>believes in multiverse theory, parallel universes, eternal

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

>>35281612
Why should we care?

>dead kike on a stick

>>35281646
Yes it does faglord

>>35281612
There is at least a shred of evidence for all but one of those.

>>35281612
The Abrahamic God? I highly doubt it.

Some kind of intelligent entity with power comparable to what we would consider a god? Perhaps. Personally, I certainly wouldn't rule it out until we understand a hell of a lot more about how the universe works. For all we know, we're in a simulation and the programmers of that simulation are our "gods".

No, I believe in stuff that is supported by evidence

File: 117897979890.jpg (37KB, 394x479px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 394x479px

>>35281612

Even if a supreme intelligence existed or will exist, what that hell does that have to do with a bunch of stuff made up by successive generations of Jews in Palestine?

I suppose I could get behind a "supreme intelligence", but see no reason whatsoever to get involved with any of the Abrahamic religions. What's the fucking point?

File: 1407710576213.jpg (12KB, 353x452px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 353x452px

>>35281612
Do you have any objective proof that God exists- do you have knowledge, which is demonstrable, that God exists?
No?
So you have faith
What's the definition of faith?
"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Is faith a reliable method for reaching the truth? Has faith, as it is defined in the theistic sense, proven to be a reliable method for reaching the truth in chemistry/physics/etc.?

No. Faith is not a reliable process, you should not rely on it for your world view.

>>35281881
Yes.

>>35282004
what?
faith has ABSOLUTELY been a reliable "method" in science

nigger they dont just put a fuckload of money into something without having faith in that shit, which leads to information gathering aka facts.


everything fucking operates on faith.

>>35282132
You are equivocating the secular usage of the term faith with the religious use of the word, and therefor you a retarded faggot.

Secular faith is based off of prior knowledge, religious faith is based off of emotion/conviction/"just knowing".

>>35282194
therefore*
>>35281612
Btw, since it hasn't been pointed out, your argument is a strawman of atheism- do you have any proof to justify that even a significant portion of atheists seriously believe in a multiverse?

If I don't collect stamps that doesn't mean you can infer a bunch of other information about me and then argue against my imagined stances on other issues.

>>35282290
Fucking non-stamp-collecting, leftist faggot.

File: despair.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>35282563
>tfw not even a leftist

>>35281612
Oh god the reddit cancer from /b/ is spreading to /pol/ ABANDON TO 4-chon

>>35281612
If he is so supreme why did he choose the Jews?

File: 1409938699247.jpg (84KB, 643x960px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 643x960px

>>35282004
The Gospels. The superiority of Christian Europe on every field. The intelligence and status of many jews. The idea of karma on every civilisation.

Without morals you are tribal. Without God you are weak.

Christianity stood for everything that is worth and is now the major religion of the modern world. Every atheist country became shit. Sweden's turn, I know.

>>35281612
Prove it fag.

>believes in multiverse theory, parallel universes, eternal reocurrence, etc.
Mathematically proven
>but still finds the idea of a supreme intelligence absurd
Not mathematically proven, humans are the only animal that claim this belief

>>35282851
>Every atheist country blah blah consequentialist bullshit
Has it occurred to you that intellectual integrity is more important than the consequences of your beliefs?

If a principle/fact/theory is valid, any negative effects it has to society DO NOT INVALIDATE THE PRINCIPLE/THEORY.

I'm not going to become a creationist tomorrow if it will increase my happiness by 10%. I could press a button that would provide everyone with the knowledge about the origins of the universe/reality of God, and it made them 50% less happy? I'd fucking press it, twice if I had to- objective reality (science, math, etc.) should not be cast aside for the sake of consequences.

Faggot.

>>35281612
Jews exist.
Therefore, Satan exists.

If Satan logically must exist to create Jews, then God must also exist to create everything else.

File: women have less neurons and less synapses.png (45KB, 474x350px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 474x350px

>>35282889
>multiverse theory, parallel universes, eternal reocurrence, etc.
>he says it is mathematically proven
I am a mathematician. Multiverse was not proven yet.

>>35281612
>believes in <random stupid shit>
>but still finds <my random stupid shit> absurd
Sure bro, you totally told that straw atheist

>God is real faggots
Right, show it to me then

>>35282889
>Mathematically proven
OMGWTF BAHAHAAHAHAHAH

>>35281612

Tide goes in, tide goes out! You can't explain that!

>>35282889
It's not proven, it's a theory (a geuss)

>>35283045
> I could press a button that would provide everyone with the knowledge about the origins of the universe/reality of God, and it made them 50% less happy?

Fucking why? Why can't you just let people believe what they want to believe?

>>35281612
There might be a "supreme intelligence". There is, however, no reason to think this intelligence would give a shit about you, the things you do or what happens to your soul.

File: this guy gets it.png (135KB, 1000x773px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x773px

>>35283045
Go on

>>35281646
Religion is politically incorrect

>>35283145
Show me a mathematical principle that can be directly observed.
Oh wait...

>>35282889
>Not mathematically proven, humans are the only animal that claim this belief
Do you seriously think that other animals have any knowledge of chemistry, physics, logic, or any other sphere of human achievement?

Crows don't into the multiverse theory anon.

>>35283234
>Why can't you just let retards have a monopoly on the public discourse
I would love to live in a society where retards saying retarded things isn't possibly life threatening to me, but the fact is they vote.

>>35283045
35283234 is not me, ignore this guy.

>>35281646

And God and religion are not intertwined my euphoric friend

OP is correct, intelligent design is logically more likely than whatever it is atheists believe by miles. Fedoras btfo

But OP I has question. How do you reconcile the concept that time is infinite with intelligent design. I've been thinking about it for a while and if I can resolve this is will surely tip the scale far in favor of ID

>>35283393
When did I claim to be you?

File: 1396046757062.jpg (25KB, 428x469px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 428x469px

>>35281612
>believes in multiverse theory, parallel universes, eternal reocurrence, etc.
And if I don;t believe that bullshit?....

>>35283386
>but the fact is they vote.
Then perhaps your issue is with universal suffrage? Plenty of atheists have no clue about economics and still vote in ways that can effect everyone.

Idiocy isn't limited to theists, it's ubiquitous within any group of people.

>>35283449
Because that reply was shameful. I don't you to think it was who you were talking to. I want you to explain your reply, so I said 'go on'.

>>35283106
I knew it. Women are dumber than men. But aren't they more versatile in their thinking?

>Science has some theories it cant prove
>Means my dead kike is a real zombie

lel

>>35283579
No.

>>35283592
Not the Christian God. A deistic infinite Absolute being.

>>35283437
>Intelligent design
>Humans can choke on their food
>Dolphins have separate tubes for breathing and eating
You literally believe that the most evolved being has never evolved, is both omniscient and omnipotent- this is contradictory. If you are all-knowing, that implies you already know what your actions are (and therefore can not change them). God is a logically contradictory being, and "whatever atheists believe" can not be inferred by the fact that they don't think an undetectable being which has no mass, energy, or influence in the universe created all the mass, energy, and beings in the universe.

>>35283510
If people have erroneous beliefs I will correct them, if you believe 2+2=5 I'll try and correct you even if it means that you lose a significant comfort in your life/more likely to commit suicide.

>>35283546
>I ask "when did I claim to be you"
>You reply "because that reply was shameful."
Nigger, you're retarded.

>>35283701
Don't forget the fact that whales have giant thighbones.

>>35283685

Deism is completely unfalsifiable, so no

>>35283701
>I'll try and correct you even if it means that you lose a significant comfort in your life/more likely to commit suicide.
And if people don't want to be "corrected"?
You are admittedly more interested in spreading your view of "truth" than in the well-being of those you are spreading it to, it seems that you are far more fanatical than most religious people who generally don't give a shit what others believe.

>>35281612
And muscum mods ban me for posting supposedly /b/ related shit.

>>35283775
Induction isn't the be all and end all of logical proof anon. Do you even into epistemology?

File: 1407720122487.jpg (122KB, 800x439px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x439px

This whole thread.

Both perspectives are valid.

>>35283731
I was talking about intelligent design, not evolution.

But yes, I get your point.

>>35283816
>And if people don't want to be "corrected"?
If you claim any kind of authority or knowledge you are open to being corrected if your beliefs are irrational or inconsistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you "want to be corrected", are you some kind of tumblr feminist who thinks you can only correct irrational people if they ask for your advice?
>you are admittedly more interested in spreading your view of "truth"
I am more interested in spreading the truth as best as I can. I am open-minded, if you have proof I am more than willing to consider it. The thing is, theists don't have a single shred of proof, beyond things like "miracles" which have to be taken on faith.
> most religious people who generally don't give a shit what others believe.
Which is why they imply that their children will be disowned if they don't attend church like good little goyim.

