001

>>8817954
He isn't talking about literally forcing meaning onto the universe, he just means that within ourselves we will see a universe that has meaning, and therefore create it for ourselves. "Meaning" isn't a tangible thing that can be applied to the universe. It's something we create ourselves, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that we were the ones who created it. Wherever that train of thought goes idk

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:41:20 2017 No.8818010 >>8818001 Yeah, I guess I've been looking too much into the past and ignoring the future.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 19:42:35 2017 No.8818013

>>8818000
Not at all. If we become Machines, then humanity will become anything but futile. We wouldn't be weak and fleshy things anymore, but immortal and godlike Machines. With death eliminated and unbelievable power at our disposal, we could rewrite and reforge to Universe according to our whims. And if there are other superinelligences our there, then we will forge alongside them. We could MAKE truth.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:01:54 2017 No.8818070

>>8817995
Making up an answer doesn't mean you've correctly answered the question. And you don't need religion just to make up an answer. Looking to *anything* to answer those questions correctly is pointless, because the questions themselves don't make sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:03:18 2017 No.8818072 Yes , one girl I saw on OkCupid was in medical school and one of her criterion's for messaging her was "Jesus must be in your heart" . As a CS grad student I facepalmed and moved on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:06:51 2017 No.8818086 >>8817559 >>8817560 >>8817661 >>8817900 this is the point where the thread went downhill. Answer OP's question you fags, not whether there is a God or not.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:15:30 2017 No.8818119

>>8818013
>...but immortal and godlike Machines.
looks like someone has a God complex.
One cannot escape death, the great equalizer. One could extend their lifetime by telomere extension, but then they could die of natural causes of bodily harm. Try to upload your "consciousness" into a computer and there is a very likely chace you jsut killed yourself and replaced it with an automaton that looks and acts like you, but which is not you. Even if we assume that the automaton does have your consciousness then the body you inhabit may just belong to its manufacturer, thus forcing you to work for them forever, never resting, with the looming threat that at the press of a button they can turn you off.

Ultimately you will die as it is an inescapable fate. I understand the desire for it though, as nihilism is scary, even for its proponents. The supposed supporters of nihilism and atheism have a seeming desire to escape death, but death comes to all, as God gave life and has all right to take it away.

Even if you don't believe in a God, not understanding this simple concept or having the foresight to think about it shows how little you truly know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:23:03 2017 No.8818144 >>8817592 >your teacher tells you something is true >>you believe it >your god tells you something is true >>you believe it Are you really doing that comparison? If so, you are either really dumb or have no knowledge of the scientific method.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:24:26 2017 No.8818148

>>8818119
> God gave life

Gee, I wonder why you disagree with my assertion that becoming machines ourselves is a good thing. Also, you idea of mind uploading is primitive and limited. Also, I never said that I exclusively would benefit from ascension to machine status, but all of us.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:33:03 2017 No.8818166

>>8818013
Your post i found to be amusingly optimistic.

>If we become Machines, then humanity will become anything but futile.
so then we are futile untill we become machines, and when we become machines, we become futile (as you will see).

>unbelievable power at our disposal, we could rewrite and reforge to Universe according to our whims
foolhardy indeed. Men do not command the sea to bow before them, not does the sky change its course to match the whims of men. The sun does not shift and change by the order of a man, nor did the universe come to be by the conviction of a man. Fools think elsewise.

I have to ask why it is that atheists like yourself appear? You guys seem to become more like new-agers or satanists despite not beleiving in a God, holding hope to a utopian future that will surely let you down simply because you would rather hold hope the the material than to the eternal. I dont know why, but i know it is a sad fate.

> We could MAKE truth.
said every propagandist ever.
You do not make truth, truth IS, has bee, always will be. Water is wet, oil is slick, i have blue eyes. all of these are truths which cannot be changed. You cannot force there to bee 800 genders and expect it to become truth, nor can you move information and call yourself God.
>Again with the God complex.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:41:22 2017 No.8818184

>>8818148
>Gee, I wonder why you disagree with my assertion that becoming machines ourselves is a good thing.
that is beyond the point of the argument.

>Also, you idea of mind uploading is primitive and limited.
Nice dismissal of my claim. Sometimes the simple answer is right: 1 + 2 = 3 for example. But if you insist that my claim about mind-uploading is simple or wrong, then please explain why.
the problem with this argument is how similar it is to the hipter phrase: "you wouldn't understand", it dismisses opposing views as primitive or regressive and prevents discussion.

>Also, I never said that I exclusively would benefit from ascension to machine status, but all of us.
and i never claimed that. I spoke informally (using you as a reference to you and everyone else) as part of my point. Please read again and respond to my argument, instead of avoiding it.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:45:27 2017 No.8818195

>>8817362
It doesn't really matter but if you are any kind of stem person at some point do you have to ask yourself: can you find a logical flaw in modern religions?

If your answer is yes then of course it is fucking yes. The bible has more logical flaws (inconsistencies, scientific lies, etc) than pages. So, do you believe that there can be an imperfect god? If so then you are dumb but ok.

And if you can't find any then you have been succesfully indoctrinated so this is pointless debate.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:46:30 2017 No.8818199

>>8818166
Let me address your points:

A. I don't believe humanity is futile at all, because we are on the path to maximizing our potential, and that is the purpose of intelligence. Also, why the distinction between us and Machines? We are and will be one and the same being.

B. I used flowery language, but the truth remains to be this: the Universe is physical, and we will develop the technology to rewrite and reconstruct this physicality according to our own edicts. Humans do change the course of bodies of water(dams) and we carve and build entire formations of rock and stone. We defy time with telescopes and disease with medicine. Nothing is beyond the reach of our technological progress, that is true.

C. "...why it is that atheists like yourself appear?" Well, my belief in the goodness of machines and our progress is not contingent on atheism or theism. I could tell you why I feel the way I do, but that would be too long and tedious to set here. Also, why is it Utopian to believe in technological progress and the maximization of our intelligence, and not Utopian to believe in a perfect, all-loving god?

D. By making truth I mean creating worlds, entire universes, simulated and actual according to our own intelligence and whims. I don't believe in the leftist nonsense of a gorillion genders, so why do you assume that I do? I think that in the future we will have the technology to alter our bodies to our individual preferences, but not right now.

E. "Again with the God complex" Why is it that religious people call any desire to become better or to defy nature a "God complex"? Is it because it offends your deathist beliefs in martyrdom or self-flagellation?

F. What the hell do atheists have to do with satanists? Do you not know what either term means?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:47:11 2017 No.8818203 >>8818195 r/atheism

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:51:19 2017 No.8818211

>>8817367
This.
Even in the present day there are plenty of scientists/Mathematicians/engineers/etc that are religious.

I'm agnostic but I suppose for religious scientists if they stay out of certain fields or perhaps keep scientific knowledge separate from their beliefs, then it works out fine. I imagine many of them have "watered down" or skewed beliefs compared to their unscientific fellows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 20:54:25 2017 No.8818218 >>8818195 >The bible has more logical flaws (inconsistencies, scientific lies, etc) than pages So someone said that on reddit, it confirmed your biases, and now you're repeating it without question. Wow, you're so scientific and fact based.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:00:03 2017 No.8818230
File: 172 KB, 600x333, Bvuj5ZRIEAA-Qf8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8817362
Einstein said "The more I study science, the more I believe in God"

He said he believed in the pantheistic god of the Jewish philosopher Spinoza.

Michio Kaku (the great physicist) also believes in Spinoza's god.

Einstein did not believe that Jesus is a God, like Christians do.

Einstein believe in a God of Symmetry, who created Beautiful Physical Laws upon Mathematical Foundations, bringing Order to the Universe.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:00:34 2017 No.8818231

>>8818199
>Let me address your points:
ok
>A.
did you hear that from someone shilling the singularity to you?
There are differences and boundaries they never mention which cannot be overcome in the near future (next 50 years). 1. the human brain functions by electro-static fields and electro-chemical transmissions. Whereas computers function by DC and transistors (which are very linear). The human neuro has multiple contacts between multiple different neurons, and has fine control over which one to fire when and how. I hope you can see this distinct difference.

>B.
>the Universe is physical
yes
>we will develop the technology to rewrite and reconstruct this physicality according to our own edicts
:^)
Physical things can affect physical things but cannot change them. Alchemists had this same line of thinking and never got anywhere with that whole lead to gold get rich quick scheme. We cannot appleal to the future either, but we dont need to. We can predict the future based on what we know now (history). We know QFT states that the universe and all things in it consists of a set of fields osscilating, and that all matter and everything originates from the osscilation and interaction of there fields. However, we also know that we cannot change how these fields interact because we ourselves are limited to physicality and will not be able to ascend to anything above it or become seperate from material reality (at least in a materialistic worldview, which is required in a secular one). Knowing this, it will be impossible to change reality to our whims, and having that fantasy is exactly that: a fantasy. This is one, very lage and unrealistic, ambition which will never come ot fruition, based on what is known about physical reality.

>tbc-->

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:08:16 2017 No.8818241
File: 40 KB, 720x414, Michio Kaku Is God a Mathematician.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8818230

https://youtu.be/BQn8dtla8BI?t=2m25s

Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jremlZvNDuk

Michio Kaku on God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0

Michio Kaku - Can Science Deal With God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fniKbA2Ld88

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:16:00 2017 No.8818246

>>8818199
>C++
>Well, my belief in the goodness of machines and our progress is not contingent on atheism or theism.
fair enough. Though i doubt machines can be good on their own. Metal itself is not good, nor is a clock, so to think electronics can be good seems queer.

