>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frien dlyatheist/2017/04/26

>>82101732
>atheists
you mean /pol/tards in disguise

they need to get laci green and riley dennis on the show

File: HeManT.png (415KB, 471x425px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 471x425px

>>82101752
>freindly athiest
>a /pol/tard in disguise

>>82101752
You could at least have a cursory glance at the article

>>82101732
It fucking sucks being an atheist and knowing that 90% of all atheists are just edgy rebellious teens who haven't put any fucking thought into the matter. I've started calling myself non-religious in a vain attempt to distance myself from them. The show's fucking gay. Literally just another carbon clone talk show but this one doesn't even try to be funny. And it's centered around some flavor of the week phase that the left is going through involving 'science.'

>>82103874
Just go agnostic, family. It is the light and the truth.

File: Norm.png (49KB, 636x364px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 636x364px

>>82103874
>flavor of the week

uhh you sure you don't mean flavor of the last 3 fucking years?

File: euphoric.webm (2MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x480px

>>82101732
The times, they are a-changin'.

You'll be a conservative soon, Hemant.

What is the point of having an audience in this kind of show?

>>82104136
Herd mentality / suggestion. If we want to eat at a restaurant and we walk past one with no people in it and one with several people in it, we are drawn to the one with people. We desire what others desire.
If there are people present that are laughing and clapping, we want to partake in that. At least the 50% of the population that are happy go lucky.

>>82103968
Fuck this cunt is too based.

>>82104206
Yeah, that was what I was thinking but I couldn't think of the term, like laugh tracks telling people when something is supposed to be funny.

>>82103968
kek, based norm

>>82104273
I think the proper term is social proofing. Not quite the same as what the anon above with the restaurant analogy meant.

>>82101732

>even atheists

That's because The Transgender Question is this generations "Intelligent Design". It's an anti-scientific ideological topic that people are attempting, by stealth or force, to insert into the curriculum and have taken seriously by the public.

Being asked to "think about" "gender as a spectrum" is like being asking to contemplate that perhaps "someone, you know, not-necessarily-god, but someone intelligently designed us as a species".

Bill Nye's little performance here was on par with shit like God's Not Dead for any rational or intelligent fedora tipper. It's was cringe worthy and painful to witness.

>>82103874
>I've started calling myself non-religious in a vain attempt to distance myself from them.
I do this too.
It works pretty well.

>>82103874
i call myself apatheist (portmanteau of apathy and theism) when pressed, which usually makes people never talk to me again (which is what i prefer)

>>82104741
>making up your own words to show how little you care when you care so hard you make up new words
You're right. I don't want to talk to you ever again either.

im analtheist

>>82103968
And /tv/ says right wing comedy doesn't exist.

I'm a themist, because I believe in them boys, God and Jesus, they never let me down.

>>82104955
Jesus is a good boy. He dindu nuffin wrong.

>its a /tv/ has another autistic religious serious discussion thead

>try to falsely associate atheism with sjws for years
>be surprised when they aren't associated

>>82103874
Just be fucking agnostic. You get to shit on everyone.

is everyone retarded nowadays ? GENDER = BIOLOGY = MALE or FEMALE
what all these redditfags are discussing is the idea masculinity and femininity within society but they're confusing it with
>MUH 6 GORILLION GENDERS
fucking dumb cunts like that milo stewart bitch who identify as *gender non binary* because she "doesn't feel completely male or female" like stfu cunt you're a woman who thinks she's not because sometimes you act like a guy. WOMEN ARENT FEMININE 24/7 YOURE DESCRIBING PERSONALITY DAFT CUNT

bill nye is one of the dumbest people alive. and i mean that genuinely.

at least he was somewhat entertaining when i was a child.

>>82105137
found the BRUNNMMPMPH supporter

>>82105137

FUCK WHITE IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL IDENTIFYING DRUMPF

>>82105175
hang yourself or we'll do it for you during the riots because brunnmmpmph didn't fix shit

>>82105137

Gender is a social construct you MORON. Women only exist in as much as a human behaves like the social expectation of a woman.

By the way anyone born with a penis regardless of their behavior is inherently a rapist and owes me money.

File: IMG_0537.jpg (386KB, 1244x2000px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1244x2000px

>>82105137

>>82101732
Even ignoring the liberal stuff, the format of the show is terrible, it panders too much to "the youths", Bill Nye isn't that funny, there's nothing really covered that goes beyond a 6th grade science class' curriculum, the editing is horrible and presents the show in the most ADHD style possible, the studio audience is obnoxious, the stupid skits/songs/dance routines have no useful information in them and only detract from the show, etc...

>>82105175
rump TONAL dBLLLAARRMMPFHHHH

File: 150831washington.jpg (72KB, 482x332px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 482x332px

>>82105208

>Implying Brrrrunnnnmppppffhhhhhhffffffffhhhhhffff isn't going to liquidate you once you have outlived your usefulness and he gets sick of Ivanka's nagging

>>82105222

>Plumber Dyke
>Plumber Femme

Where the fuck is Plumber Fukboi?