>>35281612
>>35281612
You should have said "God is a possibilty, faggots"
What with the nature of probabilities in a multi verse theorem and all that.
But still, I agree.

>>35283701

I didn't imply it in the sense that God (I'm only going to use that word because it's easy, not to be confused with the magic man in the bible) created the universe completely without flaw. I am arguing that a power beyond human comprehension is responsible for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life. As I believe it to be evolution is simply the nature of God. God is simply something that could never possibly conceived by humans, and I think the likelihood of the universe and life both being complete accidents both within the same universe is much less likely. That's why I asked the time question. Because of an infinite timeline there could conceivably be infinite universes that were completely incidental and came from literal nothing, but having life exist within the same universe is unlikely. But on an infinite timeline I suppose it would happen eventually. I could type a big long euphoric post if you'd like. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I think ID is more probable

>>35283907
Theists do not claim to have an opinion that "I like to think God is real", at least that is not the general trend.

Theists say (to their children especially) God is real, take it on faith, etc.

Atheists do not believe God exists, this is because, as I will claim, there is no empirical proof or logical necessity for a God. Atheists see that theistic arguments for a God are invalid, their other beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of this point.

>>35284105
both boil down to beliefs, since neither can be proven to be definitively right. There is enough "evidence" for both points to be substantiated, and for a conclusion to be inferred.

The real truth? Nobody can say.

>>35283885

And yet you still go to an actual doctor instead of a witch doctor

>>35284200

What about invisible dragons? Are both sides to this concept valid as well?

>>35284284

2/10 apply yourself

>>35284284
Just get over yourself dude

File: 1408827809692.jpg (7KB, 259x188px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x188px

>>35284284
No because that is an absurdity thrown out to better attack my argument, you're biased, and you refuse to admit that there isn't a definitive answer on this subject.

>>35284093
First of all, I don't know which you're replying to.
>I am arguing that a power beyond human comprehension
>Arguing about aspects of a being you claim is beyond human comprehension
You realize that calling something beyond comprehension and then assuming certain traits about it makes you look like a fucking moron, right?

>evolution is simply the nature of God.
Yay for undefined terms that make God sound mysterious and cool :D

> I think the likelihood of the universe and life both being complete accidents both within the same universe is much less likely.
You are neither a biologist or a physicist, there have been compelling cases for a fine-tuned universe without a God. As far as biology goes, look up the Miller apparatus. Clearly, you need to do more research on the topic if you expect anyone to give two shits what you say after "I think".
>I could type a big long euphoric post if you'd like. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I think ID is more probable
Okay, well, sadly intelligent design isn't a recognized scientific theory (which is essentially an explanation).
>>35284200
The real truth about square circles? They're logically contradictory and can not exist.

>Inb4 agnostic bullshit about another universe we know nothing about
IF WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

If an assertion is logically inconsistent and has no empirical evidence, it can be discarded without evidence- just like unicorns, Santa, and invisible teapots orbiting your tiny fucking head.

>>35283945
>If you claim any kind of authority or knowledge you are open to being corrected if your beliefs are irrational or inconsistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you "want to be corrected", are you some kind of tumblr feminist who thinks you can only correct irrational people if they ask for your advice?
>muh tumblr
I'm mere pointing out that you achieve nothing and only piss people off if you start pontificating to them. You can go and say "hey look at all this fossil evidence, morpology, and genetic similarities, you can't deny this!" and they still wont listen. Just as you would ignore any religious person who attempts to convert you.

>I am more interested in spreading the truth as best as I can.
The same could be said of Jehovah's witnesses, and they would be just as sincere. If you want to forward "truth" in a scientific sense, then go into research and actually contribute rather than being an advocate for science, because you'll find that neither the theists or the people actually working in scientific research appreciate your efforts.

>The thing is, theists don't have a single shred of proof, beyond things like "miracles" which have to be taken on faith.
Have you even read introductory apologetics? Believe me, priests were the most educated and critical people in the West for a long, long, time and they aren't the type to simply take things solely on blind faith without discussion and exploration.

>Which is why they imply that their children will be disowned if they don't attend church like good little goyim.
I'm going to assume you're talking about US "Christians", just bear in mind that they left Yurope because even the religious people there thought they were batshit insane. You'll find most Catholic, Orthodox, and non-US protestant denominations are far more reasonable.

>>35284418
Not that guy but why are invisible dragons absurd but invisible omniscient omnipotent space jews aren't?

File: 1389308644937.png (55KB, 185x218px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 185x218px

>>35284450
>IF WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

Why are you assuming that I am assuming I know something about it?

>>35284200
>There is enough "evidence" for both points to be substantiated

No.

>>35281612
>Implying I haven't been crafting my spirit to ascend mortality upon my death
>Implying I'm not using multiverse theory to launch myself into the one reality where I am reborn as a God
>Implying I'm not already waiting for my death to come (the rules stated are that I must never commit suicide, and dying in battle or for a worthy cause will aid me)
>Implying I won't cling to that 1/infinity chance that my soul will be anchored to the proper reality where I reign supreme
>Implying I won't lead mankind into a new era through reverence, fear, and unification under one God

I'm more than aware of multiverse and string theory. I'm also aware of how fragile the laws of physics are when multiverse theory is in play.
I am ascending upon death, Imperial. Can you say the same?

>>35284223
You have no idea what you're replying to, do you?
I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between deductive and inductive methods of proof, and the relative strengths of each. Which leads me to believe you know very little about the very foundation of science as a tool for investigation.

>>35284569
>invisible dragon
Then how is it a dragon?

File: 1406661382373.gif (873KB, 354x440px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 354x440px

>>35284682
I just KNOW it is. I take it on faith. Also I read about it in an old book.

Want to answer my question now?

>>35284450
>You realize that calling something beyond comprehension and then assuming certain traits about it makes you look like a fucking moron, right?
Not at all, you wouldn't presume to have an exhaustive list of the characteristics of a particular boulder but you can still state that it's composed of basalt rock for example.

>>35284450
I'm not going to get into a little nit-pick battle on the internet with someone who's looking for me to write a Phd thesis to even give my post any credence. But I have an offer, my euphoric friend. Explain to me how the universe and life came to exist, and I will buy you a shiny new fedora

>>35284560
>I'm mere pointing out that you achieve nothing and only piss people off if you start pontificating to them
I am not stating my opinion as fact, as theists do, I do not claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe but I certainly don't think it was due to a God/gods.
> You can go and say "hey look at all this fossil evidence, morpology, and genetic similarities, you can't deny this!" and they still wont listen. Just as you would ignore any religious person who attempts to convert you.
Theists ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs that were formed in order to fit in with their family and community? What a surprise! Doesn't mean I shouldn't try and correct them. I really don't hate theists, but I have to live in a world where they have a huge influence and I would like to lessen the influence of religion.
>The same could be said of Jehovah's witnesses, and they would be just as sincere.
But I actually formulate my beliefs based on their adherence to logic and empirical evidence- none of my beliefs are based on a process as irrational as faith (in the religious sense).
>If you want to forward "truth" in a scientific sense
I'd like people to stop asserting that they know God exists, because they actually don't- sorry for being so unreasonable.
>Believe me, priests were the most educated and critical people in the West for a long, long, time and they aren't the type to simply take things solely on blind faith without discussion and exploration.
Yes, because they definitely had options like declaring themselves to be atheists. There were almost no capitalists in Soviet Russia, and almost no atheists in medieval Europe, as far as we know.

>>35284647
Opinion.

File: 1408060906539.gif (2MB, 250x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x256px

It's always back to Christians needing to provide proof of God, simply ask for proof, and they will get mad.

There's a reason people believe evidence over a ''Feeling''.
>Inb4 'muh feelz'
>Inb4 ''The book says its true so it is''

>>35284738
That you are retarded. A pseudo science does not invalidate science, then how can pagan religions invalidate christianity

>>35283775
>you can't prove it wrong
>therefore it's wrong

atheist "logic"

>>35284815
What's opinion is believing there is a shred of evidence for God existing.

Atheist doesn't require faith. Believing in God does.

It's not a complicated concept.

