>at some point, inanimate matter just sort of started living

there is no such thing as inanimate matter
this will be revealed in time

Bro we're still inanimate matter.

File: image%3A235709.jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>37915654
If you really believe that theory you are retarded.

Chaos -> self-sustaining system emerges -> self sustaining system does what it does best

>>37915774
Go prove a better alternative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

pick the most mainstream views and stick to them

>>37915774
i dont believe any theory, but please give explanations then

why did life suddenly appeared? or you think life always was there?

>>37915654
>>37915774
>religion: when science is too hard to understand

I would literally have to sit you down like a child and lecture you for hours

>>37915893
but since I don't have this time, watch this instead

https://www.youtube.com/user/sciencestatedclearly/videos

File: paracelsus-4-728.jpg (101KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 728x546px

>>37915654
>matter
This should go to >>>/sci/ /lit/ has become /leftypol/

>>37915893
>>37915909

>no coherent argument or facts
>ad hominem
>watch this video im too smart to talk to you xD

Yikes.

>>37915654
>believing science

why do you reject salvation anon?

>>37915654
Wow, you're so smart and thoughtful.

>>37915654
Tbh there's theories that some form of metabolism came before life, thus giving rise to it.

It wasn't like matter just decided to come to life.

>>37915982
>videos loaded with facts to educate yourself with
>lol no facts, no argument
you can stop posting now

File: Dilated_pupils_2006.jpg (1MB, 1704x2272px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1704x2272px

All of the building blocks of life can be formed naturally as long as you have the right climate and chemical conditions, in an infinite universe it would be silly to think that those conditions couldn't be met.

As far as I've read the general prevailing consensus is that given the right conditions (and billions of years, and a fair amount of luck) simple self replicating molecules will form naturally, which then developed into simple RNA based "life" similar to the viriods that exist today, which then eventually formed proto-DNA and so on and so on.

It should blow your mind, The natural world is fucking incomprehensibly incredible and complex.

>>37915836
First you need to understand that (subjective, arbitrary) human concepts do not exist in the (objective) outside world. Asking when "life" started is like asking the ship of theseus question, or asking at what specific point one colour of the rainbow becomes the next (you could use definitions for this but that just proves how arbitrary it is). A long time ago stuff came together in such a way that it could replicate that situation, add millions and millions of years of evolution and tadah

>creationists want evidence for evolution
>would have to explain dna mutations, replication, and how it codes for proteins
>would have to explain transitionary species
>have to explain evolutionary pressures
>can't explain that in 5 minutes

lol you know what. God is eternal. And one day he just made everything the way it is in it's current form. Oh and every person came from only 2 people, along with every other animal. Even though that population level is functionally extinct.

>>37915654
Wouldn't they come in from meteors or something? Would also bring the question of where they came from too.

Life is the universe's answer to entropy.

Things fall apart and scatter, life binds them together and promotes big fat CLUMPS.

>>37916266
That's such a silly theory. In an infinite universe literally ANYTHING could happen.

Have you heard of Boltzman Brains? Surely in an infinite universe there's far less entropy required to for a brain to be generated which believes complex life exists than for the universe to actually spawn complex life.

Science: matter
Religion: what matters

comparing them as if they were competing belief systems is retarded. they don't have the same purpose

>>37916407
science: the truth
religion: what makes you happy

they really don't have the same purpose

>>37916392
Well, anything within the bounds of the physical laws of said universe. And evidently it just so happens that under the physical laws of our universe life has been formed at least once.

File: IMG_1927.jpg (300KB, 981x1146px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 981x1146px

>>37915654
Not even a religious fag, but I'm convinced it was all luck and magic.

Computers running is also magic. Anything I don't comprehend is magic.

File: Lucas Cranach the Elder - Christ's Head with Crown of Thorns 1520-25.jpg (80KB, 600x807px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x807px

>>37916426
>religion makes you happy
LMAO you are a total fucking retard -- religion is largely tragic and morbid.

"mmm yeaa impending hellfire and doom, eternal punishment for 90% of the world. I'm so fucking happy"

>>37916489
Go ask a religious nut why they are religious.

I'd bet money that they're gonna say "it turned my life around. I'm happier now"

File: smug anime girl.jpg (41KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 900x900px

>>37916315
>>37915893
>>37916426
>not realizing that some people have ideas of religion that do not conflict in any way with science

>>37916521
>it turned my life around. I'm happier now

I'm pretty sure it's because they finally found a group of people they belong with. Church and religion isn't a bad thing.