JFC

>>82105253
He's a neocon jew puppet. Drumpf has shown himself of being incapable to pandering to /pol/ and only redditors defend himnowadays. He won't do shit to anyone except maybe killing middle eastern children for Israel.

I identify as a 4chan shitpost, someday we will represented better in movies

>>82104426
I agree with this in regards to biological sex which has a growing mountain of pseudo-science coming from politically motivated activists. There are social "science" papers now claiming that not just gender but physical sex is a spectrum, or even that it doesn't exist. There is literally no research that supports it, your comparison to intelligent design is apt.

>>82104741

a real Gregory Berrycone

People don't realize the whole gay thing is like fashion, it comes and goes, it has happened countless of times in different countries in Europe

>>82105325

I *think* they intentionally muddy the waters by "accidentally" using "sex" when referring to their new definition of "gender".

And yes, even if you want to subscribe to the sociological view of the issue, there are plenty of people now trying to claim there is a hard science basis to this and that it is biological (you will often hear about "female" and "male" brains and testosterone and estrogen levels during pregnancy - nearly all of it bizarre pseudo-science on par with "muh fossils are only 2000 years old")

Can you imagine if a bunch of white people in black face came out and started rapping how "It ain't whack to be black"?

That's how I imagine trans people who saw that dance segment felt.

>>82105391
I didn't think trans people where capable of recognizing anything on a tv screen, like they just see a bright light with noises

>>82101732
Well it makes sense, the gender theory is practically creationism, since it's based on magical thinking and no scientific evidence.

>>82105361
Well, that's usually because people kept killing them

>>82103942
>>82105102
you don't know what agnostic means.

>>82104762
>>82105346

File: log out.png (48KB, 1069x587px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1069x587px

>>82104762
>>82105346
t.nonce

>>82105372
>you will often hear about "female" and "male" brains
So the same people who have been arguing for years that there's no difference between sexes, right down to the brain, are now arguing exactly the opposite? Don't they also realise they're straying dangerously close to the sexist and racist rhetoric they've spent years denouncing?

>>82105472
>special snowflake words
Ah, yes. Pansexual, Queersexual, butchsexual...

>>82101752
literally what?

>>82105436
Just looked it up, it meant exactly what I thought it did. What did you mean by this?

>>82105494
>belief in god is binary and determined by your genes
nigga what

>>82105549
>sexuality is a genetic spectrum
What did he mean by this?

>>82105542
unless you're looking on urban dictionary the meaning just means a lack of knowledge, like atheist means a lack of believe in a god and asexual is a lack of sexuality.
Being agnostic just means you realize you don't know, it doesn't make you a moderate, an in-between, an undecided or an alternative.
It's not even mutually exclusive, you can be agnostic and still believe in god or be an atheist.

>>82101752
wow, an actual retard

It is pretty embarrassing desu.

>>82105542
you are not a religious person but you acknowledge that there is something superior to us

>>82103968
Fuck, I wish he'd make more episodes of his Youtube show.

>>82105570
Agnostic master race reporting in. That's not what agnostic means. That just sounds like something atheists tell themselves to feel smart. Reminder:
>No one can prove God exists. And no one can prove God doesn't. Both are measures of faith.

>The only true intellectual stance to take is one of agnosticism. Anything else is without empirical evidence.

>I see more and more people claiming to be atheists, but I think they are saying that in religious condemnation, and it isn't a true objective standpoint but an open reaction to what they disagree with.

>The irony is that it's agenda-driven to the same degree religion is and they cannot disassociate their emotion from objective logic.

>People call agnostics fence-sitters or cowards for not picking sides, but they win because a clinical debate without empirical evidence is defeatist.

>If you are trying to get people to "pick a side" then you are emotionally compromised and you're a moronic subhuman.

>>82105612
Are you retarded?

>>82105627
maybe

>>82105222
>shapeshifter
fucking reptilians get off our internet
REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>82105099
Not all atheists are sjws, but most sjws are atheists.

>>82105626
>And no one can prove God doesn't
>talking about empirical evidence when you don't even know where the burden of proof lies

>>82101752
/pol/ is a christian board you mong

File: 1450656408758-0.png (25KB, 276x213px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 276x213px

>>82105626
>t. atheist without balls
The question never was about evidence. You're like a retard asking how do you pedal this bike when you're trying to buy a car.

You're pretending atheists and religious are debating evidence when evidence is just a buzzword and not what it's about.

>>82105626
I am agnostic.
I believe agnostic is the right way to be and I have agnostic religious friends.
You are preaching to the choir.

But it is also true that edgy agnostics are misusing the word to be contrarian to edgy atheists.
Atheists poisoned the word and now agnostic is being used as the new word but in the exact same way.

Again, agnostic just means you don't know.
It does not imply you believe or don't, it just contextualizes whether you think your believe is demonstrable or if you think it's inherently indemonstrable.
It's philosophical more than anything.