>>35284819
>I have a 7 inch dick
>prove it with timestamp
>YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT I DON'T! Let's just agree we both have an opinion :^)

>>35284819
'Kay, check my post >>35282851

>>35281612
In a nutshell, the difference between the situations is that the former ones assume very little but explain a lot, but "God" (usually, depends on how it's defined) assumes very much when explaining proportionally little - and often contradicts with empirical evidence with its explanations.

not /pol/ btw.

Is your faith so shaky you need to confirm it with the crowd just so you can continue believing?

Some people think there is a giant alpha being
Some people dont.

But everyone knows your a faggot OP.

>>35284572
I know you're kidding, but I'd like to further expound on why agnosticism is retarded.

Basically, the principle of agnosticism is:
Even if something is logically consistent and has no objective proof/empirical evidence to support it, it can not be refuted without significant evidence because it might exist (in some other universe or some shit that we know nothing about). While this clearly doesn't make sense because it's assuming knowledge about the unknowable (the qualities of other universities), the definition of non-existence s not existing in this universe (no detectable mass, energy, etc.)

If you apply the principles of agnosticism to any given invisible/undetectable inanimate objects you will quickly be surrounded by floating teapots, pencils, dildos, etc.
>>35284760
>God is beyond comprehension
>But I still know stuff about God
So God isn't beyond comprehension?

File: 1404954809600.jpg (193KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x800px

>>35284832
Did you read the reply chain because I honestly can not figure out what your point was with this post.

>>35284925
>"Muh moralz"

If you need a book and a God that your not even sure that exists to keep you from being a bad person, your just a bad person.

>>35284669

Very well then, if previous observations don't give you any indication about truth whatsoever, then put your money where your mouth is and go to a witch doctor the next time you break your leg. You won't, because just like post-modernist bullshitters, pseudo-intellectuals don't care about actual reality, you only care about your theoretical world you can manipulate with semantic horseshit

>>35282851
>Implying that we need to be taught not to rape to sense that it's wrong because of mirror neurons and basic human empathy

>>35284814

Not the guy you were replying to but you basically just agreed with my post here >>35284093

Relax buddy, I think everyone else ITT is open to discussion. Please, give us your idea rather than just being that faggot who presents nothing and tries to discredit what everyone else says

>>35284865
Atheism requires faith when you have a different perspective on life i.e. when one isn't a materialist. Like all atheists are.

>>35284418

No, it's simply the same logic you use applied to something don't happen to believe in. The fact that it now suddenly isn't valid is very telling

>>35284981

>implying comprehension doesn't mean a full understanding

>>35285019
I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I am a bad person because I am a Christian, but I am curious

>>35285086
You would have to prove in the supernatural to demonstrate the supernatural.

We see the universe and we study it. We gain results from experiments and observation. Everything else is belief.

>>35284664
/x/ pls go

>>35285086

In that case, please present something non material. Present some of this supernatural stuff that's from the land beyond space and time

>>35285065
"My idea"? I am merely arguing that theism is unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent, I do not feel obligated to bind myself to any theories about the origins of the universe in order to discredit what can euphemistically be called arguments for a "Creator".

>>35285117
I am saying that it's moronic for him to state God has certain properties, but is also beyond comprehension... Are you agreeing with me?

>>35285181
I didn't say you were, i said if you need a god or a book to keep you from being immoral you are immoral to begin with.

>>35284814
>Theists ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs that were formed in order to fit in with their family and community? What a surprise! Doesn't mean I shouldn't try and correct them.
Why should you try to correct them, are you a missionary for the one true faith of empiricism?
If somebody wishes to learn about science, they will do so without your badgering. If they don't care to examine the evidence, no amount of badgering will convince them to.

Now of course I'd say the same for you, as you are clearly unwilling to put time into studying theology.

>I really don't hate theists, but I have to live in a world where they have a huge influence and I would like to lessen the influence of religion.
>a huge influence
You seem to be a few decades behind anon, secularism is the new black and religious icons are prohibited in government buildings.

>But I actually formulate my beliefs based on their adherence to logic and empirical evidence- none of my beliefs are based on a process as irrational as faith (in the religious sense).
>but they're WROOONNNG!!
They may say the same thing about you, science is not without it's flaws and I'm sure some Jehovah's witnesses would see your devotion to empirical evidence that you have never observed yourself is basically faith, in a pseudo-religious sense, in the honesty and infallibility of scientists purporting to have made these observations.

>I'd like people to stop asserting that they know God exists, because they actually don't- sorry for being so unreasonable.
I'd like people to stop doing a great many things, but annoying people who don't want to argue with me isn't the way to stop them, it will just cause them to stubbornly carry on with their assertions out of spite.

>because they definitely had options like declaring themselves to be atheists.
Are you honestly arguing that atheists would willingly and voluntarily become priests?

>>35283579
Even if they are, a guy only has to do psychedelics to far surpass them.

>>35285261
But how

>>35284981
>So God isn't beyond comprehension?
The whole of God is beyond comprehension.
You can't possibly comprehend everything happening at one moment within a city of 3 millions people, but you can certainly know certain things about it (how many cars pass you while you're driving to work, how much a coffee costs at a certain cafe, etc.).

>>35285360
Why are you asking me how when you are the one who came to conclusion that we wouldn't have morals if it wasn't for religion, simply, don't, kill and rape people and what not.

>>35281612
I'm an atheist and I don't believe any of those things.

>>35285453
that's some mental gymnastics

>>35285030
I'm not dismissing inductive reasoning as a method determining facts, I'm simply saying it isn't the ONLY method by which we can obtain knowledge.

I am far from post-modernist, logic is a very, very, old field and the scientific method and a strong focus on empiricism are recent developments. If anything I'm a luddite.
Whereas you are simply a fool with a pleb's understanding of the foundations of knowledge and science itself who still persists in making shit-tier analogies about something he doesn't understand.

>>35285585

>flaws in human language discredit an idea

stay euphoric

>>35285314
>Now of course I'd say the same for you, as you are clearly unwilling to put time into studying theology.
Do you realize how many theologies there are?
Do I have to intensely study Norse mythology in order to say "I don't believe in Odin, and I can say that because I spent countless hours reading one-thousand year old assertions about the existence of Thor", etc.?

Theists love to say that you can't refute their specific brand of stupidity unless you've read all their literature on the subject.
>>35285453
You're equivocating unknowable information with information that is extremely impractical to know (everything 3 million people are doing). It is possible to know what everyone is doing, it's just probably not going to happen.
>You seem to be a few decades behind anon, secularism is the new black and religious icons are prohibited in government buildings.
Yeah, but they're okay in the pledge of allegiance, state constitutions, and currency.
>They may say the same thing about you, science is not without it's flaws and I'm sure some Jehovah's witnesses would see your devotion to empirical evidence that you have never observed yourself is basically faith,
I have observed objective reality, which is consistent (logical), and although I have not seen a Miller apparatus run from start to finish I am confident that with my prior experience/proof in the methods of science that it's not some massive conspiracy.
>in the honesty and infallibility of scientists purporting to have made these observations.
It doesn't matter if scientists are honest, I could repeat their experiments myself if I wanted to.
>Are you honestly arguing that atheists would willingly and voluntarily become priests?
I am arguing that it was a death sentence to be anything BUT a Christian for much of recent European history.

>>35285585
Not really, it's a line of thought that has been going for millenia.
Hell even Plato explored it in great detail with "muh cave", if idealism is mental gymnastics then the same can be said about most Western thought up until the 16th century.

>>35285680
stay retarded

Not taking a side here, and also not very knowledgeable on the topic, but I has 2 question.

1. Some are saying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. Then can we say justice exists? Can justice be scientifically proven? Or how about morality? If so, how does science prove them?

2. If we undoubtedly knew that event X is going to occur, but the time between now and X is infinite. Can we say that this event will ever happen?

>>35285806
who gives a shit about plato? i swear you guys will point out any philosopher and just say "LOL THIS IS YOUR GOD, ATHEIST. I GIT U GOOD!"

Still no evidence for God existing. Especially not the God of your particular religion and sect of x number of adherents

>>35283437

Emergence shows that intelligent design is not necessary. There is no need for gods when "logical" things can emerge naturally.

>>35285465
The book of Christ is a formalisation of what empathy needs to be. You may be born with empathy for cute animals but this needs to grow for greater morality. It is book of advanced ultimate morality that turns boys into men. It can help in many ways those that are born good but raised bitter, for example. It allows confidence in your morality in order to do great things. It seems you are not trolling, so here is a emotional video.