File: 1498257042466.jpg (13KB, 213x268px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 213x268px

>chemical reactions got more complex

wow anon, really impossible that such thing could happen

>>37916556
That too. My mom was raised that way. When I asked her why she is religious she said because it "gives me hope".

I left it because it was fucking stupid and morbid sounding.

File: 9839483983903.jpg (31KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x360px

>>37916444
There's literally no way anyone can prove that the universe exists, life exists or anything else for that matter. You could just be a brain floating through space thinking these things exist.

>>37916521
They aren't tuned in properly to the Bible if they are in it for the happiness. Keep in mind that most churches, especially today, are not preaching the Gospel, they're fake as shit. Jesus WEPT

>>37916306
I get that. But you can still look for causes. (As in, previous causes, not as in the why of things, i know thats just human). Whats the cause of life appearing? Just chaos? And how did it happen? This world is pretty logical so far so things just suddenly being alive or having conciousness sounds unlikely.

>>37916521
There's a big difference between a "religious nut" and the vast swathes of humanity who practice faith as part of their daily lives.
There's a reason why religion developed and stuck around, it plays an important part in stabilizing a society.
Obviously it's not vital, but for pretty much the entirety of human history up until like a few hundred years ago religion was a huge driving force in the path of civilization.

>>37916573
no what i wonder is why suddenly matter started acting in some way or another. Is not the same a rock moved by physics or an amoeba trying to survive. At one point the matter has a self. And lets not start with humans, matter saying "who am i? what is my destiny?" etc. Why did that happen? How?

>>37916601
Abrahamic religions specifically are cancer.

There's a reason why they get mad to the point of violence when you question it. It's their security blanket. It tells them you have a daddy, and he loves you, and everything will be okay.

Every time I talk to a religious nut they start ranting, and I just nod, and agree. Because they're fucking crazy.

>>37916489

You know you've found a edgy teenage atheist when someone mentions religion and they launch into a rant against one specific sect of Christianity.

>>37916625
When animal brains evolved to be intelligent enough to develop a sense of self? There's an argument to be made that a fair few animals have.

>>37916670
>Every time I talk to a religious nut they start ranting, and I just nod, and agree. Because they're fucking crazy.

Son, when the overwhelming majority of the human species experience some manner of religious faith and you don't, it doesn't make you their superior. It makes you a literal genetic defect. Your brain is malformed in a way that cuts you off from the spirituality that has been at the core of all meaningful human life for our entire existence and I pity you.

>>37916489
Most religious folks thinks they are in that lucky 10% though. It's OTHER religions that must be wrong

>>37916742
Religion makes people happy. That's why it's so prevalent. But religion is for primitive people who don't know anything.

The greeks had zeus. Are you defective for not believing him? God is just modern zeus. But we have science now. I we it's bogus. I know I'm threatening you're emotional security blanket, but you have to get with the times. The age of imaginary daddy pull out your ass to make you feel good is over.

Religion only exists because it comforts people. That doesn't make it true. And now that we have science we know for a fact it's not true. It's like arguing with a kids that santa isn't real.

File: 1449623304819.png (26KB, 616x548px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 616x548px

>>37915834
this video is so fucking cringy how can normies like this shit? and I'm not using cringy in a meme way, I literally cannot listen to this without cringing and wanting to turn it off

>>37916742
Religion might have biological and evolutionary connections but that doesn't mean it's true, much less which of our thousand religions is true.
Our intuitions fail to describe the physical world correctly in nearly every way. Something as simple as the falling rate of two different objects defies intuition.

>>37916897
12-year-olds. Teenage girls.

>>37916861
>I know I'm threatening you're emotional security blanket
>The age of imaginary daddy pull out your ass to make you feel good is over.
see
>>37916673

I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in a monotheistic religion and your attempts to pigeonhole your critics as such just shows us what a very small amount of the hundreds of religions in the world you've actually encountered. You are defective for not believing in SOMETHING. Plenty of studies have been done on this - people who experience some form of religious faith have been proven to be healthier, happier, and more successful in virtually every area of life that it's possible for us to measure.

And it's sad because not only are you cut off from this experience, but you don't even realize the extent to which you're desperately trying to replace this experience with a blind faith in "science".