It just annoys me that we're all supposed to pretend the word changed it's meaning just because edgy fedora tippers ruined the word atheist.

File: rage.png (19KB, 300x309px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x309px

>>82105137
i was checking our company newsletter and i found this article that our tellers (i work in a bank) would now be using nongender specific pronouns when addressing customers. I really taught it was some kind of a joke or its satire but they actually plan on implementing it since HSBC is starting theirs

JFC JUST NUKE MELBOURNE ALREADY

>>82105561
No sex is binary you tool, stop applying the same standard to everything else there is nuance in....philosophy of all things

>>82105671
>my imageboard has a religion
kys

>>82105666

>muh science
>muh burden of proof

science can do nothing but shrug when posited with the biggest questions about the genesis of existence

considering that god is a logical theory for existence

therefore agnostic is the correct scientific position

>>82105709
I'll let you in on a secret. Pansexual is a special snowflake sexuality and not how you're born

There are only two sexualities and they're straight and degenerate

>>82105741
actually there are a lot of scientific solutions to the origins of the universe, you can't say it's a shrug.
Agnostic is just the logical choice until anything can be proven completely, which may never happen.

File: SRS doesnt work.jpg (228KB, 1271x613px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1271x613px

>>82105391
>That's how I imagine trans people who saw that dance segment felt.

The irony is that all of this hurts the transexual community more than it helps it. Now you have thousands of people thinking they are transexuals (Or Trendsexuals if you will) waving their made up words and making transexuals look crazier as result. The suicide rates for transexual people were pretty high. Now any legitimate problem a person with actual gender disphoria will be ignored under a sea of tumblr posts and oversensitive people thinking they got a mental disorder when in reality they have self-esteem issues at worse.

The LGBT community hurts itself more and more every day and is a beautiful clusterfuck.

>>82105777

no, there are a lot of scientific THEORIES to the origin of the universe

of which god is one - thus agnostic

checkmate

that's not how it works.
a scientific theory needs to be rooted in fact where only some untestable value remains.
That is why gravity is only a theory, you could also say prehistoric palaeontology is theoretical because no one actually saw the creatures back then.
We're still learning about the dinosaurs, scientific consensus of what they looked like and how they behaved has changed drastically in only this decade.

This is different in a belief in a god because it's a stab in the dark based on nothing.
On a philosophical level being a theist is just as reasonable as being an atheist which is why agnosticism is so attractive especially now.
The scientific theories such as parallel universes and the paradox of our existence forcing our universe to always exist and time-1 not existing because time is relative are a little more than shrugs.

>>82105664
I'd say this is likely true, thinking about it

>>82106190
Of course it is. Some atheists objected to that "atheism+" idea, but the majority rolled with it.

>>82106311
the majority of atheists don't define themselves as atheists so I find what you're saying unlikely.

Forms and labels and things should just bypass this whole issue by using the term "sex" instead of "gender".

And about agnosticism: you either believe in God or you don't. If you go around calling yourself "agnostic" you are just a pussy who is afraid to be labeled an edgy atheist or afraid to be labeled as a religious person. It's a special snowflake designation that you choose because you want to feel superior to others.

>>82101752
>Muh /pol/ altrite Boogeyman
You guys do realize that /pol/ is 70% shitskins LARPing and shit posting right? And if you faggots didn't have your panties in a bunch most of the time, they wouldn'tbother you guys. Im Latino and browse /pol/ every day and see nothing but Brazilians and Poo in the Loos shit posting all the time. Kys you fucking underaged high school faggots. /Tv/ is easily the most pussy board in existence. And I say that as someone who lurks /his/ and /lit/

>>82104426

Gender is a spectrum, hermaphrodites for example, but that has nothing to do with transgenderism.

You are right that transgenderism is anti-science though. These retarded leftists think gender is a fucking persona.

The problem is that transgenderism was cultivated for years in colleges outside of the realm of science, and the people who wrote the most about it were not scientists. They were philosophers aka bullshit artists.

>>82106498
>Gender is a spectrum, hermaphrodites for example
Are you retarded? That's a defect, a mutation that cripples the person for life. And don't you start talking how someone could be fine. They're all basically mutilated or infertile. An error. A mistake. Not a gender.

>>82106354
A few years back, being an open atheist was hot shit, in case you forgot.

>>82106707
try 5 years back.
now everyone mislabels themselves as agnostics because they can't take the heat.

>>82101796
You think this guy ever got his dick sucked

>>82106725
>now everyone mislabels themselves as agnostics because they can't take the heat.

Or maybe they grew up.

File: 149319.jpg (545KB, 2817x2465px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 2817x2465px

WUMBA BUMBO

There is no such things as fucking agnostic. If you claim to be agnostic then by definition you don't believe in a fucking god. Look at the word athiest without the stupid internet stigma or the need to convince people you aren't a edgy fedora and all 'agnostics' fit the definition of what the word athiest is supposed to describe.