An Unforgettable Act of Forgiveness in Court - by the Father of a Murder Victim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkywrKVWAo

One can expect the women to be careful and kind but see for yourself their hate consuming them, that the man is the one who shows solid Christianity. He sure did his homework. I hope you think of this.

>>35285847
1. Some are saying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. Then can we say justice exists? Can justice be scientifically proven? Or how about morality? If so, how does science prove them?
Theories of what justice is can be logically consistent (they are universally applicable and don't contradict themselves), but they do not exist in objective reality. Theories of justice should conform with the laws of logic which are the result of a consistent universe, but justice can not be scientifically proven.

The same goes for theories of morality. Nietzche kind of threw that whole objective morality thing out the window, so we're only left with theories of morality that are consistent- unless you're some faggot that believes in Platonic forms.
2. If we undoubtedly knew that event X is going to occur, but the time between now and X is infinite. Can we say that this event will ever happen?
If the event is being delayed infinitely, then I would not argue that it would ever occur.

>>35285847
>asking for empirical evidence of intangible things

Not relevant; unless you're one of those idiots who constantly moves the goalposts.

>God is physical!
>What physical evidence do you have?
>By physical I meant ethereal
>Prove its ethereal
>Oh, well, I mean, it's beyond our understanding and logic! So, you can't prove NOTHIN'!

>2. If we undoubtedly knew that event X is going to occur, but the time between now and X is infinite. Can we say that this event will ever happen?

Yes.

>>35286044
Again, all im trying to say is that there is no need for a God, Gods, or books for morality, sure yes, it gives you good morals, and tells you how to use them, but it did create morals, nor did it change them, there will be heathens with more moral than theist, and there will be theist more moral than heathens.

File: 1407832058834.jpg (35KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x500px

>>35286201
>>35286044

did not*

>>35285760
>Do you realize how many theologies there are?
I do, and I wouldn't go out of my way to call them bullshit without at least reading into them to get the opposing side of the argument.
You don't have to become a hermit and study all religious writings from a specific faith, but some introductory apologetics would be the minimum in terms of due diligence before making an assertion relating to it.

>specific brand of stupidity
How can you be sure of it's stupidity if you're just lumping it in with other, usually quite distinct, faiths?

>You're equivocating unknowable information with information that is extremely impractical to know (everything 3 million people are doing). It is possible to know what everyone is doing, it's just probably not going to happen.
I'd argue it is not possible for a man to know what 3 million people are doing at a given time, the same applies to God. Perhaps we can theoretically know it but they are both impossible in practice.

>Yeah, but they're okay in the pledge of allegiance, state constitutions, and currency.
Apparently, such is democracy.
I don't agree with anti-gun laws, but if the constitution was amended overnight through democratic channels to remove the 2nd amendment I'd simply have to accept that muh guns are now illegal.

>I have observed objective reality, which is consistent (logical), and although I have not seen a Miller apparatus run from start to finish I am confident that with my prior experience/proof in the methods of science that it's not some massive conspiracy.
>I have observed objective reality.
That is a very bold claim anon, as even mild color-blindness could vary your subjective observations.
What you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that you have faith in the honesty and ability of scientists to determine objective fact. Faith in human honesty is the same whether it's in the authors of a physics textbook or a 2000-ish year old collection of religious texts.

>>35286201
Sure, a lot of niggers around me call themselves Christians of some kind. But many are full of hate. This is talked about in The Good Samaritan allegory.

>>35285760
>It doesn't matter if scientists are honest, I could repeat their experiments myself if I wanted to.
You have faith that you can repeat their experiments, but until you have done so you are simply taking their word. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as we all rely on others for information, but is a common trait with those who believe their preacher.

>I am arguing that it was a death sentence to be anything BUT a Christian for much of recent European history.
And that's in no way relevant to my point of priests being educated and curious people who have spend centuries discussing and arguing over religious beliefs.

>>35281612

I have been provided no evidence that any of those theories are true and until i am provided with such evidence I will continue to regard them as a interesting idea. Just like your idea of a god.

>>35283311
or just plain incorrect

>>35285876
>who gives a shit about plato?
Most people since the middle ages, though they are generally unaware of it.

My point was that calling idealism "mental gymnastics" is nonsense because you would be disregarding most western thought (including empiricism and the scientific method) alongside it.

>>35284669
>deduction and induction
>science
pick one

>>35286350
Same goes with Atheist and other religions
a lot of atheist base atheism on their self pro-claimed intelligence, when in actuality they're just insufferable smart asses.

>>35286465
The scientific method is literally induction, with a few other things mixed in.

>>35286269
>I do, and I wouldn't go out of my way to call them bullshit without at least reading into them to get the opposing side of the argument.
Assertions without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
>You don't have to become a hermit and study all religious writings from a specific faith, but some introductory apologetics would be the minimum in terms of due diligence before making an assertion relating to it.
There are over 10,000 gods/God/deities, I do not have to study every single one to conclude that there is not objective evidence for any of them.
>How can you be sure of it's stupidity if you're just lumping it in with other, usually quite distinct, faiths?
>distinct
Yeah, no. They almost all presume the most evolved being that has never evolved, all powerful, and all knowing- these properties alone are logically inconsistent and there isn't objective proof for any particular religion that I've heard of, if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it.
>I'd argue it is not possible for a man to know what 3 million people are doing at a given time, the same applies to God.
Nope, God is considered to be undetectable (that, or non-existent), so large amounts of detectable information =/= infinite amount of undetectable information.

>I don't agree with anti-gun laws, but if the constitution was amended overnight through democratic channels to remove the 2nd amendment I'd simply have to accept that muh guns are now illegal.
Pussy
>That is a very bold claim anon, as even mild color-blindness could vary your subjective observations.
Any accurate spectrometer/other device will give you consistent and readings. There is an objective reality, biological variation in our eyes do not invalidate the concept of infrared light/objective reality. Once again, are are equivocating religious and secular faith- religious faith is in spite of or without proof.

>>35286356
>You have faith that you can repeat their experiments
Actually no, I took AP Chemistry in highschool
>And that's in no way relevant to my point of priests being educated and curious people who have spend centuries discussing and arguing over religious beliefs.
Yes it is. You're saying that they were religious solely because they concluded it was rational. Not only are you appealing to authority, but you are also ignoring huge practical factors that would prevent priests from announcing the fact that they have abandoned their irrational faith in a creator.

>>35281612

cosmology =/= Christianity

>>35286422
what i am calling nonsense is the belief in God

If a multiverse exists then God must exist, because if there are infinitely many universes, there must be at least one in which a species or intelligence learned to influence other universes, and that would be recognized as a god.

>>35286843
Agnostic bullshit 101

>Something might exist outside of our universe
>Therefore you can't say it doesn't exist
>Even though I don't know anything about what is outside of your universe
Existing outside of your universe= nonexistence.
If something does not have matter/energy/detectable influence in YOUR universe then it does, but definition, not exist.

SQUARE CIRCLES EXIST OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE PROBABLY!
So, they don't exist in our universe- problem solved!

>>35286570
>Assertions without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
You say this but if you don't read into the faith you are discarding, you are simply assuming there is no evidence and arguing from a position of ignorance.

A young-Earth creationist might say the same thing, simply because they've never bothered to read into the evidence that contradicts their worldview.

>There are over 10,000 gods/God/deities, I do not have to study every single one to conclude that there is not objective evidence for any of them.
Actually, you do.
At least to have a convincing argument.

There are over 10,000 studies claiming evolution occurred on Earth, I don't have to read every single one to conclude there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

Again, you are taking your ignorance of any evidence as proof that there is none.

>Yeah, no. They almost all presume the most evolved being that has never evolved, all powerful, and all knowing- these properties alone are logically inconsistent and there isn't objective proof for any particular religion that I've heard of, if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it.
Many religions don't even touch on the subject of human evolution, you are simply building a strawman of thousands of distinct systems of belief and dismissing them all with a single wave of the hand.

>if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it.
You are assuming here, you don't want to do the legwork to check so you assume "if it was there, I'd have heard of it. Therefore it isn't there".

>Nope, God is considered to be undetectable (that, or non-existent), so large amounts of detectable information =/= infinite amount of undetectable information.
I never mentioned detectable properties, I mentioned knowable properties.

>Pussy
GG anon, you sure showed me :3

>>35287016
But anon, square circles do exist in other realities. It's already been stated that multiverse theory would give rise to differentiations in the laws if physics if it were to be proven true.