>>37916522
>not realizing that religion will ultimately always conflict with science, and if you believe otherwise, you misunderstand at least one of them

>>37916991
>people who experience some form of religious faith have been proven to be healthier, happier, and more successful


that's because religion makes people happy, like I said. That doesn't make it true though. Can you not see this?

Also talking about obscure religions is retarded. They are not relevant.

File: tips redditor.png (193KB, 668x552px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 668x552px

>>37915654
these baits are getting deceitful

>>37916991
Beneficial delusions aren't any less delusional. Also your average atheist is more successful than your average believer, per the data

>>37917001
Not necessarily, There are plenty of belief systems that couldn't be anything close to proven/disproved until we have ludicrous universe breaking technology.

File: 1484095665369.jpg (521KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 900x900px

>he fell for the quantum immortality meme

>>37917001
>not realizing that actual scientists are deeply religious

But I'm sure you're more of a real scientist than fakes like Heisenberg, right?

>>37916991
>people who experience some form of religious faith have been proven to be healthier, happier, and more successful in virtually every area of life

Complete bullshit. In fact, just the opposite. Countries with more secular, less religious societies have been proven to fair at least as well if not better in every conceivable metric, be it average income, education, health care, happiness, everything. Where did you pull that bullshit from?

>>37917084
Unfalsifiable = unscientific.

Claiming something to be true within concrete objectivity with no valid reason is unscientific. Simple as that.

>>37915776
basically this, life is just a specific form of matter that replicates itself

virgin faggot are basically an insult to life itself

>>37917106
>not realizing that a scientist being religious doesn't mean there's no conflict between science and religion

>never heard of compartmentalized thinking or intellectual dishonesty

>seriously this retarded

>>37916954
>>37917066

Nobody is talking about whether or not they're "true". If truth is really your ultimate concern then there are plenty of religions with personally verifiable claims about the nature of reality, Buddhism being the most mainstream example.

But it doesn't matter if they're "true" or not. If, for example, I believe that there's a God who watches over me, is pleased when I live a moral life, and will grant me eternal bliss when I die, then what have I lost by believing this? I will die expecting to go to heaven and it I'm wrong and there is no heaven, I'll never know it. There is no downside which is why it's so sad to see guys like you fighting so hard against it. I honestly believe that a lot of it is due to underlying envy over the fact that people are made so happy and so fulfilled in their lives by such a simple thing that you (due to your defective brain) are biologically incapable of experiencing.

>>37917128
There's a lot of support for the theory that gay men were advantageous to a tribe's survival because they were relatively more socially acute and caring. And gay people help with the survival of life and the continuation of the human species indirectly even if they themselves do not reproduce.

>>37917125
Well yeah, that's why I said "belief systems". I'm just playing that there are plenty of religions that don't necessarily conflict with science, In fact for most of humanities history it was religion that drove scientific progress.

>>37917208
>there are plenty of religions that don't necessarily conflict with science

Like? Name me even one which doesn't make unfalsifiable "supernatural" claims about concrete objectivity.

>for most of humanities history it was religion that drove scientific progress

The fact that most people in human history happened to be religious doesn't mean it was religion that drove scientific progress, and there are plenty of examples to show how religion hindered science.

We'd be much further along if we'd have made religion irrelevant a long time ago.

>>37915654
Whatever caused this world to be created and result in life is what I refer to as God.
God is the answer to your question.

Things are in motion, correct?
And something can only be moved if they are acted upon by another moving object. (remember, heat is included under movement, because that's essentially what heat is, particals moving very quickly)
So, that means something had to have acted on the first object to make it move. That is what we refer to as God.
The only other explanation would be that things were ALWAYS moving, and there wasn't a begining. But this can be disproved by the fact that energy is used while moving an object. The only way it wouldn't would be in a perfect vaccuum, which we also know wasn't the case, because there had to be some sort of friction to cause these particals to separate.

>>37917188
Because all the religions that matter have convenient doctrines about forcing your beliefs on others. If you want to have private delusions, that's fine. When you start wanting to affect the real world, you're going to need evidence for why.

>>37915654
this is when you realize that atheism and science still can't provide all the answers

>>37917109
>Where did you pull that bullshit from?

Directly out of my ass, of course oh wait what's this

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2886974/Study-Religious-people-happier-life-satisfaction-others.html
>Of the more than 15,000 sampled, 45 percent of those who attend a religious service on a weekly basis described themselves as 'very happy,' while only 28 percent of those who said they 'never' attend said the same.