>why is it Utopian to believe in technological progress and the maximization of our intelligence, and not Utopian to believe in a perfect, all-loving god?
Utopia is a paradise built by men, like babbel, or bablylon. However, history shows the grim truth that any utopia to be produced requires a Dystopian truth be hidden under a facade of utopia. The concept of an all loving God is certainly nice, but not Utopian. Your concept of a Utopia based entirely on Sciene and rationalism, where technological progress is the pinnicle of humanity lacks to understand what means must be done to attain such a supposed Utopia. I suppose a better term would be optimistic, since you have the optomism to beleive that huamsn are completely sane and rational creatures. This is very far from the truth.

cont---->

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:25:45 2017 No.8818263

>>8817801
I think what you are getting at is Thomas Aquinas idea of the uncaused cause. If you trace every event back from one to another, you see that everything was caused by something else. This goes all the way back to even the fundamental building blocks of the universe. This cannot go back into the past infinitely, for then we would already have had the heat death of the universe and nothing would exist. Therefore you need to admit a primary cause for everything. An unxaused cause. This we understand to be God.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:27:19 2017 No.8818268

>>8818199
>D-
> By making truth I mean creating worlds, entire universes, simulated and actual according to our own intelligence and whims.
there is that "intelligence" circle jerk again. intelligence alone does not make a whole person anon.
go on second life and you will see why this is a hell. I discussed this before on /pol/, but a simulated reality is just and escape from reality, not the changing of reality.
> I don't believe in the leftist nonsense of a gorillion genders, so why do you assume that I do?
never did. i used it as an example to punctuate a point. Do you not understand literary genre or parable? I dont always speak 100% literal, sometimes there will be a symbol or a symbol to highlight a point.
> I think that in the future we will have the technology to alter our bodies to our individual preferences, but not right now
perhaps in a virtual simulation we can alter our bodies. but the restrictions of Biology (dna) and physics will never allow us to chage our bodies. Best we can do is change uborn fetuses to come out different, but then we have entered designer babies (which is a moral horror for another time).

>E.
>Why is it that religious people call any desire to become better or to defy nature a "God complex"? Is it because it offends your deathist beliefs in martyrdom or self-flagellation?
nope. I used the word god-complex because you seem to have this desire to be like God.
>deathist
lost. I don't have a martyr complex if that was the word you were looking for. I just don't think it is possible for anything to affect reality unless it existed before it and is outside of it looking in.

>F
"you guys" refered to a lot of r/atheitst i have met. I have noticed that many of the very hard-core atheists are becoming more and more absurd by the day. Some supposed atheists have begun to act more like satanists ("we will defeat ur gud") than like true atheists, and the arguments have been getting weaker too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:33:47 2017 No.8818281 Of course, Albert Einstein was a Scientist but also a believer of the Spinoza God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 21:42:42 2017 No.8818297 >>8817362 No.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:11:43 2017 No.8818355

>>8817362
Yes, but it also depends. I would say deistic and nominal religious scientists are more common than truly dedicated religious scientists, but both exist. Science allows us to adequately explain some things without having to rely on a metaphysical explanation, but the truth is there are some things which are unsolvable problems, thus allowing for many people to posit metaphysical explanations such as gods

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:19:50 2017 No.8818366

>>8818297

What is your response to the fact that there are published, successful individuals in science who are also religious? What about the ones with Nobel prizes, Fields medals, and Turing awards? Do you say that they're not true scientists?

And--and I'm shooting in the dark here--you believe that you are a true scientist? The nobody who jacks it on a Malaysian shelf construction website? Top kek.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:24:51 2017 No.8818377

>>8818366
I agree the top scientists like Einstein all had religious connections between God or gods. It makes sense to believe in a God. With all of our technology and with new discoveries everyday we are getting more aware of the existence of God. I mean come on if there's water and extra-terrestrials in space why isn't there a God? If the moral concept of the bing bang is a therorm why cant God be if it's believen to be true?

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:32:52 2017 No.8818386
File: 40 KB, 375x264, 374-pope-dawkins[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just because somebody is extremely knowledgeable and well educated in a specific subject or field does not mean that they are an authority on a different, unrelated field. Would you trust a master chef to do your brain surgery? Would you assume that every rocket scientist knows how to prepare a perfect Soufflé? Do you presume every medical doctor also is an expert on every aspect of the esoteric maths of string theory?

There's no relationship between STEM and religious knowledge. Even if somebody is the greatest scientist in history, their opinion on God is irrelevant because that is not their area of expertise. The only opinions that really matter are those of well educated theologians and academics who spend their entire career studying religion.

Pic related. Two people with more valid expertise on the subject of God than Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:42:47 2017 No.8818396

>>8818386
i was taking you seriously untill you mentioned dawkins.
Dawkins has shown an incompetence in the philosophy of religion, theology, or biblical scholarship. As has the pope. Neither of them know anything about the bible becasue they themselves are not scholars of the bible.
I'm a fucking undergraduate and i can bet you i know more than both of them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:44:22 2017 No.8818399 >>8818366 >Do you say that they're not true scientists? On the contrary, I say they arent true believers. They were just smart enough to not give the proles a reason to persecute them. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:49:27 2017 No.8818403 >>8817362 Yes. I personally believe science and religion can not only coexist but are interdependent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:54:11 2017 No.8818412 File: 665 KB, 940x691, WAKE♂ME♂UP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8818396 >the pope doesn't know anything about the bible

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 10 22:58:32 2017 No.8818424 >>8818412 perhaps i meme'd there in my rage. But i know what i meant.

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 23:03:01 2017 No.8818435

>>8818424
Even if you disagree with his results and methods, Dawkins has spent a lot of time and effort researching religious topics and exploring theological theories and both common and rare arguments for and against the existence of God. He is clearly more of an authority on the subject than other scientists that are clearly smarter and more successful.

Is Dawkins perfect? No. His his opinions on God more valid than some offhand remark of a skilled mathematician? Hell yes.

All I'm arguing about here is the use of appeals to authority which are only authorities on unrelated subjects, like the frequent quoting Einstein in threads like this

Anonymous Mon Apr 10 23:12:58 2017 No.8818451

>>8818435
>is his opinions on God more valid than some offhand remark of a skilled mathematician? Hell yes.
have to disagree with you there. When you wrote "the god delusion" he was promptly btfo by theologians unanimously.
Compared to a mathematician that knows nothing of religion, yes he would know more. compared to an actual theologian he knows jack shit.

>All I'm arguing about here is the use of appeals to authority which are only authorities on unrelated subjects, like the frequent quoting Einstein in threads like this
fair enough. from what i understand though, appealing to authority fallacy only works if you appeal to people who are not professionals on the topics at hand.

Actual professors on biblical studies of their specific religon, biblical scholars, and scholarly priests are the ones you should encounter when you want to seek authority on biblical matters, and for spiritual matters the priest especially.

Dawkins is no theologian, and only looks at books that support his biased idea about the bible, so that he can then espoute why it is wrong, but near everything he says about the christian faith is bullshit that one would find to be such if they actually took the time to research in depth.

I assume you are from r/atheism, and many good ideas i have gotten or good explanations to questions, have been from this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy

I dont agree with everything he says (such as the simulate universe idea he has) but he does his research and is for sure an authority over dawkins.

Christian Apologists hold authority on many issues of theology and faith. Paul of tarsus was the first, and IP is 1 of many in a line of theologians.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 09:08:23 2017 No.8819162 >>8818451 >When he wrote "the god delusion" he was promptly btfo by theologians unanimously. True. Dawkins is only relevant in fedora circles.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 09:09:11 2017 No.8819163 >>8817362 Well, yeah, why not? I know earth is flat, yet i believe in higher beings

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 13:54:19 2017 No.8819794

>>8817555
This begs the question why we even give a shit in the first place. Nothing about understanding or existence has any inherent meaning anyways, so any belief is just as valid as another. Of course, that would also undermine even thinking about this topic right now, which I am doing. Basically, nothing makes sense no matter how we approach it and there is no deeper meaning in anything.

It always cracks me up how athiests still find it important to "be a good person". To me, moral law is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for being a Christian, which I am. They also have the need to prove other religions wrong, but the only rational desire for this would be one's own pleasure. Ask an athiest why he feels the need to obey moral law, and he will struggle to find a reason, because deep down he knows God is real but is unwilling to admit it.

T. Christian engineering student

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 14:17:32 2017 No.8819840 >>8817362 Is it possible? Yes. Is it logical?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 14:22:37 2017 No.8819855 >>8817618 underrated

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 14:25:54 2017 No.8819864

>>8818263
>This cannot go back into the past infinitely, for then we would already have had the heat death of the universe and nothing would exist.
Utter nonsense. The heat death of the universe is a finite amount of time after the Big Bang, which was a finite amount of time in the past. We don't know what was before the Big Bang.

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 14:35:10 2017 No.8819882

>>8819794
I always find it funny how religious people claim that the only reason to follow moral law is because they think god told them to. So if god told them rape was OK they would suddenly start raping. Which means religious people are essentially psychopaths.

In reality, humans follow moral laws because it's human nature as social animals to do so.

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 15:02:41 2017 No.8819949

>>8819794
Code of morals is a social construct for the most part, built up over the course of our evolution as a social species. Of course, moral law exists because it is detrimental to the societies humanity relies on to commit heinous crimes like murder and rape. If you are raised in a society that compels you not to steal and murder then it will be inherently embedded into you as a person. If you were raised a savage on some island then it might not be the case (see: cannibalistic island communities). It really has nothing to do with the presence of a god.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 15:12:53 2017 No.8819964 >>8817362 Yes, is this even a question >b-but muh dark age People before that were scientists and heavily religious, it's only cool and hip now to think you're "enlightened" if you leave the path of God. But, no, it shouldn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 15:14:41 2017 No.8819968 No

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 15:19:06 2017 No.8819981

>>8819882
>>8819882
>Implying that, in the absence of God, being a psychopath is a bad thing
You're just doing the same thing athiests who can't face the truth always do: beginning with the presupposition of morality being important with no reason for doing so. If there is no God and the universe is deterministic, a psychopath is no different from any other chemical reaction called "life"
>Follow laws only because God told us to
False. Because we believe we were made in the image of God, there is validity and purpose behind the deep understanding of compassion and sense of right/wrong that all people have. I don't not kill people just because the Bible tells me not to, it's also because I can appreciate that God made me with an innate understanding of right and wrong.