>>35287072
>You say this but if you don't read into the faith you are discarding
If there is objective evidence for any faith I am open to correction by any proponent of said faith, except there isn't any objective proof for the existence of any prime mover/creator/etc.

If even the deist position is untenable, there is no way that any theist position, which takes an even greater leap of faith, can be correct.
>There are over 10,000 studies claiming evolution occurred on Earth, I don't have to read every single one to conclude there is no compelling evidence for any of them.
Except if you read even one you'd see there's objective/empirical evidence and accurate observations. If you doubt this, you could repeat the experiment, prove them wrong, and maybe win some recognition.
>Many religions don't even touch on the subject of human evolution
I am saying that they all presume God is the most evolved being that has never evolved, sorry you're too stupid to understand that without me spelling that out for you.

>You are assuming here, you don't want to do the legwork to check so you assume "if it was there, I'd have heard of it. Therefore it isn't there".
I am open to correction, please enlighten me as to this logically consistent and inerrant theistic theory.
>But anon, square circles do exist in other realities. It's already been stated that multiverse theory would give rise to differentiations in the laws if physics if it were to be proven true.
First of all, you don't know they exist in other realities- the multiverse theory isn't certain.

Second of all, just because you aren't a faggot in another universe doesn't mean you'll stop being one in the one I am talking to you in.

>>35286570
There is an objective reality, biological variation in our eyes do not invalidate the concept of infrared light/objective reality.
I agree completely, but you have not seen an objective reality, you have simply deduced it from secondary information.

>Once again, are are equivocating religious and secular faith- religious faith is in spite of or without proof.
When you haven't poured over all the proof, it is functionally the same thing.

>Actually no, I took AP Chemistry in highschool
Well shit, you are really equipped to make sweeping statements about evolutionary biology or theoretical physics.
A few redox reactions is far from comprehensive anon, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

>Yes it is. You're saying that they were religious solely because they concluded it was rational.
I never said this, they already believed and later concluded that such belief is not irrational.

> Not only are you appealing to authority,
A rather relevant authority I hope you'll agree. If a man who spends his life studying the ins and outs of theology comes to the conclusion that it is rational that surely means more than someone who scans a few wikipedia articles and decides that every single religion on Earth is irrational.

> but you are also ignoring huge practical factors that would prevent priests from announcing the fact that they have abandoned their irrational faith in a creator.
Perhaps, but surely one who has abandoned their faith would simply leave the priesthood? Obviously without mentioning their atheism but with another excuse.

>>35287316
The point is if multiverse was proven correct, it'd throw the concept of static physics and rigid theorem right out the window.
Which is the whole point of the thread, if an element of chaos is observed where order is abject or illusional, the standards set in place could be overthrown or overcome.

Also learn to properly quote instead of copy-pasting like a nigger.

>>35287482
>When you haven't poured over all the proof, it is functionally the same thing.
Secular faith is about observing patterns/past experience
Religious faith has none of those redeeming qualities. Open a dictionary, thanks.
>Well shit, you are really equipped to make sweeping statements about evolutionary biology or theoretical physics.
A few redox reactions is far from comprehensive anon, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You claimed I had no proof that the experiments by the collective scientific world were repeatable, which was obviously bullshit, sorry for calling you out.
>I never said this, they already believed and later concluded that such belief is not irrational.
And if they had concluded that theism was irrational they would not state that because their life would be ruined/ended.
>A rather relevant authority I hope you'll agree. If a man who spends his life studying the ins and outs of theology comes to the conclusion that it is rational that surely means more than someone who scans a few wikipedia articles and decides that every single religion on Earth is irrational.
>Appealing to authority this hard
Wow, what a surprise! People that enter into theology that they already accept in a time when contradicting said theology is a death sentence come to the conclusion, ostensibly, that theology is logical! WOW WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE
>Perhaps, but surely one who has abandoned their faith would simply leave the priesthood? Obviously without mentioning their atheism but with another excuse.
Priesthood was extremely comfortable, so nope. Look at Nietzche, even when he was likely an atheist he accepted a religious scholarship.
>>35287562
>The point is if multiverse was proven correct
It hasn't been, stopped reading.

>>35287316
>If even the deist position is untenable, there is no way that any theist position, which takes an even greater leap of faith, can be correct.
How is deism untenable anon? It would go against all observed phenomena ever recorded to assume something came from nothing, such an event would be, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.

>Except if you read even one you'd see there's objective/empirical evidence and accurate observations. If you doubt this, you could repeat the experiment, prove them wrong, and maybe win some recognition.
And how many arguments in favor of the rationality of religion have you read and proven wrong? Such an achievement would surely win you some acclaim in the field of philosophy.

Again, you are unwilling to do the legwork involved and make unjustified general statements.

>I am saying that they all presume God is the most evolved being that has never evolved, sorry you're too stupid to understand that without me spelling that out for you.
I have never heard of a religion that asserts God itself has evolved, which on is it?

>I am open to correction, please enlighten me as to this logically consistent and inerrant theistic theory.
I can't really, as I'm not a theist. Though I don't presume to know everything and I reserve judgement on that I have no knowledge of.

>>35287736
>How is deism untenable anon? It would go against all observed phenomena ever recorded to assume something came from nothing, such an event would be, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.
There are scientific theories about the instability of "nothingness" (basically quantum mechanics). In layman's terms, the theory is that having no matter/energy is unstable for the universe, kind of like how certain elements like francium can exist but they are extremely reactive.

Deism is untenable because it claims absolute knowledge, but their position isn't a logical necessity (granted, it doesn't take the idiotic leaps of faith most religions do), nor is it backed by scientific theory/empirical evidence.

>Again, you are unwilling to do the legwork involved and make unjustified general statements.
There is no reason I have to give every unproven assertion that is not a logical necessity any consideration- I can present endless unproven illogical theories like invisible undetectable teapots orbiting the Earth, but since these hypotheses are without evidence and are illogical you do not require "negative evidence" since I have no positive evidence to support my claims.
>I have never heard of a religion that asserts God itself has evolved, which on is it?
God is the "most evolved"- meaning all knowing, perfect, etc.

Is the concept that hard for you to understand?

>I can't say that there's objective proof for any theology, but I'm going to argue that there might be because you haven't read every single Holy book on Earth

>>35287724
>Secular faith is about observing patterns/past experience
>Religious faith has none of those redeeming qualities. Open a dictionary, thanks.
Secular faith, and many of it's central tenets in current society, is largely based on rejection of observations and patterns in favor of ideals such as natural rights, equality between races/sexes, etc.
Neither of the statements you made are found in any dictionary, it seems you are largely unfamiliar with what a dictionary is and the way in which they define words.

>You claimed I had no proof that the experiments by the collective scientific world were repeatable, which was obviously bullshit, sorry for calling you out.
I never said you had no proof of ANY science being repeatable, just that you have no proof that much of scientific experimentation is repeatable.
There is plenty of proof for certain historical events written about in the Bible, but this doesn't mean that the entirety of the Bible can be proven true.

>And if they had concluded that theism was irrational they would not state that because their life would be ruined/ended.
Fair enough point, though there have been some very big disagreements within Christianity in particular that were potentially a death sentence.
Luther made a huge risk in opposing Church doctrine, so it is not unheard of.

>WOW WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE
It is a surprise actually, as many priests never concerned themselves with the rationality or irrationality of religion at all. One can assume if one did take it upon themselves to prove the logical nature of their theology did so out of personal choice.

Though what am I saying, you've already invoked the genetic fallacy.

>Priesthood was extremely comfortable.
It really wasn't anon, the various vows priests took ensured they would live a simple and rather restricted life. Vows of celibacy and poverty are not to be taken lightly anon.

This is the most serious conversation i've seen on /pol/.

I guess intellectuals really do browse the chan

>>35288201
>Secular faith, and many of it's central tenets in current society...
faith
f?TH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

>I never said you had no proof of ANY science being repeatable, just that you have no proof that much of scientific experimentation is repeatable.
There is plenty of proof for certain historical events written about in the Bible, but this doesn't mean that the entirety of the Bible can be proven true.
Except, unlike miracles, scientific experiments claim to be repeatable and do not contradict the laws of physics.

>Luther made a huge risk in opposing Church doctrine, so it is not unheard of.
Challenging the abolition of sins YOU HAVE YET TO COMMIT for compensation is a lot different than completely undermining royal and religious authority.