File: 1493112323878.png (17KB, 630x100px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 630x100px

>>82101752

>>82105099
Atheism and SJWs go hand in hand. Here, let Zizek explain. This also explains Europe's current want (and later regret) of migrants due to years of rising atheism in Europe.

>As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill. And, ultimately, 'freedom of religious belief' — the right to worship false gods.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/17/3478816.htm
>However, even if Lacan's inversion appears to be an empty paradox, a quick look at our moral landscape confirms that it is a much more appropriate description of the atheist liberal/hedonist behaviour: they dedicate their life to the pursuit of pleasures, but since there is no external authority which would guarantee them personal space for this pursuit, they get entangled in a thick network of self-imposed "Politically Correct" regulations, as if they are answerable to a superego far more severe than that of the traditional morality. They thus become obsessed with the concern that, in pursuing their pleasures, they may violate the space of others, and so regulate their behaviour by adopting detailed prescriptions about how to avoid "harassing" others, along with the no less complex regime of the care-of-the-self (physical fitness, health food, spiritual relaxation, and so on).

>Today, nothing is more oppressive and regulated than being a simple hedonist.

>>82106498
Hermaphrodites don't exist in humans, it's different to intersex. The fact that they exist does not mean gender is a fucking spectrum, it means there is male or female or people with genetic defects, thats not a spectrum in the way these cunts are describing it.

>>82106498
Hermaphroditism is a mutation idiot

File: 1489088642723.jpg (84KB, 495x417px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 495x417px

>>82106832
sniper gang kodak
(cuz i got it by myself)
skrr skrr skrr skrr skrr
why you keep that tool like that, why you move like that

>>82101732
Check the catalogue before making a another thread you stupid bitch.

>>82106498

When you talk about hermaphrodites and intersex, you're talking about sex, not gender

Christcucks are seriously embarrassing.

File: 1471360375963.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

where were you when you found out your childhood idol turned out to be a complete fraud?

>>82101732
>look at this article from a news site no one's heard off

>>82105626
you're a fucking idiot. read an epistemology book. the other anon was right. agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief. we don't know whether god does or doesn't exist, so we're agnostic in knowledge, however we also don't have evidence of god which is asserted to exist and if you want to be logically coherent and have an evidentiary base belief system than it is only reasonable to be an atheist. what you should call yourself is an agnostic-atheist.

>>82105137
Gender is male or female, yes.

I think people may be somewhat close by thinking masculinity and feminity are genders, but they are actually gender norms, traits associated with genders.

But yeah, these idiots have confused personality, behavior, actions, personas with gender. They think gender role = gender norm = gender. Those are 3 different things.

Judith Butler said gender is "performative" and she's wrong. You could argue that acting macho is performative, but "macho" is not a gender, it's a way of presenting a tough personality. If guys in a culture tend to act macho, that's a gender norm. If women in a culture tend to be homemakers that's a gender role.

These idiots think "change your persona, change your gender." No, all you've done is invent some new persona.

>>82106967
Patheos is a pretty well known site for religious news actually.

>>82101752
there is no god and Hitler did nothing wrong.

gas the kikes, race war now; nothing happens when you die.

>>82106967
this.

fucking alt right sjws bloviating because science is too hard for their tiny little redneck christian brains :^P

>>82105325

Sex is gender and gender is sex and it is a spectrum, because mutants happen. But just because it's a spectrum, that doesn't mean you can change genders.

For example, this is a mutant who has testes inside them but looks like a female from the outside:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
>Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) is a condition that results in the complete inability of the cell to respond to androgens.

>As such, the insensitivity to androgens is only clinically significant when it occurs in genetic males (i.e. individuals with a Y chromosome, or more specifically, an SRY gene).

>All affected individuals are phenotypically female; they develop a normal female habitus, despite the presence of a Y chromosome.

>Women with complete androgen insensitivity are born phenotypically female, despite having a 46,XY karyotype.

>The gonads in these women are not ovaries, but instead, are testes

>All forms of androgen insensitivity, including CAIS, are associated with infertility, though exceptions have been reported for both the mild and partial forms.

>Individuals with CAIS are raised as females. They are born phenotypically female and almost always have a heterosexual female gender identity

But people with CAIS are not transgender, they are "intersex."

>>82103968
I'm so excited that he's getting a Netflix special.

>Norm Macdonald: Hitler's Dog, Gossip & Trickery

Great title.

>>82106832
Agnostic means that you live non-religiously but are still open to the idea of God/gods/the divine by claiming that we can never know for sure.

Anything else added next to the word "agnostic" is purely part of atheist semantics.

>>82105785
I agree with that, yet I don't believe "the LGBT community" (most of them just want to be the fuck alone and be respected with their choices, thing that is apparent to me from personal experience with friends, don't know about you) is hurting itself, but media at exposing the normalization of their issues as an external thing.

>>82103874
American atheists and atheists from deeply religious countries fall into this. Australia doesn't suffer from this problem.