>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/268713
>The study used brain waves that tested participants brain activity. Those with a belief in God showed less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The findings found that even after controlling for personality and cognitive ability those with a religious belief has a calming effect making it easier for them to feel less anxious about facing the unknown or making a mistake.

>https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/study-people-who-believe-in-god-are-more-responsive-to-treatment-of-depression/275314/
>Strong belief was associated with better outcomes over the course of treatment: the lessening of depression, reductions in self-harm, and increases in what they called psychological well-being -- things like peace of mind, ability to have fun, and satisfaction with life.

"just the opposite" lol get the fuck out of here and just accept that you're wrong.

>>37917274
The most popular scientific theory for the creation of the universe says it is infinite

>>37917293
>Because all the religions that matter

You mean the Abrahamic religions?

It's kind of sad that three of the major world religions all proudly trace their history to a guy who tried to kill his son because a voice in his head told him to.

>>37917188
That's not all there is to christianity though.

At it core it teaches you lustful feelings are immoral, and so are gays. It also teaches slaves are okay to have. But what you're talking about is cherry picking parts out of it. But there are parts in it that are bad. You can't justify the whole thing just because it has "some" good in it.

>>37917316
>this is when you realize that atheism and science still can't provide all the answers

yet

>>37917274
please never talk about science again

>>37917332
I'm sure there are several hundred African tribal religions that are just as violent

>>37917364
Of course, but African religions aren't followed by more than half the world population, like abrahamic ones are.

>>37917293
>all the religions that matter

Why what a convenient way of sidestepping the issue so you can pretend that all religions fall into the very narrow category you're criticizing. Sorry lad but you only find that kind of aggressive evangelizing among Christianity and Islam and even then, not all sects agree that it's the thing to do. I know you're very attached to your worldview where evil Christians are out to force everyone into church and kill all the gay but the real world doesn't work that way and you don't get to write off billions of Hindus, Buddhists, folk religions, etc. just because they invalidate your argument.

File: IMG_1036.jpg (40KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 320x320px

>claim to be scientific
>base your beliefs on something that some guy wrote in a book/paper that you're too stupid to understand and are poorly interpreting
>delude yourself into thinking you're any different from religious people

>>37917274
>2017
>still citing the "unmoved mover" idea

Something like the second law of thermodynamics is a feature of our observable universe. To say this property extends beyond to whatever our universe emerged "out of" (if that even makes sense) is conjecture at best.

It's even possible our universe emerged from an infinite regress of causal origins, or that existence at some yet-undiscovered fundamental level is in fact eternal. In either case, reality has no "beginning", it simply "is". Aquinas himself couldn't dismiss these possibilities.

There's also the fact that a god, assuming one does exist, brings up more questions than it answers. For instance, if god has "always been", then what was it doing for the LITERAL ETERNITY before creating the universe? And why all of a sudden decide to make us?

By the way, making the idea of god more and more vague does nothing to help your arguments. If anything, it makes them less solid.

>>37917332
>every major religion got kickstarted by a nutcase having a psychotic episode
good thing we have treatments for them now

>>37917348
What, are those supposed to be bad?

>>37917320
lol I've got links too, dumbass.

>http://www.journalofhappiness.net/frontend/articles/pdf/v04i01/10.pdf

>The results found there was no difference in happiness levels between any of the groups for both
measures of happiness. These findings suggest the religious are not happier than the nonreligious

>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232977860_Religion_and_Happiness_Still_no_association

>no significant associations were found between scores on the religiosity and happiness measures

>https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201102/does-religion-make-people-happier

>According to Gallup data for 2010, the happiest nations were Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. These are among the least religious countries in the world. Also according to Gallup data, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were the second, third, and fourth least religious states, being exceeded only by Estonia in their atheism.

You're the one pushing bullshit, dumbass.

>>37917348

I'm using Christianity as an example since you don't seem to be capable of pulling your head out of your ass for long enough to realize that Christians comprise only a third of the religious in the world at best and I'm not one of them. The core of Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with either one of those things and I'm sorry but you're really just outing yourself as a angry child who's rebelling against the faith practiced by people in his direct vicinity without having made any effort on your own to actually learn anything about it.