>Fallacy of origin
Your fallacious appeal to authority is somehow justified because I distrust the objectivity of people who would lose their life/livelihood if they adopted an alternative viewpoint (atheism)?
>It really wasn't anon, the various vows priests took ensured they would live a simple and rather restricted life. Vows of celibacy and poverty are not to be taken lightly anon.
Compared to being a serf? It was great.

>>35285950
>things can emerge naturally
>from nothing
>believes this

we spontaneous generation nao

>>35281646
In a perfect world yes

However in reality, religion infests every aspect of society that it can, including politics. It a societal virus

>>35287952
>In layman's terms, the theory is that having no matter/energy is unstable for the universe, kind of like how certain elements like francium can exist but they are extremely reactive.
You honestly think Francium's instability is because there is no energy within it, do you have no idea of what radioactive decay is?
I'll give you a hint, it's not because too little energy causes instability.

>Deism is untenable because it claims absolute knowledge, but their position isn't a logical necessity (granted, it doesn't take the idiotic leaps of faith most religions do), nor is it backed by scientific theory/empirical evidence.
It is quite certainly a logical necessity, and can be easily derived from conservation of mass-energy and causality itself.

>There is no reason I have to give every unproven assertion that is not a logical necessity any consideration
I agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.

>are illogical
I'll bite, how exactly is an undetectable teapot orbiting Earth illogical in itself? (You'll remember that "invisible" wasn't part of Russell's original analogy, seems like you added that on to support a weak point).

>I can't say that there's objective proof for any theology, but I'm going to argue that there might be because you haven't read every single Holy book on Earth
Yes, I am.
I'm actually doing the same thing you claim to when trying to explain "truth" to religious people, trying to show you that ignorance is not a substitute for observed knowledge when it comes to making assertions.

>>35281612
>eternal reocurrence

That is a Nietzschean concept, if you believed in it you are probably a Nietzschean and therefore likely to be an atheist for all the reasons Nietzsche laid out.

>>35281612
>muh skycake

>>35288567
now we're back to the question, who created god? a god can just emerge and create everything? why not cut out the middle man?

File: 1406501772148.png (17KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x400px

>>35288475
>complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Such as the methodological rigor and honesty of those making scientific claims. Faith.

>Except, unlike miracles, scientific experiments claim to be repeatable and do not contradict the laws of physics.
Oh well they claim to be repeatable, that's great. I can shoot lasers out of my eyes, come over and I'll show you any time :^)

>Challenging the abolition of sins YOU HAVE YET TO COMMIT for compensation is a lot different than completely undermining royal and religious authority.
Actually it's not really, Luther's actions very directly undermined religious authority. It's about as big a challenge to the Church one could make.

>Your fallacious appeal to authority is somehow justified because I distrust the objectivity of people who would lose their life/livelihood if they adopted an alternative viewpoint (atheism)?
You believe an evolutionary biologist wouldn't lose their reputation and livelihood if they came out in support of young-Earth creationism? They'd be laughed out of any academic institution on the planet.

>Compared to being a serf? It was great.
Why do you assume this?
Serfs lived quite well (outside Russia, as they're subhuman) and could fuck, own property, and generally live their life as they saw fit as long as they worked for their lord (or they weren't forbidden from doing so at least).

>>35288426
We wouldn't be on /pol/ if that was the case.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 238x197px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 238x197px

>God is real
Ok, where is your proof.
You are trying to prove the existence of something, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Inb4
>da bible saiz it
>u cnt disprove it!!1!!

>>35288567
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo
>>35288713
Francium's instability is twofold:
1. Electron shielding (many electron shells)
2. It has 1 valence electron
This combines to make a ridiculously reactive element. It was an analogy, not a direct comparison.

>I agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.
Deism is not a logical necessity as in it is not the most logical and consistent theory for the origin of the universe. See Sean M. Carroll link above
>I agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.
Yes, but putting a new spin on theism doesn't mean any assertions from proponents of a new religion are any more rational.

>I'll bite, how exactly is an undetectable teapot orbiting Earth illogical in itself? (You'll remember that "invisible" wasn't part of Russell's original analogy, seems like you added that on to support a weak point).
Assuming the teapot had any gas inside of it the pressure would push outwards, shatterng it :P
But seriously, no one has claimed to have launched a teapot into space, nor does anyone have any motivation to do so, and to attempt to do so would be very expensive.

>I'm actually doing the same thing you claim to when trying to explain "truth" to religious people, trying to show you that ignorance is not a substitute for observed knowledge when it comes to making assertions.
You're basically putting forward the principle that I have to consider every serious assertion that has no empirical evidence, even if there are alternative theories supported by objective evidence. I am basically saying that any given theory that is not founded upon facts and is not the only potentially logical answer can be discarded without a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

>>35288958
>who created god?
Nothing, the creation of God is a violation of causality. You could also argue the universe came from a violation of causality, and one would then term this event (the violation of fundamental laws) the prime mover.

>>35281612
>God is real faggots
Beleving in something hard core with no evidence is absurd. No rational person can be convinced of the existence of god.

>>35288567
Protip:
Spontaneous Generation=/= Abiogenesis

>>35289054
>Such as the methodological rigor and honesty of those making scientific claims. Faith.
Except I have evidence of the rigor and reliability of scientific methods/claims.

>Oh well they claim to be repeatable, that's great. I can shoot lasers out of my eyes, come over and I'll show you any time :^)
They claim to be repeatable, and in the vast majority of cases, actually are.
>about as big a challenge to the Church one could make
As I said, without being killed outright.
>You believe an evolutionary biologist wouldn't lose their reputation and livelihood if they came out in support of young-Earth creationism? They'd be laughed out of any academic institution on the planet.
>Equating being laughed at with being burned at the stake


>Why do you assume that priesthood>serfdom
1. Authority
2. Longer life expectancy
3. Work might be mentally demanding or boring, but generally not physically demanding (nothing like harvesting a field all day with a scythe)

>>35281612
>hurr durr it's too complex so therefore something had to make it.

Dude you're seriously fucking retarded

>>35289114
>This combines to make a ridiculously reactive element. It was an analogy, not a direct comparison.
It was a hugely flawed analogy, to the point where it is almost the complete opposite situation of the that you were attempting to explain.

>Deism is not a logical necessity as in it is not the most logical and consistent theory for the origin of the universe. See Sean M. Carroll link above
>An hour long
Thread will 404 before I'm finished watching that, though I'll watch it later. I'll hold my disagreement about it's logical necessity for the moment.

>Yes, but putting a new spin on theism doesn't mean any assertions from proponents of a new religion are any more rational.
Not every religion is directly derived from another, so this argument doesn't really apply. To say Buddhism and Mormonism are the same thing and therefore both irrational because Judaism is irrational is simply nonsense.

>But seriously, no one has claimed to have launched a teapot into space, nor does anyone have any motivation to do so, and to attempt to do so would be very expensive.
Fair enough, though I wouldn't say it's illogical in itself.

>You're basically putting forward the principle that I have to consider every serious assertion that has no empirical evidence, even if there are alternative theories supported by objective evidence.
Not at all, you can obviously hold whatever opinion you want without regard to other beliefs. But to assert something is bullshit, you have to back that up.

> I am basically saying that any given theory that is not founded upon facts and is not the only potentially logical answer can be discarded without a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
I wouldn't say it can be discarded, but you are certainly not obliged to entertain it.

File: image.jpg (61KB, 480x353px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 480x353px

>"Hur, it hurt mah head. Therefore, muh jebzuz exists

>Noah's ark the "fairytale" can acually be proven by having someone build an ark and put animals in it which can be done right now in our life time
>evolution theory still cannot and will never be
TOP KEEEEEK!

>>35289514
>Not every religion is directly derived from another, so this argument doesn't really apply. To say Buddhism and Mormonism are the same thing and therefore both irrational because Judaism is irrational is simply nonsense.
The vast majority assume an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being(s). I'm arguing against the main tenents of theism, not whether or not Jesus was actually divine.

>Not at all, you can obviously hold whatever opinion you want without regard to other beliefs. But to assert something is bullshit, you have to back that up.
Like I said, all these religions/theologies/mythologies have common qualities which I am refuting on the whole. They're the ones making the claim, I am saying that none of their claims are rational/substantiated.