>>82106755
I must be really old because I grew out of atheism and then grew out of agnosticism.

>>82101752
Let me guess: they're working for Vladimir Putin?

>>82105785
>transexuals
It would be nice if you didn't use bigoted slurs while pretending to be knowledgeable about trans people.

>>82105391
Can you imagine if a bunch of white people in black face came out and started rapping how they were transracial?

Yes I know about Dolezal

>>82105422
>based on magical thinking and no scientific evidence.

so most progressivism and liberalism?

File: IMG_5811.png (595KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 750x1334px

>>82103874
Atheists are fucking cancer

They shit all over chrisitanly but bow to Islam like all leftist parasites, go on any "athiest" FB page and there's pro Islam shit like this all over it

>>82105626
Q. Do you believe in God?

Atheist
A. No

Agnostic
A. No

Hmm. What's that word for lack of belief in God? Oh yeah, atheism. I guess that's why many atheists call agnostics fencesitters.

>>82107126
So, what are you now grampa?

>>82107209
>Agnostic
>A. No
>Hmm. What's that word for lack of belief in God? Oh yeah, atheism. I guess that's why many atheists call agnostics fencesitters.

Thing is, "no" is different to "I can't prove its existence, so I don't get to say". For example, there are agnostics that believe in some sort of God.

>>82103968
Norm needs to sober up for a couple of hours and post another fucking podcast

>>82107168
liberalism is such a wide and relative term that I have no idea how can you say it's magical thinking with a straight face

File: liberal autistic screeching.jpg (9KB, 262x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 262x300px

>>82107198
>oh no trannies can't go in whatever bathroom they want to, truly our rights are being destroyed

>>82105222
>goy

>>82107209
More like:
Q. Is there a possibility for god to exist?

Atheist: Impossible.
Agnostic: Maybe.

>>82107238
22 yo agnostic non-theist.
I think I grew out of atheism at 13 and agnosticism at 17 when I realized I was using the word wrong.
Non-theist literally means atheist but it circumvents this whole pandora's box of an argument when just mentioning it in passing.

>>82101732
atheists=lefties=faggots and transgender degenaretes now?

>>82105709
>sex is binary

Usually. Rarely, things like hermaphrodites are born. But they are intersex, not transgender. Transgender is a meme.

>>82107198
>lgbtq people, muslims

I seriously feel no compassion for any lgbtq people who are more afraid of trump voters than muslims.
You deserve a truck of peace.

>>82101752
Take your tinfoil hat off son

>>82103968
49 years*

>>82105222
>no "attack helicopter" option
TRIGGERED

>>82105664
Of course they are, their belief system can't allow any other religions to compete. It's the exact same with the communists, it also happened with the objectivity (at least the early ones). Extremist political ideologies can't really co-exist with religious belief because they're religions in their own right.

>>82107353
I've recently started to believe that religion is human nature and will always be practiced in some form. These people basically believe in dogmas and magic.

>>82107284
The way you people act, I don't really see any difference between extreme right wingers and muslims, and the way things are going right now, I'm seeing the right wingers getting more more radicalized, it's just a matter of time until they start to act just like the muslims do.

>>82107427
You are severely delusional.

>>82107427
So will you then start to protect right wingers and let them kill people?

>>82107353
>their belief system can't allow any other religions to compete

It must be really hard to be religious and at the same time consciously promote social justice (the tumblr/facebook variety).

I mean, you work with, and for, people that openly hate you and wish you were gone.

>>82107427
Next step is hating all straight white males, oh look now you're an SJW.

>>82105785
>That pic

Plastic surgeons are really cleaning up aren't they?

File: tdk-jul25-joker-chauffeur.jpg (71KB, 700x576px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x576px

ITT: if I call myself agnostic I totally won't sound like an edgy teen

>>82105951
How is it just as reasonable to believe in something which has no evidence for it whatsoever as it does to not believe in it? What exactly are these people basing their belief on, it couldn't possibly be evidence. You're telling me it's reasonable to believe in things that have no evidence for them, is that really how you live your life?

>>82106472
>You guys do realize that /pol/ is 70% shitskins LARPing and shit posting right?

Oh so you've met them all?

>>82107501
>brainlet has no reading comprehension

>>82104136
Propaganda.

>>82107478
Agnostics, from my experience, are pretty mellow about their beliefs.

>>82107261
Nah, usually it's

>Q. Is there a possibility for god to exist?

Atheist: Highly improbable, so I'm going to go by the assumption that there's none there unless some genuine scientific evidence comes up that might make me revise that position.

Agnostic: I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? Depends on my mood really.

>>82107470
>I mean, you work with, and for, people that openly hate you and wish you were gone.

It is the institution and its obvious power that they hate, I believe. I don't hate muslims but I hate any caliphate, to put it in other words.