>>8819949
Even a savage raised on an island would have an inner moral compass. ISIS, as twisted as they are, are still following what they believe to be right, and even though they kill people they use their religion to overcome their natural sense that murder is wrong.
>Evolution
Definitely considered this, but I think that this is one area where the theory of evolution just doesn't add up. Why would humans evolve to have such a deep understanding of moral law? I think it's an interesting and good argument but I disagree. For example, why don't we see this in other species? My dog understands when he has done something that I will be upset with him for, but he doesn't seem to have any sense of remorse beyond resentment for his punishment.
>Inb4 dogs aren't people
Yes, but most behaviors in people are reflected to some degree in animals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 17:50:10 2017 No.8820343 It has been demonstrated OVER and OVER again that people can be scientific and religious. What these new-age atheists argue is demonstrably false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 18:15:57 2017 No.8820398 >>8819794 >This begs the question why we even give a shit in the first place. Because there is no alternative.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 18:55:45 2017 No.8820459 >>8817362 >Is it possible to be a scientist and religious? Ask James Clerk Maxwell.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 11 20:44:29 2017 No.8820695 >>8819840 Is it logical? Yes. Is it bad?

Anonymous Tue Apr 11 21:00:24 2017 No.8820723

>>8819981
This is dumb. Most animals that gather in social groups have a lot of laws and customs that we would consider morality, like knowing with whom and when you can have sex, knowing about ownership of property, not murdering, caring for your children, risking their own lives to save kids, etc.

Meanwhile, every human on earth frequently does things that they know to be morally wrong. No man is flawless.

The only difference between the cooperation of pack animals and "morality" of humans is that animals are too stupid to think about concepts abstractly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 01:32:32 2017 No.8821180 I am a working physicist (not a good one, but still), and a practicing Hindu. I've never seen the issue.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 01:43:02 2017 No.8821195 >>8821180 POO

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 01:44:31 2017 No.8821198 File: 82 KB, 411x729, Natures_Eternal_Religion_Audiobook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8817362 Certainly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 02:37:35 2017 No.8821267 >>8821195 Got anything intelligent to say?

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 03:35:29 2017 No.8821346

>>8818086
Of course not.

It amazes me that sane, rational, educated people will rightly assert if questioned that the tooth fairy does.not.exist. But if they are asked the same question about something monumentally more improbable and ridiculous than the tooth fairy, eg the christian god, suddenly they lose confidence and become "agnostic" atheists.

The christian god is fiction. Every other god ever created is fiction. I say this with far, far more confidence than I say that the tooth fairy is fiction.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 03:44:10 2017 No.8821358
File: 61 KB, 750x600, 1282797390691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8821346
>But if they are asked the same question about something monumentally more improbable and ridiculous than the tooth fairy, eg the christian god

All you're doing here is naming calling, not arguing anything.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 03:47:36 2017 No.8821365

>>8821358
All you are doing is becoming offended in the face of reason, rather than debating the point.

The tooth fairy is said to trade teeth for cash. The unlikely bit is that he is a fairy.

The christian god, among other things, is said to have zapped up a *******universe******* with a magic wand.

Surely it is clear to you which of these two claims is vastly more absurd than the other.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 03:59:56 2017 No.8821381
File: 25 KB, 600x544, scientismidol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8817841
>continue to adhere to an unscientific view of the world

Pure unadulterated autism.

There is no "scientific view of the world". There is stuff that is "science" and stuff that is "not science" and they do not correlate with "good" and "bad" nor with "intelligent" and "stupid" nor "truth" and "fiction". Stop making science out to be this grand scared body full of truth and knowledge. All science ever does is model the world. That is it. It does not tell you everything because it is not the study of everything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 04:07:44 2017 No.8821392 >>8818144 >have no knowledge of the scientific method >scientific method How's high school?

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 04:18:32 2017 No.8821406

>>8817960
>If I'm told that god created the earth, there is no observable evidence for this at all, besides the fact that a lot of people believe it.

If I'm told that Washington is the first President of America, there is no observable evidence for this at all, besides the fact that a lot of people believe it.

>I don't think you entirely understand what the scientific method is, and if throughout school you really did just believe everything your teachers said without question, then you're simply a sheep who never thinks independently or critically.

When you get past high school, you'll stop having little toy labs that try to derive everything you learn in science class.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 04:30:35 2017 No.8821419 >>8820695 Define God.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 04:34:00 2017 No.8821424

>>8821365
>in the face of reason

What reasoning? All I ever see is internet atheists slapping the label of reason/rationality/science/intelligence onto their opinions and furiously circle-jerking their inferred superiority from it.

>The unlikely bit is that he is a fairy

What is unlikely about fairies? Besides being indoctrinated from childhood that they don't exist, that is.

> zapped up a *******universe******* with a magic wand

Funny, ctrl+f "magic wand" got zero results in all the major religious texts. It is as if you are making a straw man just so you can attack it.

>Surely it is clear to you which of these two claims is vastly more absurd than the other.

How is either claim absurd beyond the fact you personally don't like fairy and magic wands? After all, not liking something is not a sign of its truth value. Many scientists hated the idea of relativity in early 20th century, finding it outright absurd, only to be proven wrong later.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 04:46:20 2017 No.8821432

>>8818435
>Dawkins has spent a lot of time and effort researching religious topics and exploring theological theories

He hasn't done anything of the sort. Are you going to next assume NGT has spent "a lot of time and effort researching philosophy topics and exploring philosophical theories" just because he has written about how he finds philosophy stupid?

Here's a tweet from Dawkins asking what theology even is:
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/276090589991280641?lang=en
>Richard Dawkins Verified account
>What makes anyone think "theology" is a subject at all? Who will defend its presence in a university? What do "theologians" study?

He's literally one of the least authoritative sources you can find.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 05:49:53 2017 No.8821508

>>8821406
>If I'm told that Washington is the first President of America, there is no observable evidence for this at all, besides the fact that a lot of people believe it.

Original documents? A veritable treasure trove of such documents, from his friends, his enemies, and neutral observers. A truly staggering and overwhelming amount of such evidence.

For Jesus and the Christian god? Not so much.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 05:52:41 2017 No.8821513 >>8817362 >Is it possible to be a scientist and religious? Obviously yes, through compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. Is it possible to a scientist and a religious person /at the same time/? No.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 05:56:59 2017 No.8821516

>>8817580
>This strongly indicates that our world has a creator. The very fabric of an ordered universe screams this.

So what? That might be a deist god, or the god of the aliens of Rigel 7, who made the aliens of Rigel 7 in its image. This is a complete non-sequitir. It gets you absolutely no closer to any relevant claim whatsoever. It's one of the fatal flaws of Pascal's Wager.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:00:01 2017 No.8821518
File: 51 KB, 188x239, download-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8817362
A scientist will conclude it is not Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or something else. All those religions are a blasphemy towards nature.

All those who say they do believe one of the above either want to hold up a social accepted idea or only understand math. Math learn you nothing about nature including humanity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:06:37 2017 No.8821524 >>8821513 You...are aware the the majority of scientists throughout history have been religious right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:08:49 2017 No.8821525 >>8821508 god you're dumb.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:09:21 2017 No.8821527

>>8817733
1. Which religion are you?
2. How do you interpret contradictions in your texts/dogma?
3. How do you treat discrepancies between your religion and your observations?
And if you answered "I take things figuratively" for either 2 or 3 then
4. How do you justify not taking the "word of your god" completely literally?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:10:04 2017 No.8821529

>>8821524
Yes, and? We have information that they did not have. We know about inflationary big bang cosmology. We know about Newtonian mechanics and quantum field theory. We know about neo-Darwinian evolution. We are starting to know a lot about neurology and neuroscience. We know a lot more than they did.

>>8821525
Uhh, what? It's totally true. There's practically zero historical evidence for Jesus and Christianity in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:20:56 2017 No.8821540 >>8821513 >Is it possible to be a scientist and a holocaust supporter? Obviously yes, through compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:21:38 2017 No.8821542

>>8819981
> Almost 90% of genes shared with all other mammals, and gene records shown
> Human precursors homo-erects and other "missing links" found
> Studying human languages and fossil records can take us back to the evolutionary points, and propagation paths of humans
But
> HUMANS CAN THINKEY THINK UNLIKE DOGGY DOG ONLY SKY DADDY CAN DO THAT REEEEEEEEE

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:23:27 2017 No.8821544

>>8821424
>What is unlikely about fairies?
Everything considering the fact that there is no evidence of them, like god.

>Besides being indoctrinated from childhood that they don't exist, that is.
I don't see how being told the tooth fairy comes to take your teeth is an indoctrination that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

>Funny, ctrl+f "magic wand" got zero results in all the major religious texts. It is as if you are making a straw man just so you can attack it.
It's funny how hypocritical you nutjobs are. You'll accuse someone of streaming while in the same breath strawmanning them.

>How is either claim absurd beyond the fact you personally don't like fairy and magic wands?
How is unverifiable arbitrary magic not absurd? Do you believe literally anything anyone claims?

>After all, not liking something is not a sign of its truth value.
And another strawman. Dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:23:33 2017 No.8821545 >>8821529 >Yes, and? We have information that they did not have. Information that supports a creator. If anything modern science makes it more reasonable to believe in God since all the data points to there being one.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:24:46 2017 No.8821546 >>8821545 Such as? I don't see any. I see a cold, uncaring universe, with no evidence whatsoever for a purpose, designer, or creator.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:26:14 2017 No.8821547 >>8821546 That's because you're a brainlet who hasn't finished university yet.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:27:12 2017 No.8821549 >>8821547 So, name calling instead of reasons and honest discussion? K.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:27:17 2017 No.8821550

>>8821525
So you are now about to give me evidence so convincing that all the atheists in the world will now change their minds instantly?
No, you'd have done so already surely. Stick to ad-homs, they don't make you think at all.
>inb4
>Lots of religions from a similar area have similar myths so it must be true
>Ur Dumb dumb b/c my religion sed so
Please prove me wrong anon

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:28:56 2017 No.8821552

>>8821549
In my experience atheists are more interested in trying to rationalise the evidence that points to God instead of accepting it for what it is. I know how this dance goes. I provide evidence and you summarily dismiss it because it conflicts with your world view. Atheists don't make good scientists because of that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:30:51 2017 No.8821555 >>8821544 >How is unverifiable arbitrary magic not absurd How is it absurd? Programmers can fuck with the execution of code however they like; why can't God do the same with the universe.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:31:20 2017 No.8821556

>>8821552
Well, you're probably right that I'll find your evidence unconvincing. Of course, this is a rather convenient - and quite disingenuous - cop-out.