>>35283045
Holy shit you're pathetic if you actually believe that
>everyone should believe what I believe, no matter what they think of it

>>35283579
There is zero research to support this. Women just say "we're better at multitasking" because they can't focus

>>35289660
No, faggot, what I am saying is that if I could provide people objective knowledge (even if it is contradictory to my position) I would do it, even if it had negative effects on their happiness.

I am saying that adherence to reality/reason/logic/empiricism is more important than promoting happiness.

You're retarded for not understanding that.

>>35281612
eternal reocurrence makes perfect sense.

time and space are infinite. if your lifetime happens once, it happens an infinite number of times infinitely similar or dissimilar to the one you're living right now.

>>35281612
A god would assume omnipotence and even if a god exist it wouldn't mean it's yahweh.

>>35289628
>Implying 2 animals would have necessary biological diversity to propagate a species
>Implying a boat that large could be built by plebs 2000 years ago

>>35281612

He is. Your mind will never have the capacity to understand him in the slightest way. And you are too primitive for him to care about you.

>>35283945
>I am open-minded
>atheistic empirical induction is the only thing that is true

File: 1408525796445.jpg (27KB, 313x313px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 313x313px

>>35283311
only if you're white

>>35289287
>Except I have evidence of the rigor and reliability of scientific methods/claims.
There is also evidence of scientific rigor lacking in certain studies, one can't simply take claims at face-value as there have been plenty of bullshit studies, usually around controversial issues.

>They claim to be repeatable, and in the vast majority of cases, actually are.
Except you are taking this on faith unless you actually repeat the experiment yourself.

>Equating being laughed at with being burned at the stake
Both are things that will seriously discourage someone from airing their real views.

>1. Authority
>2. Longer life expectancy
>3. Work might be mentally demanding or boring, but generally not physically demanding (nothing like harvesting a field all day with a scythe)
Fair enough, but there were significant downsides to life as a priest as well. It was and still is a rather demanding life.

File: mlady.jpg (282KB, 531x909px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 531x909px

>>35289714
>my knowledge is objective
>your knowledge is subjective
>I have facts, you have an opinion
Atheists are really this arrogant

>>35289847
I am open to empirical evidence that contradicts my beliefs. Excuse me for being super close-minded to your world of higher forms.

>There is also evidence of scientific rigor lacking in certain studies, one can't simply take claims at face-value as there have been plenty of bullshit studies, usually around controversial issues.
Yes, but unlike religion, there is actually a rigor to science that discovers the bullshit studies, at least a good portion of them.

>Except you are taking this on faith unless you actually repeat the experiment yourself.
I don't have to repeat every experiment on Earth to reach the conclusion that most experiments are repeatable. Nor do I have to fuck every woman on Earth to assume that most women of age can get pregnant if they aren't using birth control

>>35289946
I don't claim objective knowledge about the universe.

Theists claim that their subjective beliefs about God are equivalent to knowledge- they are not.

I'm just saying theistic claims are bullshit, if you disagree I'm willing to hear your argument.

>>35290055
>>35289946
Excuse me, I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe*

At the least, I've gone out of my way to make sure I did not do so in this thread.

>>35290103
You're claiming God doesn't exist, that's a pretty big statement about the origins of the universe

>>35290151
I am claiming that the idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being is logically contradictory and not necessary as an explanation for the origins of the universe. I am also disputing the theistic claim that they have objective knowledge of the origins of the universe- they have no evidence that is not take on faith to substantiate this claim.

>>35290151
No, he is claiming there is no reason to believe that a god exists.

>>35281817
There's infinite universes, at least one of them is going to have the Abrahamic God in them.

>>35281612

>IDEA 1
>IDEA 2

IDEA 0 IS REAL FAGGOTS

Fuck off. For humanity to believe absolutely in one fundamental truth is folly. As humans all we do is speculate. Ironically our brightest minds come to a conclusion that's not far off from our past.

It's ironic but we shouldn't just post up shop and conclude that a bunch of men from the past absolutely know exactly what's going to happen in the future. Especially if you know anything about the early days of Christianity and especially Muslims. All these prophets and we don't know a damn thing about the future. At least science has given us a glimpse.

All we as humans can do is do good and have some mediocre faith.

>>35289993
>According to atheistic positivism, only atheistic positivism is true
How convenient

>>35290203
You have no evidence that God doesn't exist either, why are you an atheist then?

>>35290222
>a-theism
>a theos
>no god
Atheism is the literal positive claim that there is no God. What you're describing is agnosticism

>>35290382
I've been over this shit before.
1. We don't know for certain there's an infinite number of universes
2. If something does not exist in this universe, that is the definition of nonexistence, whether or not there are square circles or sky Jews in another universe has no bearing on the reality of this one
3. If a God in another universe does not have matter/energy in this universe, for all intensive purposes it doesn't exist or effect you

>>35290382
>there's infinite universes
>no proof posted

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
-Thomas Aquinas

File: scientism.jpg (98KB, 508x657px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 508x657px

>>35290511
>if we can't see it, it doesn't exist

>>35290495
>You have no evidence that God doesn't exist either, why are you an atheist then?
You have no evidence an undetectable homosexual unicorn isn't fucking you in the ass right now- but that's an unproven illogical assertion and can therefore be discarded immediately.
>>35290575
>"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
Faith is an unreliable process, CTRL+F unreliable if you want to see my posts about this.
>>35290580
>If it has no matter, energy, or detectable influence it still exists
Yeah, but, not having matter or energy is kind of the definition of nonexistence isn't it?

>>35290667
>Faith is an unreliable process, CTRL+F unreliable if you want to see my posts about this.
Literally not getting the quote.

>>35281612

You seem to be mistaken OP, the fact that I believe in the multiverse is precisely why I don't believe in god. If this was the only universe it would be very difficult to explain how seemingly fine tuned for life it is.

>>35290667
You don't believe in gay unicorns but you don't call yourself a-gay-unicornist. What makes God so different? You're clearly claiming that there is no God

File: levelheaded-discussion.png (54KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 300x100px

ITT Fedoras and shit flinging

>>35290580

>If we can't see it, it does exist.
]
lol christfags.

>>35290723
Your quote basically amounts to theists having some kind of instinctual knowledge that atheists have lost at some point

This is actually contrary to the basic reality that no one is born a theist.

Faith is basically "I know I'm right la la la I'm not listening", is that really a reliable way for reaching the truth?

>>35290793
Can you see time? Does time exist?

>>35290842
Time is a concept and does not literally exist, faggot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo

>>35290839
Still not getting it.

>>35290839
>no one is born a theist
That sure explains the hundreds of religions around the world. Even the most backwards of tribes have religion. But they've just been brainwashed by the church and their parents right?

>>35290896
"LOL YOU'RE NOT A THEIST SO YOU'RE WRONG, CAN'T EVEN INTO FAITH LOL FAGGOT :)"
*tips menorah*

>>35290862
Shouldn't that be "creationist logic"? Cause a guy is doing it?

File: image.jpg (29KB, 460x324px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x324px

>>35290842
>thinking time is a tangible thing like dark matter or energy

>>35290945
Now you get it.

>>35290937

I am saying that people are not born adherents of a certain religion, although it is true that there are certain parts of the brain that are correlated with religious experiences/etc.

File: the-future-is-now.gif (4MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 300x200px

Don't you atheists just love the rising development of robots? Soon we'll have no more need for humans and we can all exist together as robots in atheist paradise!

>>35290862
No, that isn't quite right. Even that guy slinging a dead squirrel against a canvas required intelligence. Atheists don't even believe in that. But I do understand what you're trying to convey. And applaud it. Because there's no way in fuck this universe just created its self from absolutely nothing.

>>35281881

I clicked on this and it made me yawn.

>>35290996
That's not what you're saying. You're saying no one is born a theist. At least that's what you were saying there, you just switch so much it's hard to keep up.

>no one is born an atheist
>there is no God
>if we can't detect it, it doesn't exist
Big on the negative claims as always, eh Atheists?

>>35290824
liek dis if u crie evry tiem

>>35291042
That's the empathy portions of your brain.

>>35291016
>If theres no god i dont have to think

retard

>>35281612
>God is real faggots

You can't convince them because their entire concept of reality is a subset of actual reality.

This is why the faggots had to invent the many world's theory in the first place: to substitute infinitely many 'objective but inaccessible' realities for subjective reality.

And now flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns are indeed real, just off in a distant, inaccessible, unknowable universe somewhere.

>>35282851
You do know you can have a moral system without having to believe in a God.