File: Agnostics.png (541KB, 775x457px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 775x457px

>t. former agnostic

>>82106562
What part of the word "spectrum" made you think that a hermaphrodite is not an "error"? It's not male, it's not female, it's inbetween, that's a spectrum, with male on one end and female on the other end, and all the freaks inbetween. That's why hermaphrodites are called intersex. And like I said, hermaphrodites have nothing to do with transgenderism (the idea that you can change genders).

>>82107066
>Agnostic means that you live non-religiously
Exactly like an atheist

>but are still open to the idea of God/gods/the divine by claiming that we can never know for sure.
Exactly like any reasonable atheist, why do you guys think you have a monopoly on humility?

>Anything else added next to the word "agnostic" is purely part of atheist semantics.
No it's actually quite important seeing as their are agnostic theists out there who still do believe in god.

>>82101732
>patheos.com/blogs
>blogs
Oh shit! A literal who dislikes his show! How will Bill Nye EVER RECOVER?!?!?!

>>82107520
So are most christians and atheists really.
It's a vocal minority that shouts online, not the "90% omg, I'm the only one that ain't stupid".

>>82107066
you can be a religious agnostic you retard

>>82107447
How am I delusional?
>>82107467
Why would I protect people like you, explain to me, why would I protect someone who hates me?
>>82107473
>oh look now you're an SJW
>fuck white people
So all white males are right wing extremists, wow I didn't know that, I guess I have to go kill myself right now for being a white male who isn't a right wing extremist.

>>82107587
>why would I protect someone who hates me?
I dunno. Why do you guys protect the muslims?

>>82107252
If it's so wide and relative it's a pretty useless term then isn't it. I've heard all kinds of different people call themselves liberal, it doesn't seem to mean anything. You could be a total establishment shill, you could be a borderline anarchist. You could be a randroid or you could be a marxist taking a more socially acceptable term. It means about as much as the word cuck at this point.

File: Retro Thurs-TMNT-Arcade Game.jpg (52KB, 475x320px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 475x320px

>>82106964
Should have stuck to video games and anime anon.

>>82106892
>Hermaphrodites don't exit in humans

hermaphrodite: a person or animal having both male and female sex organs

Yes, there are humans who are hermaphrodites, due to mutations, or defects in development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
>In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.

>The word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic".

So one one end of the spectrum is males, one the other end of the spectrum is females, and in between are all the freaks of nature. A spectrum

When trannies say "gender is a spectrum" they are basically confusing personalities and personas with gender.

>>82107353
*with the objectivists

>>82107574
That's true. An asshole is an asshole, no matter what he believes in (or doesn't).

>>82107427
>extreme right wingers and muslims
What if I told you that many muslims were extreme right wingers, would that just blow your mind?

>>82107598
>Why do you guys protect the muslims?
Well I guess you need to go and read my original post where I compared extreme right winger to muslims.
I don't like muslims and I don't like extreme right wingers.

>>82106910
Yeah.

And X-rays can give you cancer.

Does anyone know what a spectrum is?

spectrum: used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.

>>82101752
Wait until Richard Dawkins calls Bill Nye a disgrace to the profession...
Oh wait, that's right. Bill Nye never was a professional scientist. Just a loser engineer too incompetent to keep his job a Boeing for more than a few months.

>>82107609
No shit, liberal is a word you americans came up with because you were scared of calling yourselves socialists. Liberals in any civilized country refer to actual liberalism, which is the theoretical basis of capitalism.

Socialism is just as meaningless around here, though.

>>82107657
I don't care.
By en large you guys defend them even if some of them shoot up a gay club it is all about guns and trump.

If you think anyone who holds conservatives values is as dangerous to you as a religion like islam then you are either really stupid or suicidal. Either case I have no empathy for you.

>>82107513
>On a philosophical level being a theist is just as reasonable as being an atheist
>just as reasonable
What did I fail to comprehend exactly?

>>82106964
>childhood idol
Look, the show was great and all, but the dude turned out to be a faggot just reading a script. Drop it and move on.

>>82107654
>What if I told you that many muslims were extreme right wingers, would that just blow your mind?
Not really, the way their society works is very close to one of a right totalitarian dictatorship.

>>82107701
A lot of that response is a knee jerk reaction to alt-right racism. A lot of leftist, centrists and classical conservatives want to openly criticise Islam and Muslim culture, but don't because racist right wingers will latch onto the debate with the SJW police not far behind.

>>82106953

Sex is gender and gender is sex, the state of being male or female.

A gender role is a social role typically associated with a given gender (male or female). Like a culture where men are hunters and women are gatherers. Or a culture where men are kings and women are queens. Those are gender roles. Where your gender will typically determine which role you play in a society. The roles are based on your gender.

A gender norm is a social norm typically associated with a given gender (male or female). Like a culture where men tend to wear pants and women tend to wear dresses. Or a culture where men are expected to be dominant, and women are expected to be submissive. Those are gender norms. Where normal types of behavior (norms) are associated with each gender.