PS:
There's a strong negative correlation between education and religiosity. Especially science education. The most prominent and most accomplished scientists in the western world are far less likely to be religious than the general population. Therefore, what you wrote is simply false, and demonstrably so.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:32:22 2017 No.8821557

>>8821555
>How is it absurd? Programmers can fuck with the execution of code however they like; why can't God do the same with the universe.

The "possibly, therefore probably" fallacy. Simply demonstrating that some concept is logically consistent is not a demonstration that it's likely true, or even remotely likely or plausible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:33:40 2017 No.8821558 >>8821552 > sees name calling > responds with more name calling nice one

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:33:54 2017 No.8821559 >>8821556 Why should I trust someone who apparently cannot distinguish between quality and quantity?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:35:23 2017 No.8821561 >>8821559 I have nothing, but it is the BEST FUCKING NOTHING you either buy it or your stupid

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:35:41 2017 No.8821562

>>8821544
>Everything considering the fact that there is no evidence of them
>the fact
prove it if it's a "fact"

>there is no evidence
lack of knowledge of evidence =/= there is no evidence

Also, there is evidence that they exist otherwise people wouldn't have written about them. You can argue that it isn't good evidence but to say absolutely that "there is no evidence" is beyond retarded.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:36:11 2017 No.8821563

>>8821559
I have no idea what sort of accusation that you're making.

As for the question: You could just continue to wave your metaphorical penis around, proclaiming your superiority, without explaining yourself, but that is rather poor form.

Also, doesn't your holy book command you to give your reasons for your religious belief when asked? Yes, I'm assuming you're Christian.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:37:18 2017 No.8821564

>>8821557
>Simply demonstrating that some concept is logically consistent is not a demonstration that it's likely true, or even remotely likely or plausible.
Sounds like multiverse theory and that's been seriously discussed in physics and cosmology circles for decades.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:37:20 2017 No.8821565

>>8821555
>How is it absurd?
Unverifiable. Arbitrary. Magic. These amount to an absurdity.

You telepathically raped a 14 year old girl in Monaco. I demand you surrender to the police immediately and confess to them this crime.

Clearly it's possible you telepathically raped a 14 year old girl in Monaco so don't you dare call this accusation absurd!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:38:00 2017 No.8821566 >>8821557 >that it's likely true, or even remotely likely or plausible I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is calling it outright absurd is absurd.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:38:13 2017 No.8821567

>>8821562
>You can argue that it isn't good evidence but to say absolutely that "there is no evidence" is beyond retarded.

You are correct that it is evidence. However, people speak imprecisely all the time, and this is well within the normal imprecision common to everyday speech. I say that there's no evidence for telepathy or telekinesis either, with this same sort of general understanding that I'm being non-technical in my speech.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:40:34 2017 No.8821570

>>8821564
No, the inflationary model of big bang cosmology is based on a lot more than merely "logically consistent". It's based on math that is well supported by direct observation, evidence, and lots of it.

>>8821566
It's absurd for other reasons: practically no evidence for it, and it's extremely specific and detailed hypothesis in spite of this general lack of evidence, and also because of a quite large amount of evidence against. There are no dragons in my garage, and there are no gods.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:41:20 2017 No.8821571

>>8821567
The evidence for a creator is much stronger than the evidence for telepathy or telekinesis, to the point where explaining the universe without a creator is a huge conundrum. The best we have at the moment is "Well maybe it just happened that way" but given the insanely fine tuned constants we're finding everywhere the probability of it 'just happening that way' is essentially zero.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:43:08 2017 No.8821573

>>8821565
>Unverifiable. Arbitrary. Magic. These amount to an absurdity.

[citation needed]

>Clearly it's possible

Indeed.

>so don't you dare call this accusation absurd

I won't. I'd demand that you present evidence just like if you alleged someone drove to Monaco and raped a 14 year old girl otherwise the case must be thrown out.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:43:26 2017 No.8821574

>>8821571
>to the point where explaining the universe without a creator is a huge conundrum.

But the creator doesn't solve anything. Who created the creator?

Saying "but the creator exists outside of time" is a non-answer as well. There could be an impersonal thing outside of time that caused the universe just as easily.

Further, this doesn't get you anywhere useful. It's one of the fatal flaws of Pascal's wager. The best that it gets you to is "some god", which includes the do-nothing irrelevant deist god, and no one cares about that god. There's a trillion trillion stars in the sky, and there's a distinct god hypothesis for every one, and on this mere evidence alone, every one of those gods is equally likely, which means that you're absolutely no closer to showing that any human-relevant god exists, because 1 / trillion trillion is practically 0.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:44:10 2017 No.8821576

>>8821562
>prove the absence of evidence
That's not how logic works buddy. If evidence exists then present it. Otherwise the positive claim will be rejected.

>lack of knowledge of evidence =/= there is no evidence
Then enlighten me.

>Also, there is evidence that they exist otherwise people wouldn't have written about them.
Ahaha, are you serious? Are you literally incapable of rational thought?

There is evidence you telepathically raped a 14 year old girl in Monaco, otherwise I would not have written about it.

This is really easy. You just keep proving my point with every moronic post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:45:17 2017 No.8821578 >>8821570 >practically no evidence for it Doesn't make it absurd. >and also because of a quite large amount of evidence against [citation needed]

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:45:29 2017 No.8821579

>>8821570
>No, the inflationary model of big bang cosmology
Doesn't necessarily mean a multiverse exists, so I don't know why you're using it as a defense for multiverse theory. You might as well have used the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics and said that because we know QM works from empirical evidence it shows multiverses are real. Nope.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:47:37 2017 No.8821581

>>8821578
Against the Christian god hypothesis? Where to even start.

Against the general god hypothesis? I'd suggest the work of Baron d'Holbach, and also Sean Carroll. As an example:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

>>8821579
Everything in science is tentative. The available evidence supports a mathematical model, which weakly suggests an inflationary multiverse.

IMHO, Everett Manyworlds is different. We can discuss that if you like.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:48:37 2017 No.8821584

>>8821574
>But the creator doesn't solve anything. Who created the creator?
Non-sequitur, and an atheist favorite. Who ever said the creator needed a creator himself?

>The best that it gets you to is "some god", which includes the do-nothing irrelevant deist god
It's enough to prove atheists wrong and that's all the discussion is about. Moving the goalposts so I have to prove a specific God is yet another atheist favorite once they realize they're in over their heads.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:49:03 2017 No.8821586

>>8821571
>The evidence for a creator is much stronger than the evidence for telepathy or telekinesis, to the point where explaining the universe without a creator is a huge conundrum.
No, there are people who actually practise telepathy right in front of your eyes. What evidence is there specifically of god? How do you know parameters of the universe were chosen at all?

And you're avoiding the point. Is my accusation absurd? Why or why not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:50:56 2017 No.8821587 >>8821573 Ok so pesticide evidence of god or god must be thrown out. Also I'm glad you admit that being accused of telepathically raping 14 year old girl in Monaco is not absurd. Really reflects highly on your judgement of what is and isn't absurd.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:51:10 2017 No.8821588

>>8821584
>Non-sequitur, and an atheist favorite. Who ever said the creator needed a creator himself?

Your argument goes something like:
> It's absurd for the universe to have a beginning without a creator
> Therefore there is a creator.

The counter is simple: Why does a universe creator a cause but the existence of a creator does not require a cause? Your logic is eminently faulty.

>>8821584
>It's enough to prove atheists wrong and that's all the discussion is about. Moving the goalposts so I have to prove a specific God is yet another atheist favorite once they realize they're in over their heads.

Not really, no. Are you a Christian? I believe this is dishonest tactics. No one is going to live their life differently if some clockmaker deist god exists. That god is entirely irrelevant in every way. In every practical way, the atheist will still be right, and the Christian will still be wrong. That is the discussion that matters - atheism vs Christianity. You should be defending your actual beliefs, like a proper honest person.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:52:03 2017 No.8821589

>>8821571
Fine tuned?

I like the story about the watch. You people say a watch must have a designer, while it was time and evolution that created the watch. The gadget you know as watch took aeons to take the shape, efficiency and strength it has now.

Using it as an argument god exist (and why should it be the Christian god and why should that God be still alive? ) only shows how low the intellect is of the one who does think this proves muh Adam, muh Noach and muh anti Christ.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:52:22 2017 No.8821590

>>8821576
>That's not how logic works buddy

It is. No proof is not a proof of the inverse.

>Then enlighten me.

I'm not arguing pro-religion. I'm arguing that your form of internet atheism is retarded.

>There is evidence

Indeed and it's not very good on its own and will never hold up in court. This is not the same as saying "there is no evidence" as the internet atheists' mantra goes.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:54:02 2017 No.8821592

>>8821588
>Are you a Christian? I believe this is dishonest tactics
I think assuming I'm Christian and projecting on me so you can use your precanned anti-Christian arguments is dishonest tactics but hey. I'm not Christian for the record, I just enjoy seeing smug atheists squirm when they realize how tenuous their position really is.

>No one is going to live their life differently if some clockmaker deist god exists
Maybe, but it does mean atheists are wrong, and there is evidence enough to support the idea of a creator so asserting all religion is necessarily wrong is not a tenable position at all.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:54:35 2017 No.8821593

>>8821571
>but given the insanely fine tuned constants we're finding everywhere the probability of it 'just happening that way' is essentially zero.

Do a thought experiment with me: Go to Vegas, and play 5 card poker for 8 hours a day, for a week. I want you to record every hand that you are dealt, in the order that you were dealt. Then, I want you to naively calculate the odds that it happened. It's going to be impressively low, even lower than the often cited odds of fine tuning. Is that evidence that you were not dealt those hands in that particular order? No! This is simply an inappropriate use of statistics.

Further, you're also assuming that this particular form of conscious life is the only kind of conscious life that could exist, and other numbers for the constants could not be produce life. In large part, that is unsupported claims.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:56:21 2017 No.8821594

>>8821592
>Maybe, but it does mean atheists are wrong, and there is evidence enough to support the idea of a creator so asserting all religion is necessarily wrong is not a tenable position at all.

Religion is more than just the belief that there is a creator. For practically all religious people, it comes with a whole host of other beliefs that are outright verified nonsense.