File: 1273432180701.png (19KB, 241x230px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 241x230px

>>35290937
>Using 'but there's hundreds of religions' as an argument

Troll or ill-informed. Ever heard about the god of the gaps? The less you know about the world around you, the more you use "God did it" to fill those voids in knowledge.

>>35291100
Soon robots will be smarter than humans so we don't have to do any more thinking! Computers can just make all the decisions for us because they are always logical! Humans are good in nature, all the wars, poverty, conflict and hate in the world are just result of religion! Don't you get it!

>>35291077
>if we can't detect it, it doesn't exist
If there are no means of detecting it (or could ever be means of detecting it) then it does not exist/
Obviously technology is limited in today's world.
>Theists
>Not generally adherents of a certain religion
Sorry if synonymous terms confuse you. People are "born atheists", and what I mean by this is religion is not a biological necessity/law for humanity, but there actually is a genetic component in religiosity.

File: 1409430430663.jpg (38KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 625x626px

>>35291218
>Soon robots will get curious and come up with ideas and art of their own!

You've been watching too many terminator movies m8

bad b8 i r8 2/8

>>35291249
>>35291077
To clarify
I am saying that if something does not have matter, energy, and is not in any way objectively detectable it does not exist.

>guys god isn't real because we have no evidence for god!
>I believe in the multiverse even though it's just conjecture

>>35291295
>time doesn't exist
>individuality doesn't exist
>knowledge doesn't exist
>dimensions don't exist
>perception doesn't exist
>science doesn't exist

>>35291018

Yeah but god being created out of absolutely nothing makes perfect sense.

You people are so fucking retarded it's physically painful to reply to you.

>>35291377
>time doesn't exist
>individuality doesn't exist
>knowledge doesn't exist
>dimensions don't exist
>perception doesn't exist
>science doesn't exist
Most of these are concepts, like "government", they don't literally exist in the physical world- although there are "symptoms" of these concepts, like watches, the Gadsden flag, etc.
Are you actually retarded, or just a troll?

>>35291497
So you're saying governments don't exist, that they're just a collection of flags, people and rules? Just like humans don't exist, they're just a collection of cells? Cells don't exist, they're just molecules!
How does this make sense in your head

>>35291634
Governments are a conceptual grouping of individuals. Individuals who become a part of the government are not altered physically (i.e. they become arsenic based) during or after their service in the government.

Humans is the conceptual aggregation of all the real, physical atoms, molecules, macro-molecules, tissues, organs, and systems that make up the organism we call a human.

>>35291761
Humans are*

Matter and energy exist, basically everything else is intangible

>>35291497
I'm curious about what you think of the argument of the 'necessary first cause,' and subsequent 'possible cause.' You argued this earlier but only in short sentences as you were addressing other things.

If our universe, as it is currently, is a result of cause and effect, would it be logical to say that ultimately you would have to reach a first cause that transcends subsequent causes, and doesn't require a cause to it?
Wouldn't an infinite regression be illogical?

>>35292152
Well, I don't know why our universe was finely-tuned, nor do I know if the laws of physics were exactly the same 13.7 billion years ago, but I do have an opinion on the prime mover argument/infinite regression argument.

The prime mover is basically the idea that "something" (a creator, initiator, catalyst etc.) must always have existed, but I don't see why theists consider that position logical, but the position that the universe must always have existed is illogical- it's a false dichotomy as far as I'm concerned.

To my knowledge, we don't have any evidence about what exactly happened prior to the Big Bang, but I don't think that a prime mover is the answer, it's not proven and it doesn't seem logically compelling to me- it doesn't even pass Occam's razor because, as far as I'm concerned, an all-powerful and all-knowing being isn't exactly the simplest and most logical answer.

>>35292605
I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying
"The prime mover argument rubs me the wrong way, therefore it is wrong."

I just don't see how "God was always there" is any more logical than "the universe was always there"- like I alluded to earlier the universe might have existed as "nothing" for awhile, but according to some people who are probably smarter than I am the concept of "nothing" can be very complicated.

>>35281612
>OP and every Christfaggot BTFO

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4

File: 1380272468705.jpg (49KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x400px

>>35292605
see>>35294594

>>35294639
Who wrote "The Republic"?

>>35294652
plato

>>35283330

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o

There you go, faggot. Want more?

>>35294984
That's a representation of a mathematical principle. It's impossible to see a mathematical principle in the same way it's impossible to see an idea.

>>35283498
Atheist here, okay genius, whats your theory? The multiverse is the only theory that follows logically.

File: ????? ?????.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>35282837
there is literally nothing wrong with being Jewish

>mfw I'm not afraid of god and follow my own rules which are good enough for me.

I'm drunk and shit but still, an intimidator loses everything once they have nothing to inflict fear with.

>>35281612

This is bait.

File: 1408898617804.png (112KB, 238x276px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 238x276px

>mfw I realize god created a machine he knew would fail but still gets butthurt over it.

So much for being all-knowing, all powerful and perfect, .

>>35288590

>Implying we won't still be niggers hunting in the wild without religion

>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>Then he is not omnipotent.
>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.
>Is he both able and willing?
>Then whence cometh evil?
>Is he neither able nor willing?
>Then why call him God?

how can anyone possibly believe in god when epicurius debunked god centuries ago

File: yZwar74.jpg (24KB, 246x333px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 246x333px

>>35300763

>strawman
>debunk

>>35300892
how is it a strawman? those are all claims made in the bible. 4/10 made me reply

>>35281612
So does multiverse theory just exist to expand the unproven theory that you can travel backwards in time?

File: 1391378787034.jpg (216KB, 780x1040px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 780x1040px

>>35300979

>bible is the only argument for god

>>35300763
this falls apart the moment you realize that God is not willing to prevent evil because it is needed to allow his creations free choice. It becomes irrelevant mainly because by allowing free choice he allows his creations to show genuine love and compassion rather than follow through on a program. It becomes destoryed when you realize that according to Christian doctrine we are in a stage of creation where he is destroying evil, and eventually it will all be purged leaving only the genuine love and compassion he wanted.

>>35301022
It's his holy infallible word, m8. It'd fucking need to be his best argument.

File: 1408761895184.jpg (29KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 316x202px

We have this same fucking thread several times every fucking day.

I'm sick of it. I'm a fundamentalist Orthodox and I'm sick of all of it.

Both sides just fling the same fucking strawmen and fallacies at each other all the fucking time.

Fuck this, I'm going to sleep.

My view: Christians are wrong that we need to believe in God to motivate morality. This article refutes that point very well http://lesswrong.com/lw/ky/fake_morality/

Atheists are also wrong that science can explain morality, or the existence of the universe. And they do make up a lot of bullshit like multiverse theory to make up for their inability to do the latter.

Mathematician Edward Nelson has some very interesting writings on Christianity and mathematics.

File: 04721720147237547313.jpg (802KB, 3648x2052px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 3648x2052px

>>35301022
>god wrote the bible to prove his own existence
>the bible doesn't prove he exists
u wot m8

>>35300763

Read the "Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis, he addresses that main point and a number of others.

>>35301241
addresses, but even by his own admission, all he does is render the idea of a good God plausible. Having read a summary of his arguments, I still think that this problem is a fatal flaw in Chrsitianity

>>35301193

>only christians have the concept of god

top kek

>>35281612
If you're suggesting that the supreme intelligence is somewhere within the multiverse, then that supreme intelligence cannot be attributed to God. An alien or demi-god perhaps, but that supreme intelligence isn't the highest reality.

>>35301333

If all the proofs for Christianity were limited to observations in the natural world, yes.

That is not the case, however.

What does do is rely on what is called revelation which comes principally from Christ and what he taught, the prophets, eye whitness accounts, the arise of morality and ethics in conscious and sentient beings, the experience of numinous awe, etc. Proof of the Christian God comes from outside the natural universe. There are other worlds than these friend.

>>35301511

Right on point. God comes from outside the universe.

>>35301542
I don't see what any of that has to do with the problem of pain

>>35281612
If you can't science doesn't mean your belief is valid.

>>35291018

It isn't even an accurate analogy.

>>35301364

>you have to disprove every type of God even if I am not willing to say what God I am currently arguing for

Your smart.

>I want to continue to be a degenerate
>Therefore I reject the idea of God

You are still gonna be put to death you faggots

>>35302900

You CAN'T disprove every type of god, retard. The only honest position is 'I don't know".

What the fuck would you do if someone believes in an unfalsifiable god? it's pointless trying to disprove it.

>>35302900
His smart, what?