Like I said, I'm not a Christian, but even so I can tell that you're just making shit up to justify your prejudices. Saying things like "At it core it teaches you lustful feelings are immoral" is basically just atheist virtue signalling. Other atheists will pop little superiority boners when they see it and everyone else, be they Christians or just people who are educated enough to recognize that you're a fool, will just start to ignore you since you obviously have no clue. Kind of like what I'm going to do now.

File: 1466403340225.jpg (113KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 720x960px

>>37917402
>thinking having confidence in science written by "some guy" which has practical application and demonstrability in the real world is in any way equatable to belief in an ancient book of made-up bullshit

>>37917400
I don't have a problem with religion. It is you people who have a problem with atheism (calling us "defective"). When you use words that delegitimizes us as humans, I have a right to defend my point of view.

>>37917128
>virgin faggot are basically an insult to life itself

Or are they the bringer of the original chaos that the self-sustaining system nearly wiped out? Slowly working towards righting wrongs.

>>37915654
There are a number of theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

>>37917500

Nice google work there anon but I see you failed to actually read your studies.

>http://www.journalofhappiness.net/frontend/articles/pdf/v04i01/10.pdf
>this general finding is not consistent across other measures of either construct.

Pretty nice find there "we used one model of measuring happiness which showed that religious people aren't happier but we didn't find this result with other models" very nice, A+. And you threw in some guy's blog, also nice. It certainly makes sense to me. White people in small, ethnically and culturally homogenous Western European nations are so happy because they aren't religious. It certainly couldn't be influenced by any of the preceding factors.

Studies aside, this is really just common sense. You can't go outside without tripping over people who will tell you how much happier they are now that they've found religion but I've not once encountered someone who said, "Wow, I used to be religious but I'm so much happier now that I've rejected all faith." The best you have going for you is this misplaced sense of superiority that you angrily fling all over the place any time you see someone dare to mention religion on the internet.

jesus is real, I've met the nigga
real solid bloke
gave me a blowie for free
he's a real giver
said some bs about miracles
oh well
got from free bread and red water out of it
spread the word

>>37917627
>When you use words that delegitimizes us as humans

I always suspected there was some substantial overlap between the edgy atheists and the tumblr crowd. Look, if I see a guy who was born without legs and call him defective, I'm just pointing out a simple fact. Pretending that the guy is just the same as normal people is just being dishonest.

By the same token, it's not hard to see that religion has been a major, MAJOR feature of human life for the entirety of recorded history. We already know that the ability to experience religious faith is largely genetic so when you're incapable of doing so, what other conclusion is there to make? You can cry about science all you want but despite all that modern science, atheists are still a tiny minority.

Realizing that your brains are malformed is just applying simple logic. Come on, you like science, right? You're defective; this is science.

>>37917717
I'm not talking about specific people, I'm talking about overall societies. More secular nations fare better in every metric.

Of course it makes sense that belief in bullshit can make people very happy, but it also tends to fuck with overall prosperity for the society.

There's also the fact that, again, on a specific person level, it's entirely subjective, and there are plenty of people who are happier after freeing themselves from restrictive dogma, which is also common sense.

>>37917821
>the ability to experience religious faith is largely genetic
Top-tier bait. Not an accepted view anywhere in mainstream science or even mainstream theology.

>>37917898
>I'm talking about overall societies. More secular nations fare better in every metric.

And yet you're only applying this observation to a incredibly small period of human history. Come back once you're studied at least the last 1000 years and measured the success of societies against how secular they are. Claiming that a given society is "successful" simply because it's doing well at the moment and claiming that this success is the result of very recent changes in that society is foolish at best.

So you have two options here. You can take these same societies and see how they're faring a few hundred years down the road or you can look at history for evidence of your claims. But I can tell you right now that you'll find the opposite to be true.

>>37917980
>1000 years and measured the success of societies against how secular they are

You mean like the middle-east? Or medieval Europe? You honestly believe religion's never fucked up societies by stifling progress before?

You're hilarious.

So far, for the past few hundred years, secular societies based on Enlightenment-era philosophy have been far outperforming everyone else.

>>37916369
Life still generates entropy. And by replicating itself generates even more entropy. Second law of thermodynamics rules both inanimate and animate world

>>37917964

Doing these really basic google searches for you is getting old, lad. The next time you see some claim that really triggers you hard and makes you think, "No, that couldn't possibly be true! I'm an atheist because I'm super smart and enlightened by my intellect!" then please use those smarts to do a quick search before you start flinging emotion-driven lies all over the place. Real talk, are you a woman? Because you're fucking acting like one.