So, we have the "first cause" argument, and the "fine tuning" argument. Ever met a pure logic argument that you didn't like? What's next, the "greatest thing must exist" argument?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 06:58:21 2017 No.8821595

>>8821592
Also, you should read the relativity of wrong essay. In short, paraphrase:

Humanity used to believe that the Earth was flat. They were wrong. Humanity also used to believe that the Earth is very close to a perfect sphere. They were also wrong (it's quite smushed, an oblate spheroid, because of the spin). However, if you think that both are equally wrong, then you're more-wrong than both of them put together!

Even if there is a deist clockmaker creator god, strong atheists like myself are objectively closer to the truth than the typical religious person.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:58:33 2017 No.8821597

>>8821590
>It is. No proof is not a proof of the inverse.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Nice attempt to mislead by switching evidence for "proof". Rational individuals don't need to lie to argue their point.

>I'm not arguing pro-religion. I'm arguing that your form of internet atheism is retarded.
Demanding that I prove a negative is retarded.

>Indeed and it's not very good on its own and will never hold up in court. This is not the same as saying "there is no evidence" as the internet atheists' mantra goes.
What exactly is the evidence you telepathically raped someone? Enlighten me.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 06:58:53 2017 No.8821598

>>8821593
Imagine you got a royal flush every hand you played that week. Would the smart thing to do be to shrug and say it has a non-zero probability so it could've just happened naturally or to say you were cheating? If you pick the former I want to play poker with you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:02:10 2017 No.8821600

Science and religion should just be kept in seperate spheres. Of fucking course its possible to be a scientist and religious, only a moron would say otherwise because there are a huge number of scientists who are anywhere from mildly religious to very religious. The real answer is that religion and science should just not interact with each other, not in the same conversation, not using one against the other, because every arguement that emerges is extremely shitty and a waste of fucking time.

Science v. Religion is quite possibly the most idiotic arguement of all time

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:04:19 2017 No.8821601 File: 296 KB, 500x327, Faces of Atheism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8821600 >tfw the fedora tippers in here give you a bad name Majority of scientists don't give a fuck. Belief is a personal matter and should be respected.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:04:37 2017 No.8821602

>>8821598
I know the mechanism behind drawing of poker hands. From that, I can calculate expected probabilities. I've never seen a universe creation except this one. I don't know how to calculate probabilities. I don't know how to determine if this one is "typical" or not.

As an another example: Imagine that you measure your position relative to center of mass of the Eiffel Tower, accurate to the nanometer. What's the odds that it's that exact number? Staggeringly low. However, is that evidence against the accuracy of that number? No. Specificity is not an argument against typicality, which is what you really need. Without knowing more about universe creation, we don't know if our particular universe is typical, e.g. expected.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:06:34 2017 No.8821604

>>8821602
To be clear: Your exact distance is going to be some number, some very precise number. However, the mere existence of this very precise number is not evidence that this number was "designed". You need a different kind of argument and evidence in order to reach the conclusion that some thing placed you at that particular distance with intent.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:06:45 2017 No.8821605
File: 22 KB, 269x302, Seanmcarroll2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8821581
>Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Metaphysics is not physics.

If you run a simulation with AIs and offload the state of an AI to a binary file before deleting it from the simulation, then the AIs is gone without a trace from the simulation but persist indefinitely outside of the simulation. Expecting the rules of simulation still apply to the binary file it can't access is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:07:51 2017 No.8821606 >>8821601 Why should beliefs be respected?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:08:46 2017 No.8821607 >>8821587 Approaching things with an open mind is important.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:09:02 2017 No.8821608

>>8821605
Occam's razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

QFT appears to be a complete description of the world, well complete enough for our purposes here.

To escape these obvious conclusions, you have to posit a massive amount of stuff that we've never seen before, that has been carefully constructed to be perfectly invisible, except to do this one thing X. It completely fails the standard epistemological checks of parsimony and Occam's razor.

When someone says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", this is one of those times.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:09:43 2017 No.8821610 >>8821604 If your existence hinged on the fact I was that distance away from the Eiffel Tower to the nanometer I think you'd have the right to be amazed that you exist in the first place.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:10:02 2017 No.8821611
File: 1.41 MB, 300x157, misfits.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

One of the most convincing things there is no God to me is the stupidity of those who try to show or reason that God does exist.

>muh muh all wisdom comes from God
>muh muh God loves me and helps me
>muh muh God knows all and can do everything
>muh muh God talks to me # but never helped me to give a answer that did me not make me look like a moron

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:10:46 2017 No.8821612 >>8821605 >metaphysics, aka magical thinking

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:11:14 2017 No.8821613

>>8821610
I can make this argument concerning how your parents met, and how their parents met, and so forth. The odds that you exist right now by that reasoning is similarly small. You're just doing statistics wrong.

Further, again, you're assuming that life cannot exist with other radically different values. For the most part, that has not been demonstrated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:12:37 2017 No.8821615 >>8821607 I have an open mind in that I consider everything to be possible. But if you don't pesticide me with evidence then there is literally no reason to accept a claim beyond mere possibility. Keep your mind open does not mean accepting anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:12:54 2017 No.8821616 >>8821613 Feel free to explain how life could exist if there were no atoms, or if the universe collapsed back in on itself seconds after the Big Bang which are two outcomes of having slightly different values for constants

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:14:02 2017 No.8821617 >>8821597 >Absence of evidence is evidence of absence No it is not. >Absence of evidence "I have no idea what's in that closed garage." >evidence of absence "Here's a video of that empty garage."

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:15:55 2017 No.8821620 >>8821612 >everything I don't like is a funny name

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:16:13 2017 No.8821621

>>8821610
Also, imagine it like this: 10 thousand years ago, if I were to imagine how the world could be if there was no gods, no creator, etc., I would describe exactly the sort of world that I see now. The evidence that we have is completely consistent with all of the possible predictions that one could make from the scientific hypothesis that there is no god, no creator, no purpose.

Your statistics arguments are bullshit, because they're unfalsifiable. In order to be able to claim something as evidence in favor of a proposition, it must be conceivable that the evidence could have been otherwise /and/ that evidence was at least consistent with some alternative hypothesis.

In particular, in order for fine tuning to count as evidence in favor of a creator, it must be conceivable that the evidence could have been otherwise, otherwise such that it was at least consistent with an undesigned universe hypothesis.

Your standards are so ridiculous that one cannot even imagine other ways that the world might have been so that you would think it's consistent with the "no god" hypothesis.

That is why your epistemological statistical reasoning is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:16:42 2017 No.8821622 >>8817362 No.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:20:00 2017 No.8821623

>>8821621
>Your standards are so ridiculous that one cannot even imagine other ways that the world might have been
We know how the world would've been. Non-existent. You seem to think some of these incredibly finely tuned constants being different would mean a slightly different universe. No, we're talking about galaxies not forming, or atoms not forming, or the universe destroying itself. There are no scenarios for life to be created in those circumstances.

So don't worry your head about alternative Earths with different life. They couldn't have existed.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:22:28 2017 No.8821625

>>8821623
And this is why you're the unreasonable person: You just admitted that you believe that the universe with humans with no god" hypothesis is simply logically inconsistent, which rules you out as a reasonable participant in the conversation.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:25:29 2017 No.8821626

>>8821608
>Occam's razor.

Irrelevant in the discussion of whether it's ~possible~ which Carroll was arguing against.

>QFT appears to be a complete description of the world
>description

No, it's a model. If a model doesn't take things into consideration then it will not show their influences. Physics is not precognition and won't describe what will happen.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:25:54 2017 No.8821627

>>8821617
Let A = absence
Let B = absence of evidence

P(A|B) = P(A) P(B|A) / P(B) = P(A) / P(B)

P(A) / P(B) > P(A) when P(B) < 1

Therefore absence of evidence is always evidence of absence as long as evidence is possible.

So are you saying that evidence of god is impossible?

>Absence of evidence
>"I have no idea what's in that closed garage."
>evidence of absence
>"Here's a video of that empty garage."
This is like arguing that cows are not mammals because they are not aquatic and some mammals are aquatic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:26:07 2017 No.8821628 >>8821625 If God is real then he should be able to make us immortal now right? We have been good. So why are we always dying?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:26:59 2017 No.8821630 >>8821623 It is not fine tuned. Life found a way to survive these conditions. If it was fine tuned mothers would not die giving birth or none would stay alive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:27:01 2017 No.8821631 >>8821620 Another idiotic strawman.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:28:44 2017 No.8821632

>>8821623
One last rebuttal while I'm here. It could be an impersonal object instead of a personal creator god, that fine tuned the constants.

Let me channel Dennett: Everything we know about human consciousness is that human consciousness is nothing more than modern physics, quantum field theory, playing out. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that there are two kinds of causes: personal and impersonal. People like Dennett have shown that this is mistaken: Personal causes are reducible to impersonal causes. If there is a reason for the fine tuning of the universe, I don't see a reason to assume that it's a personal cause, as opposed to an impersonal cause, and an impersonal cause is not a god.

>>8821626
Again, no one cares about mere logical possibility. We care about what's true. That's the sort of argument that conclusively shows that there is no life after death, no soul, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:29:56 2017 No.8821633 >>8821631 Strawman where? Metaphysics is a legitimate field of philosophy. You're the one engaging in ad hominem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:30:47 2017 No.8821634 File: 169 KB, 500x300, Loki really.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8821628 Atheïst here, but that is a stupid argument. And one that any Christian can respond to with an big smile (and of course that devilish twinkle in the eye)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:30:48 2017 No.8821635 >>8821617 You seen v to be avoiding the question: What exactly is the evidence you telepathically raped someone?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:31:14 2017 No.8821636 >>8821632 >That's the sort of argument that conclusively shows that there is no life after death, no soul It does not in the slightest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:32:16 2017 No.8821637 >>8821635 The allegation. Evidence need not be good.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:33:08 2017 No.8821639

>>8821623
So, in summary:

- If the universe is finely tuned, then any creator must be even more finely tuned, and that demands an explanation too, which you do not have, and therefore your argument is self defeating.