The problem is that Judith Butler said gender is "performative", but it's not, it's the state of being male or female. Gender roles are performative, based on behavior. Gender norms are performative, based on behavior. If you change your behavior, you can take on a new gender role. If enough people of a given gender change their behavior they can change a gender norm. But changing behavior cannot change your gender.

Idiots like Butler think gender = gender role = gender norm. She swallowed up 2 existing concepts into one word.

The problem is we already have a term for how women act, gender norm. The problem is we already have a term for what jobs a man is expected to do, gender role.

"Gender theory" is just bullshit.

>>82107806
Well then you put your own well being behind your feelings.
So again. Either really stupid or suicidal.

>>82107701
>I don't care.
I know you don't, as long as you live in comfort you don't care about anyone else, fuck anyone who doesn't live by your values and offends your morality.

>>82107806
Even if it wasn't for the far right racists there would be no one to speak against muslim hordes. At least here in America.

>>82105679
buzzword is a buzzword and you're a retard parroting 4chan garbage

>>82106964
wait till you find out he's not even a scientist

>>82107827
You think being gay or transgender is against my values?
Its not btw.
I am just not gay and I feel no obligation to protect you when you will run towards the people who want you dead and protect them.

>>82107827
Are you the same guy who admitted they don't critcize islamic extremism because they're worried about being associated with racists?

>>82107242

Theism is if you belief in God. Atheism is if you lack belief in God. It's a question of belief, presence or absence.

If the belief isn't there, that's an atheist. Which is also why every non-human is atheist. Since by all available evidence, only humans believe in God.

>>82107252
pick a random topic that modern liberals believe.

>>82107824
I'm not the anon you were having a discourse with. I just felt the need to respond to that one post.

>>82107834
I'm not so sure. I do think Islam and Muslim culture would be challenged in a more coherent manner without it, but I also think that would result in a more coherent opposition to that criticism. Yet with that said, a hypothetical divorced from the reality of things that's been keeping the people that can and would enforce changes in policy in those matter from speaking up because of the impending political suicide edged on by populist identity politics morons on both sides of the spectrum.

>>82107083
>Australia doesn't suffer from this problem
kek I am literally on Skype with an Aussie chick who is an incredibly edgy atheist to the point where just mentioning I was spending Easter Sunday with my religious family sent her into an autistic rant
She's cute and great otherwise so it's not a deal breaker. She also profusely apologized once she realized how autistic she was being and it hasn't come up since.

>>82107261

A hard atheist would say God is impossible. Which is also an untenable position. That's why atheists focus on belief or lack thereof.

Le Trashman said when asked "do you believe in God?" atheists and agnostics will both answer "no."

I guess some people throw around terms like gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist and crap like that, but that's just confusing, especially since a Gnostic has almost nothing to do with atheism.

>>82107989
Islam will never go through the "enlightenment" and accept gay people and adjust to western culture because we don't demand it does.

I think we are doing it a huge disservice by tolerating it to such a degree and it is basically guaranteed that shit will hit the fan in the future.

>>82107998
Make her repent for her sins, if you know what I mean.

>>82107284
>a truck of peace.
top akbar

>>82107353
>Extremist political ideologies can't really co-exist with religious belief because they're religions in their own right.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/17/3478816.htm
>But what about the Stalinist Communist mass killings? What about the extra-legal liquidations of the nameless millions? It is easy to see how these crimes were always justified by their own ersatz-god, a "god that failed" as Ignazio Silone, one of the great disappointed ex-Communists, called it: they had their own god, which is why everything was permitted to them.

>>82107427
>it's just a matter of time until they start to act just like the muslims do.

I think Republicans are about as retarded when it comes to science as modern Muslims. But let me know when Republicans start doing this:

>A suicide bombing of civilian evacuation buses near Aleppo, Syria, kills more than 120 people, including at least 80 children.

The regressive left who apologizes for Islam is fucking horrid.

>>82107989
The reason why nobody wants to really talk about islamic extremism is because of the vast sums of money that the Saudi Arabian government, the primary source for this crap, pours into American politics on both sides. Hell they'll even give money to the greens just to be safe, which makes no sense when you consider all that money came from selling oil originally but the greens take it anyway.

Hows about you actually familiarize yourself with who's paying off who rather then blindly repeat mainstream media propaganda horseshit.

>>82108046
10/10
I audibly keked and now she's asking me what the fuck am I laughing my ass off about.

>>82107501
>What exactly are these people basing their belief on, it couldn't possibly be evidence.

Like the Big Bang theory? The idea that time just started itself?

>>82107427
This statement has no basis in reality. Just look at some of the video put out by each side.

>>82107427
When was the last time in the United States a hillbilly conservative threw a gay off a roof?


Whats that? Never?


Well its almost like rednecks calling you a faggot is not as bad as being murdered

>>82107527
And both should first ask "Define God."