>http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene
>Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23681197
>The associations between individual religiousness and parental religiousness were substantial

Everything's genetic to at least some extent, you fool.

>>37918112
Are you sure you're replying to the right person? I'm not the one you're replying to here but it seems to me the one you're replying to was attacking the idea of genetically-driven religious faith because they themselves are religious...

>>37917201
If that's true then being gay must not be genetic since if it was they'd have all died out.

>>37918020
>You mean like the middle-east? Or medieval Europe? You honestly believe religion's never fucked up societies by stifling progress before?

See, here's another one of those red herrings that tell me that you have never studied history and are basing both your argument and your worldview on what makes you feel good to believe. Wait, basing your beliefs on very shallow knowledge with a whole lot of ignorant faith backing it up? Why, that almost sounds like those religious people you're so eager to attack!

Yes, I do mean like the middle-east. While I don't doubt that your knowledge of the middle-east and Islam only extends back to the middle of the last century at best, the history of both is very long and varied and there have been significant periods (we're talking about a span of a good 6 to 8 centuries) where the Islamic world was not only deeply religious but also home to the majority of the world's scientific centers. For example, a very large portion of basic mathematics was developed by Muslim mathematicians during this period.

The whole "medieval dark ages omg they hated science and religious people executed all the smart people" is so absurdly false that, again, anyone who's done even the slightest amount of research into the subject recognizes it as such. Once again, a huge amount of modern science has its roots in the work done by medieval Christian monks.

>>37918250
Have a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdsOL71tns

>>37918362

Did you really just link me a fucking youtube video of some meme "scientist"? I say, "Hey, there's like 800 years of evidence of deeply religious cultures producing a wealth of scientific progress" and your response is, "But wait, here's a video of some atheist celebrity who probably disagrees if you feel like watching him for 40 minutes!"

The following people are a TINY sampling of the scientists I could offer you evidence of. These people lived under a Islamic caliphate.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB
>In the 12th century, Latin translations of his work on the Indian numerals introduced the decimal positional number system to the Western world. Al-Khwarizmi's The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations in Arabic. He is often considered one of the fathers of algebra. He revised Ptolemy's Geography and wrote on astronomy and astrology.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Mu%CA%BF%C4%81dh_al-Jayy%C4%81n%C4%AB
>Al-Jayyani wrote important commentaries on Euclid's Elements and he wrote the first known treatise on spherical trigonometry. He is one of several Islamic mathematicians to whom the law of sines is attributed.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
>Ibn al-Haytham made significant contributions to the principles of optics, astronomy, mathematics and visual perception. He is considered to be the father of optics. He was the first to explain that vision occurs when light bounces on an object and then is directed to one's eyes. Ibn al-Haytham is widely considered to be one of the first theoretical physicists, and an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence-hence understanding the scientific method five centuries before Renaissance scientists.

>>37918112
>if you don't have the right genes it's impossible to experience faith and atheists lack these genes
>the ability to experience religious faith is largely genetic
>some part of it is genetic

You've made all 3 claims. Which is it?

The first book you're referring to actually doesn't support the kind of genetic determinism you seem to be arguing for. I know there's that figure of the "40 to 50 percent genetic component", but can you give me a direct quote explaining what that means, exactly? How is that quantified? The notion of "genes" here is also very, very ambiguous. Moreover, IQ is highly similar between identical twins; atheism is also positively correlated with IQ. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.

As to the second source:
>The associations between individual religiousness and parental religiousness were substantial *and mediated by shared environmental effects*.
>The results suggest that inter-individual differences in religiousness are due to multiple sources.

Which brings us back to the first point. What claim is it exactly that you're trying to make?

>>37918527
I never said (nor did he) that there were never any scientists in the middle-east during this time. He said that the rise of religious extremism put a HUGE damper on scientific progress, which it did.

As he said, for such a huge population, there ought to be a LOT more scientific progress out of that region than there is.

>>37915834
I remember when that "history of japan" video blew up. Put it off forever because I was afraid I'd like it, but was disappointed even by that. It doesn't say anything interesting about its subject matter, just forms weak jokes surrounding it.

>>37916579
> I left it because it was fucking stupid and morbid sounding.

And yet he still posts on a board filled with depressed, delusional, suicidal virgins