- Your reasoning is unfair because there is no conceivable evidence that would have convinced you that you're wrong. You're not engaging in proper scientific skeptical thinking. Your standards are so that there's only one logical conclusion, which means it's vacuous, empty, tautological, and irrelevant. It's non-science.

- The cause of fine tuning might be impersonal. Impersonal causes are not gods, by definition of the word "god". I see no reason to assume that the cause of the fine tuning is a god as opposed to some impersonal, non-god, cause.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:33:24 2017 No.8821641 >>8821633 First of all, you implied that I am insulting metaphysics because I don't like it, not because it's magical thinking. And no, magical thinking is not an ad hominem, you blithering moron. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 12 07:34:22 2017 No.8821643

>>8821636
Yes, it does. It shows that life after death is inconsistent with known physics, and there's good reason to believe that known physics is correct, and it's a huge contradiction of parsimony and Occam's razor to posit a bunch of extra stuff just to save your falsified hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:34:26 2017 No.8821644 >>8821637 How is an allegation evidence?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:35:54 2017 No.8821647 >>8821635 When you think about it, according to the bible, you already did it. Read the fuckino book! That is why jesusists are not suppose to hang out with none jesusists unless they have really strong faith. Again, read your own stupid book!

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:38:58 2017 No.8821650

>>8821641
>.m.

Mobile posters really are cancer.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
>ctrl+f "magical thinking"
>0 results

>Magical thinking is a term used in anthropology and psychology, denoting the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events, with subtle differences in meaning between the two fields. In anthropology, it denotes the attribution of causality between entities grouped with one another (coincidence) or similar to one another. In psychology, the entities between which a causal relation has to be posited are more strictly delineated; here it denotes the belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.

>Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.

Magical thinking has nothing to do with metaphysics and you calling it magical thinking is clearly meant as an insult.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:39:07 2017 No.8821651 >>8821647 What?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:40:00 2017 No.8821652 >>8821644 >How is testimony evidence? Are you dense?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:45:05 2017 No.8821657 >>8821650 The application of metaphysics is magical thinking you utter moron. Specifically claiming that whatever pops up in your imagination is reality with no proof.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:46:57 2017 No.8821661 >>8821652 Testimony without factual basis is not evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 07:50:10 2017 No.8821664 File: 41 KB, 500x281, 1afnwj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8821652 Testimony is the bait of religion. Some goy told Luke that he did not see Jesucs in his grave. So because it is in the bible it must be true, right...

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:17:50 2017 No.8822323

>>8821639
>If the universe is finely tuned, then any creator must be even more finely tuned, and that demands an explanation too
Not really. We can only discuss things within our own universe. We see precision in our world, order. We've discussed why this must mean that a watchmaker exists, personal or impersonal. What the nature and origin of that watchmaker is, is outside our scope. We can make no statements about him. Therefore your argument fails.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:20:09 2017 No.8822327 >>8821652 testimony isn't evidence brainlet faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:22:02 2017 No.8822334 >>8822323 >god exists because I say so and rules don't apply to him so you can't use my arguments against me hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:24:45 2017 No.8822341 >>8822334 Most atheists are devoid of basic logic.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:26:00 2017 No.8822348

>>8822323
If we can only discuss things in our universe, then god cannot be claimed to exist. Your argument is self defeating. And you didn't respond to the point that an impersonal cause is not god. Anything you argue about god is extraneous since it can be applied to the universe itself. All of your arguments are based on the unnecessary axiom that god exists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:27:53 2017 No.8822355 >>8822341 You are an expert on lacking logic.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:28:36 2017 No.8822360

>>8822341
regardless of what you believe, if you think you can argue in favor of your position and even more ridiculously, prove anything related to the existence or non existence of god, then you're a retarded fuck and probably a 15 year old edgelord

stop littering the board

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:33:03 2017 No.8822374

>>8822348
>If we can only discuss things in our universe,
Yes, and we see that the universe requires a creator. Full stop. The probable fact that a god exists is based on our direct observations.
>And you didn't respond to the point that an impersonal cause is not god.
I'm not this person. >>8821623
An impersonal being capable of creating a universe would probably be intelligent would it not? To create something out of nothing?
>Anything you argue about god is extraneous since it can be applied to the universe itself.
Blatantly false.
>All of your arguments are based on the unnecessary axiom that god exists.
Read the thread, most arguments proposed here do not start with "god exists".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:38:19 2017 No.8822383 >>8822374 >we see that the universe requires a creator this is the laziest, most idiotic way of justifying why you're so dead set on your particular religion kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:41:21 2017 No.8822393 >>8822383 >this is the laziest, most idiotic way of justifying why you're so dead set on your particular religion Jesus Christ moron, I'm not just stating this. Read the fucking thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:43:50 2017 No.8822397 >>8822393 >I-I know I'm being retarded, p-please read my other posts and be convinced! all of them are equally shit, you're shit at arguing, probably shit at whatever shit major you study too, if you're even out of highschool you brainlet edgelord

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 14:47:57 2017 No.8822410 >>8822397 Arguing with atheists is like arguing with flat earthers. They'll find some bullshit fault with every logical statement you provide. I hope heaven and hell really exists, I'll enjoy watching you fuckers burn.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:14:51 2017 No.8822469

>>8822374
>Yes, and we see that the universe requires a creator. Full stop. The probable fact that a god exists is based on our direct observations.
How does it require a creator? You just said you can't discuss things outside the universe.

>An impersonal being capable of creating a universe would probably be intelligent would it not?
I don't think you understand what impersonal means. A being can't be impersonal. An intelligence cannot be impersonal.

>To create something out of nothing?
When exactly was there nothing? And why would this require intelligence? It's clear you are simply projecting the human mindset onto a universe which existed before the human mindset.

>Blatantly false.
I have yet to see a valid argument that applies only to an intelligent god and not the universe itself. Present me with one.

>Read the thread, most arguments proposed here do not start with "god exists".
You're not very smart. I'm saying this is a hidden assumption since none distinguish between an impersonal first cause and god.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:16:30 2017 No.8822472 >>8822410 >ugh stop finding faults in my logicavid just acceptthat I'm right! Are you twelve?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:17:33 2017 No.8822476 >>8822410 maybe everything you say it bullshit and at fault you jackass. im not even an atheist. if heaven exists you'll burn in hell anyway for being such an insufferable imbecile

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:20:51 2017 No.8822482
File: 220 KB, 1024x768, happy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When people argue about who’s a better rock band, or what route to take during a trip, they debate and still remain calm for the most part. When people argue over religion, all types of extreme emotions begin to develop, causing rage. Why is that? Why can’t people argue about religion in a normal way, the way you’d argue with a friend over what yogurt flavor tastes better? Why is the topic of religion considered sacred and personal? If religious people feel so sure about the supernatural, then there should be no need to rage. If non-religious people feel so sure about the supernatural not existing, then there should be no need to rage.

Ok, now, can this thread please go back to the original topic? If you want to make a separate thread about whether or not you believe God exists, then go ahead. But don’t do it here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:20:55 2017 No.8822483 >>8821657 Looks who's strawman'ing now

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:29:32 2017 No.8822502

>>8817362
It is impossible to be a scientist and LITERALLY take what is written in religious books to be true (without stepping back and making your slightly personal interpretation of them), the way radicals do, but there is nothing wrong with being a scientist and believing in your own conception (that, of course, you based off things you've read) of things like a supreme being, or a metaphysical aspect to the world, so long as you do not let these things impede on your research/work, and be ready to question your beliefs or the way you conceive them. Famous examples of Religious scientists are the guy who discovered the big bang, who in fact said it is god's only ever action, or Louis pasteur to whom we owe the famous quote: "I leave my beliefs in the locker room".

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:34:12 2017 No.8822511

>>8822482
>When people argue about who’s a better rock band, or what route to take during a trip, they debate and still remain calm for the most part. When people argue over religion, all types of extreme emotions begin to develop, causing rage. Why is that?

Because those answer a to trivial questions don't have many real world consequences. If you don't like a rock band, you can avoid listening to them.

The answered we have to religious questions have far reaching impacts. Who is allowed to own property, get an abortion, get married. These have a huge impact on peoples lives, and they get understandably angry when things are different than they believe they should be.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:36:53 2017 No.8822514

>>8821661
>without factual basis

You're presuming the result aka begging the question.

>>8822327
>testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

>testimony
>[tes-tuh-moh-nee, or, esp. British, -muh-nee]
>noun, plural testimonies.
>1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
>2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/testimony

>>8821664
>it must be true, right

"Evidence" is not the same as "definitive proof". There usually is evidence on both sides of an issue in every matter and argument. Saying "there is no evidence" is an oxymoron and a disturbing sign that you are disregarding everything that doesn't confirm your biases.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:40:10 2017 No.8822524 >>8822483 You literally invoked "metaphysics" as the reason why your arguments don't have to abide by the laws of physics. This is the definition of magical thinking.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:47:04 2017 No.8822537

>>8822514
>You're presuming the result aka begging the question.
Incorrect. You argued testimony is equivalent to evidence. This is clearly false when the testimony is bare of factual basis. For example, if an expert testifies that a man was poisoned, this can be dismissed in court as net opinion if the expert does not provide the court with verifiable facts or data to support the claim. Testimony is supported by evidence, it is not evidence itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:52:31 2017 No.8822552 >>8822502 You do realize that if multiverse is real then and can be accessed then God is real right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:53:55 2017 No.8822558 >>8822552 Sorry let me rephrase... If multiverse is real then ALL the bullshit in someplaces of the multiverse is 100 percent factual.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:54:35 2017 No.8822560 File: 773 KB, 400x218, VFqflUk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Did Randy wrote the bible and did nobody got the joke? At all? Jeez

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:56:06 2017 No.8822567 >>8822537 >You argued testimony is equivalent to evidence It literally is. >This is clearly false when the testimony is bare of factual basis. How do you know that it is "bare of factual basis".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:58:28 2017 No.8822574 >>8819864 But this still implies something caused the big bang. It's not turtles all the way down.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 15:59:01 2017 No.8822577 >>8822567 >It literally is. because if you swear with you hand on the holy bible, you for sure not lie...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:00:49 2017 No.8822578 >>8822567 When it's not empirically verifiable. Also, when it is advantageous or probable for a person to lie about a claim, testimony cannot be considered evidence.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:03:42 2017 No.8822591

>>8822574
Either we have infinite regression, a causal loop, a first cause, it something entirely outside our ability of comprehension. None of these necessitate an intelligent personal being. It's clear that this is simply humans projecting their mindset onto a universe which does not have one.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:05:35 2017 No.8822594

>>8817903
I think you're overestimating the power of church.
Atheism has been mainstream since... at least early 19th century? I'd say even earlier, since, say Descartes's views weren't exactly Christian, and Spinoza's wasn't that great with Judaism either.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:07:27 2017 No.8822596

>>8822514
Let A = the claim is true
Let B = testimony of the claim

P(A|B) = P(A) P(B|A) / P(B)

P(A) P(B|A) / P(B) > P(A) when
P(B|A) > P(B)
P(B|A) > P(B|A) P(A) + P(B|~A) P(~A)
P(B|A) P(~A) > P(B|~A) P(~A)
P(B|A) > P(B|~A)

In other words, testimony can only be considered evidence when it is more likely to be true than false. How do w determine this? Through empirical verification.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:07:35 2017 No.8822598 >>8822591 First cause though needs a God. God in this scenario being defined as an instigator force. For all we know...God could be a guy that just squeezed his spray bottle and we are the little bits of water and microbes in the air around it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:08:15 2017 No.8822602

>>8822524
>This is the definition of magical thinking

No, the definition is right here >>8821650
>denoting the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events

"Actions and events" taking place inside the world.

>as the reason why your arguments don't have to abide by the laws of physics

Because it's outside the physical universe. It's a common speculation on the subject of a multiverse of whether different universes have different physical laws. There's nothing "magical" in considering the possibility. Many atheists cling to it as an explanation of creation.

>>8822537

Just because there is evidence, does not immediately prove your point. And just because evidence does not conclusively prove your point, does not dismiss it from being evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:09:16 2017 No.8822603 >>8822578 >there is no history because it aint empirical

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:09:42 2017 No.8822604 >>8822598 >God in this scenario being defined as an instigator force. The universe itself could be the first cause. Why is an intelligent personal first cause necessary?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:10:01 2017 No.8822605 >>8822594 Atheism became a thing when religious people made sure the word God got associated with Moronism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:12:24 2017 No.8822608

Of course. Religion has traditionally played a role in filling the void where our own concrete understanding can't suffice or comes up short. There is still so much we don't really understand about existence.

You have to actually treat it for what it is: spirituality, and not a big fan club of your pet dogma.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:12:47 2017 No.8822609 >>8822603 Plenty of history is empirically justifiable. Historians don't automatics accept testimony as evidence. They reject suspect or unverifiable testimony. Which is why Jesus rising from the grave is not history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:14:42 2017 No.8822611 >>8822609 >They reject suspect or unverifiable testimony No, they reject the conclusion. Evidence is still evidence.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:21:11 2017 No.8822623

>>8822602
>"Actions and events" taking place inside the world.
Your imagination and reality are inside the world. I can imagine unicorns, that doesn't mean unicorns exist, outside or inside. To claim otherwise is magical thinking, which you still don't seem to understand.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:24:21 2017 No.8822627

>>8822602
>Just because there is evidence, does not immediately prove your point. And just because evidence does not conclusively prove your point, does not dismiss it from being evidence.
Nothing you replied to implies that. I the evidence to mean something which increases the probability that a claim is true. As I have shown, testimony does not necessarily increase this probability. The absence of evidence however airways increases the probability of absence, unless evidence of god is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:35:09 2017 No.8822648 >>8822611 >No, they reject the conclusion. Evidence is still evidence. Non sequitur. The fact that historians reject conclusions that do not have strong enough evidence does not mean that historians do not reject testimony as evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:35:10 2017 No.8822649 >>8822623 0/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 16:47:08 2017 No.8822672 >>8822611 Do you think false testimony is evidence? What about testimony that is likely to be false? See >>8822596

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:00:25 2017 No.8822698

>>8821346
>It amazes me that sane, rational, educated people will rightly assert if questioned that the tooth fairy does.not.exist.
could have ended it there.

>The christian god is fiction.
this was your mistake.

The reason one can say the tooth fairy is fake is because we can test it scientifically and objectively. we cannot test for the existence of consciousness as it is metaphysical.

And the fact that you directed your argument specifically was a larger mistake, as it shows me you have a bias against Christianity.

Don't know why you would assert this so hard unless you were r/atheist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:02:01 2017 No.8822702 >>8821381 this. /thread

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:04:36 2017 No.8822709

>>8821419
Not easy to define something so complex, so i will go with the one analogy of Father.

Father God:
- walks with you
- is your comforter
- sometimes leaves you to walk on your own
- puts you through tough times to grow your character
- loves you

Essentially the perfect father: loving but strict and not unwilling to put you through tough times you test your faith (trust) in him and help to strengthen your character.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:12:59 2017 No.8822731 >>8821606 Same reason yours should be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:14:45 2017 No.8822741 It definitely is possible, but fundamentally it requires some cognitive dissonance to be able to justify faith and also be a scientist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:15:22 2017 No.8822742 >>8821611 Those are some neet straw-men, bro. Maybe you should open up a business!?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:17:34 2017 No.8822747 >>8822698 >The reason one can say the tooth fairy is fake is because we can test it scientifically and objectively. Please post your published tooth fairy research!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:18:02 2017 No.8822749 >>8822524 >>8822602 ITT: Spiritualists attempt to persuade materialists to think abstract, and fail.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:18:51 2017 No.8822751 >>8822731 Why should my beliefs be respected? You seem to be avoiding the question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:21:45 2017 No.8822756 >>8822749 Abstract thinking has little to do with the magic and special pleading of the spiritualist who thinks wanting their imagination to be real is justification.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:21:57 2017 No.8822757 >>8822604 >The universe itself could be the first cause. How can something cause itself?

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:36:12 2017 No.8822782

>>8822747
Tests:
>place tooth under pillow
>tooth replaced by buck (Canadian dollar)
confirmation of myth as supposedly true.

>fake loosing a tooth
>place tooth replica under pillow
>replaced with a buck
This proves that the tooth fairy is not omniscient like Santa supposedly is.

>get another fake tooth and fake loosing a tooth
>hide tooth in dresser
>dresser, clothes and several objects displaced, thus proving the tooth fairy is corporeal.

>place Lego blocks in an ordered array across floor
>next morning blocks are displaced
tooth fairy does not float, but walks. demonstrating that the tooth fairy has mass and can be displaced by space-time (affected by gravity)

>claim to loose tooth
>place infrared censors across room
>sensors trip and i turn on light
>its my dad with a buck
This proves that the tooth fairy is my dad.
Finally i interrogate my dad to find the truth.

Conclusion:
one of two things is true:
>A) the tooth fairy does not exist and is a fraud among parents globally
>B) the tooth fairy has proxy agents do her dirty work.

All it requires is scientific inquiry. If the first test yielded null results then the tooth fairy would be metaphysical and thus not testable. I tried it with God, trust me when i say there is no way to detect God like there is Santa or the tooth fairy. So God's existence is ambiguous.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:41:25 2017 No.8822796

>>8822751
to let you know i am not that anon you were originally talking to.
The reason beliefs should be respected is because each person came to those conclusions on their own merits and likewise those beliefs should not be dismissed as their are foundation to their being and thinking.
If i don't respect a person because they believe something i don't, then i have torn down the core principal of free speech and free thought: that every man should be allowed to express their thoughts and be respected for having those thoughts.

I hope this answers your query.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:44:26 2017 No.8822799

>>8822756
before you sits a computer. Is the data in the computer a physical thing, or the metaphysical product of those physical things?

Metaphysics is a field dealing with non-physics, which is necessary to understanding the problem that you and the other anon have. You keep treating this like it needs to be a science in order to be solved; as though science is the harbinger of all knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 17:58:38 2017 No.8822830 >>8817367 >>8818211 These. As long as you can separate religion from your work

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 20:21:57 2017 No.8823085 >>8822757 How can god cause itself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 20:23:33 2017 No.8823087 >>8822782 The tooth fairy is magic, so logic first apply.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 20:26:55 2017 No.8823095

>>8822796
>The reason beliefs should be respected is because each person came to those conclusions on their own merits and likewise those beliefs should not be dismissed as their are foundation to their being and thinking.
That doesn't answer the question. Why should foundational ideas not be dismissed of they are irrational or harmful?

>If i don't respect a person because they believe something i don't, then i have torn down the core principal of free speech and free thought: that every man should be allowed to express their thoughts and be respected for having those thoughts.
That doesn't follow at all. My disrespecting your beliefs does not effect your free speech at all, and is part of my free speech.

Anonymous Wed Apr 12 20:31:14 2017 No.8823103

>>8822799
>before you sits a computer. Is the data in the computer a physical thing, or the metaphysical product of those physical things?
The data is physical. Concepts only exist representationally, not in some realm.

Metaphysics has no power to determine anything, so claiming that it sits parallel to science is silly. It's merely mental masturbation which is often applied incorrectly by irrational people to justify their particular esoteric beliefs. It's not much different from magic in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 21:00:02 2017 No.8823141 >another episode of "I can't understand the uncaused cause"

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 12 22:06:42 2017 No.8823257 >>8823141 >It's another "the universe has to be caused otherwise my dogmatic belief in god would be unnecessary" episode

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 00:01:13 2017 No.8823473 >>8823141 >it's another episode of "the universe must have a creator, therefore it's the creator written in my fairytale instead of the thousands of other fairytales."

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 01:30:06 2017 No.8823592 >>8823103 So is science the only harbinger of truth?

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 01:34:25 2017 No.8823598

>>8823095
>Why should foundational ideas not be dismissed of they are irrational or harmful?
if they are harmful they should be questioned but not immediately dismissed. What's more, in this day and age nigh everything can be seen as harmful.
If they are irrational, then they cause no harm (though i assume you think that irrationality and being harmful are two peas in the same pod).

>My disrespecting your beliefs does not effect your free speech at all, and is part of my free speech.
If i discounted your belief in science or whatever you believe in as worthless and said you were a sack of shit, while refusing to listen to any ideas you have or thoughts you have, then i would be an asshole. Not just because of courtesy, but because i would be actively disrespecting your own thoughts, placing mine above yours, and actively seeking to ignore yours. For free speech to work a forum with an atmosphere of respect must be established so that all voices may be heard, and so that all people may be willing to listen.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 01:42:12 2017 No.8823609

>>8823087
As i stated before, the tooth fairy has specifics and rules tied to it which portray behaviors it is consistent with. Thus allowing for it to be testable. My tests proved things about it indirectly and thus allowed me to infer and deduce through the scientific method that the tooth fairy is limited by physical existence due to being corporeal, and that the tooth fairy cannot be "magical". You are using "magic" as a blanket to cover up the fact that it is bound by principles which it cannot disregard lest it cease to be the tooth fairy.

The same applies to God. Based on secondary sources ( the bible) God is bound by his character to act in certain ways. His own Character, what makes Him, Him; limits what he can and cannot conceivably do. God's heart is his limiter. This is why God sent his son to fulfill the covenant, has kept his promises, etc.

Unlike the tooth fairy, God has no bearing in the physical realm and seems to act as an external force to reality itself. Thus removing the idea that he is corporeal (unless you include Christ, one of his persons).

I hope you get what i am going at, instead of being fool-hardy and treating these two separate concepts of God and fairy as though they are the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 02:19:48 2017 No.8823670 >>8817592 Look up the meaning of Scholasticism you braindead retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 02:22:23 2017 No.8823673 >>8821611 Sounds like you've been talking to Protestants, Anon. Don't talk to Protestants

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 13 04:48:26 2017 No.8823801

>>8822574
>It's not turtles all the way down.

Why not?

>>8822591
This man gets it.

>>8822698
>we cannot test for the existence of consciousness as it is metaphysical.

Generally speaking, one has to assume that other humans have a mind like oneself. With that bare starting assumption, roughly equivalent to a rejection of solipsism, then one can do science on the mind. There's plenty of neuroscience that has been done concerning the link between physical brain and mind. It's all done through self reporting, but self reporting is enough to do some science.

>>8822731
My beliefs should not be respected. No one's beliefs should be respected. Not in the meaning that you suggest. I don't respect beliefs. I respect a person when their reasons for their beliefs are good. That's what should be respected.

>>8822757
Why not? Why does it need a cause? The beginning of time is a very different thing than everything else we normally experience. It's quite a wide leap, an unjustifiable leap, to extrapolate from everyday experiences to something that is so far removed from everyday experiences.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Thu Apr 13 04:50:07 2017 No.8823803

>>8823592
>So is science the only harbinger of truth?

Roughly. The general scientific method is the only acceptable and reliable way to learn about our shared external observable reality.

Of course, math and logic are tools that are used by science, and the use of such thinking tools are part of the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 08:51:54 2017 No.8824076 >>8823592 Science is a method for verifying facts and theorems about the world. It approximates "truth". If you want truth I suggest you try math and logic.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 11:40:22 2017 No.8824273

>>8823801
> It's all done through self reporting
you mean introspection? most studies involving introspection have been considered questionable at best, as introspection is not very reliable.
Neuroscientists have only been able to examine the structure of the brain, not the mind itself. There are also many mysteries waiting to be answered, such as follows: Neuroscience have found a structure in the brain that comprehends the shape of an object, and another that comprehends the colour, yet there exist no structures which put these two pieces of information together. Despite these peices of information not being put together, we are homehow able to perceive both simultaneously. If you can explain a solution to this connundrum please do.

>I respect a person when their reasons for their beliefs are good.
but see, that is subjective. If you don't like a persons reasons for believing something (such as faith alone) then you wont respect it. You aren't them so you can't determine for them the value of what they believe. I am not you though, so could you provide an example of a good and bad reason for belief?

>>8823803

>The general scientific method is the only acceptable and reliable way to learn about our shared external observable reality.
So philosophy is out of the question? Don't you know that philosophy is the mother of all science?
The scientific method itself is a concept of philosophy to make an objective observable and measurable thing be tested and a hypothesis verified or not. Most humble scientists (the ones who actually do the research) understand that science cannot suffice to answer all the questions of life, as some cannot be answered with empirical measurements. Why am i here? Is reality real or a simulation? What is the purpose of existence? Was existence begotten or has it always been?
these are questions of philosophy, yet (i am asuming) you do not value philosophy at all in the search for truth!

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 11:50:50 2017 No.8824284

>>8823803
>>8824076
What's more, science cannot determine what is moral, though it can help. Science when unchecked by ethics is itself immoral since it's quest does not consider morality.

Science is a model of the world, but it is not the only venue of truth.

Scientism: the cancer infesting the internet.
Scientism produces a very one sided view of the world, as opposed to the holistic view one gets when both science and philosophy are considered euqally valuable means. I think r/atheist is the site pushing for scientism, and like their usual guff, this latest bout is yet another poison infesting the internet like a louse. Science alone cannot solve anything outside empirical measurement, Philosophy cannot do anything empirical. Unless both are considered then one's understanding of the world will be very lop-sided.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 12:08:46 2017 No.8824315 I'm sure this was an interesting thread, too bad I missed it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:08:21 2017 No.8824400 >>8823598 You're simply wrong. Respect has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone is being heard here regardless. If you have nothing to do but tone troll then leave.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:11:23 2017 No.8824403 >>8823609 Tooth fairies are by definition magical. You have not deduced that they are not. You just won't admit that anything besides god is magic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:21:18 2017 No.8824419 >>8824400 >tone troll ?????? >rest of the arument fair enough. I still feel that only an asshole would screeam at others simply for believing something different to them. You forgot to address the first part of my argument though.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:27:48 2017 No.8824435

>>8824403
>You have not deduced that they are not.
I assumed they are, but also did reserch into supposed observations bout them (from folk-lore on fayres/fairies) and deduced some commonalities between them. Then applied those principles to the tooth fairy and utilized it to deduce further proofs about the tooth fairy (though my experimentation).

>you just won't admit that anything besides god is magic.
magic is a shitty word do use because it is a lazy answer to unexplaned phenomena. God does not work by magic when he interferes with the natural order of his own universe. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. However, if i put 4 pennies in a drawer, God could take 2, thus interfering with the natural order, without breaking any laws. A Miracle.

As mentioned before, both God and the Tooth fairy are bound by specific governing principles intrinsic to them being them. God is bound by his character, the tooth fairy by her corporeality. You must want your shitty r/atheism argument to pretend to hold water so you try to treat these as if they are the exact same thing.

C.S. Lewis on Science and Religion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:31:51 2017 No.8824442

>>8824284
>What's more, science cannot determine what is moral, though it can help.
You're assuming morality can be determined at all. Morality is the various rules and norms that humans either instinctually abide by or are taught by their society. Thus there is no "right" set of moral rules to find in the first place.

>Science is a model of the world, but it is not the only venue of truth.
You're incorrectly implying that religion or spirituality gives you truth when it merely asserts it. There is no process for determining "true morals" or "true metaphysics" because these do not categorically exist. Neither are analogous to science.

>Scientism produces a very one sided view of the world, as opposed to the holistic view one gets when both science and philosophy are considered euqally valuable means.
The idea that philosophy is a parallel method that obtains results is simply objectively wrong. There is no consensus among philosophers about anything. This allows one to arbitrarily choose whichever ideology most suits one's preconceived notions and then claim post hoc that those notions are "determined" by philosophy. In science you can't pick which facts to believe. The "scientism" strawman is a puerile attempt to adopt the legitimacy of science without earning it.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:36:53 2017 No.8824451

>>8824435
No you didn't. Your "deductions" are merely speculation that tooth fairies are not magical. This is as ridiculous as claiming that god is simply a human invention to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the natural world and to reassure us that our lives are part of an intelligent plan.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:41:29 2017 No.8824454

>>8824442
>You're assuming morality can be determined at all. Morality is the various rules and norms that humans either instinctually abide by or are taught by their society. Thus there is no "right" set of moral rules to find in the first place.
>moral relativism
enjoy watching society crumble because of that mindset.

>You're incorrectly implying that religion or spirituality gives you truth when it merely asserts it.
that is not what i said at all. I never mentioned spirituality as a venue, you were the one who assumed that was my conclusion. Yes i am spiritual, but i was arguing that philosophy is needed with science for a holistic view, rather than simply science.
>There is no process for determining "true morals" or "true metaphysics" because these do not categorically exist.
yes, in a physical empirical sense morality and metaphyisics are non-existent. However, outside a simply materialistic view, one can see that philosophy is the foundation of a well-built mind and reason.

>The idea that philosophy is a parallel method that obtains results is simply objectively wrong.
you compare ideas, argue about them, and the ones that remain the most logical and reasonable, and which require no logical fallacies to stand, is likely the right one.
>strawman
i thought philosophy did not matter anon. Why use a philosophical concept if science is the only thing nessecary to finding truth? You science cannot measure how right i am or you are about anything, even now we are using the principle of philosophy (argumentation) to determine which of us is more right.

Anonymous Thu Apr 13 13:48:28 2017 No.8824463

>>8824451
please see:
>>8822782

I assumed according to literature surrounding the fairy and tales that the fairy is magical and that it holds the same principles and behaviours as most faries. The major principle being that it is a corporeal (physical) entity since it is visible to the human eye, can interact with physical laws, and can trick or be tricked.

>Your "deductions" are merely speculation that tooth fairies are not magical.
i used the scientific method if you want to look at my procedure and see how i deunked the tooth fairy.

>This is as ridiculous as claiming that god is simply a human invention to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the natural world and to reassure us that our lives are part of an intelligent plan.
never said that, i said that i can apply the same principle to God as i can to the tooth fairy based on knowledge i gather on him from sources documenting him.
I essentially useed the tooth-fairy as a contrast and comparison to God, to show why science cannot empirically prove the existence of God, and why God is bound by his Character.
But you ignore this argument, dont even watch the video related, and simply push desperately to try and keep your shoddy r/atheism argument afloat by, again, treating these two concepts as though they are the exact same thing.

Your no skeptic of God (like good atheists are), you are a cynic.

now please watch the video and see a better explanation of what i have been trying to get you to understand.

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