>>82108033
>Firm Atheist
I know there's no God so I don't believe
>Agnostic Atheist
I don't know if there's a God but I don't believe
>Firm Believer
I know there's a God
>Agnostic Believer
I don't know there's a God but I believe there is one

>>82107609
cuck has a very clear meaning

you cuck

>>82108146
The big bang theory does have evidence for it though, have you never heard of cosmic background radiation? It's exactly what the big bang theory predicted and it can be and has been independently verified to exist. That's an entirely false comparison, nothing like that exists for god just endless speculation and semantic arguments.

>The idea that time just started itself?
What about the idea that god just created himself, how is that any less ridiculous?

Thanks for admitting religious people have no evidence to base their beliefs on though, that's all I was trying to argue and you conceded that point instantly.

>>82105679
I was saying this years ago but "agnostics" (literally 'i don't pay attention to the matter so i am superior' -tier retardation) just kept thinking they knew everything 'hurr durr YOU CAN NEVER NO!!!!'... or rather, that they didn't know anything..... kek

>>82107151
sorry,
*trannies*

>>82108172
nobody know. stop with this agnostic meme.

>>82107662
>Just a loser engineer too incompetent to keep his job a Boeing for more than a few months.

BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL BTFO HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER?

>>82106964
The only reason you liked him was that his unironic cheeseball antics got you out of 2/3 of a science class once a month.

>>82107711

Theists think the universe and time has a cause. Atheists think the universe and time has no cause.

>>82108339
>Theists think the universe and time has a cause.
Based on no evidence whatsoever, that's kind of the point I was making.

>Atheists think the universe and time has no cause.
No we just don't know what the cause is yet and think that the god explanation is a pretty crappy one. If god created everything what created god? You're not explaining shit.

>>82107857
>buzzword is a buzzword
this

although usually i think it means "a word my teenage mind doesn't understand so i'll just write it off"

>>82105683
I thought agnostic was just euphemism for "I have better things to do with my time than argue about religion"

>>82103968
Kek
twitterkino

>>82107989
>I do think Islam and Muslim culture would be challenged in a more coherent manner without it, but I also think that would result in a more coherent opposition to that criticism.

In France, Macron says Le Pen's platform is based on "hatred." Simply because she believes countries should have borders. Without borders there is no country.

And it's this kneejerk, easy answer, "oh the other side are all bigots, racists, xenophobes" of the regressive left that allows Islam to infect these dumb countries in Europe, like Sweden, who now regrets letting all those migrants come there. Because it turns out, they bring stone age values and beliefs that are incompatible with civil Western society.

>>82108293
There's enough people who think they know that we have to make this designation.

Firm is both usually assholes.

>>82107827
>muh fee fees
>hands over ears shouting LALALALA
It's time to be honest with yourself and reconsider your opinions.

>>82108412
If someone was really like that they wouldn't have a term to describe themselves. Agnostic is functionally a euphemism for coward.

>>82105626
stupid fencesitter ,burden of proof nigger

>>82108162
>its almost like rednecks calling you a faggot is not as bad as being murdered

lol. sjws don't seem to know the difference.

i guess they think back to matthew shepard in laramie, wyoming.

>>82108550
There logic is that calling a gay man a faggot will lead to their suicide so reliably that it is functionally equivalent to literally throwing them off a building.

>>82105664
thats because most sjw's are ethnically jews, and most ethnic jews are atheists

>>82105253
>incapable to pandering to /pol/ and only redditors defend him
/pol/ and reddit are the same thing now

>>82105054

He literally dindu nuffin wrong

>>82108278
>trannies
wow, extremely sexist and transphobic much?
the acceptable term is "retarded faggot"

>>82108266

The expansion of the universe has evidence for it. And yes, CMBR exists. But the CMBR can't explain how time starts from non-time. The CMBR can't explain what caused the Big Bang.

If you believe in cause and effect, then every cause has a prior cause, going all the way back in the past, until there is either an infinite series of causes, or a cause with no prior cause (a first cause, a causeless cause). Which also means time either goes back into the past forever, or the past stops (and time starts). But if time could start (the first second) without a prior cause, why believe everything requires a prior cause?

When people say the universe began with the Big Bang, it makes sense to ask, how did the Big Bang begin? What caused the Big Bang?

Since theists generally believe God is eternal, they can point to God as a possible cause of the universe (and the Big Bang). Since theists generally believe God is timeless, they can point to God as a cause of time.

If you don't believe in God, you're kind of stuck believing time caused itself or that time has no beginning. The Big Bang isn't really compatible with "time has no beginning", so that leaves the idea that the first second caused itself. Stephen Hawking has argued that time could start from inside a black hole which is timeless. But that still proposes that something existed before the universe, a black hole. So what caused that black hole?

Someone who believes in the Big Bounce (basically eternal Big Bangs and later Big Crunches) could believe the causes are eternal. And that's basically what Hindus believe.

File: 1492914413508.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>82105419

>>82108586
>implying faggots need help in that regard
Even if all of the straight white people died in their sleep, they'd still be suicidal.

>left is now complaining scienceman is patronizing them to further his agenda

What fucking world am I living in?

>>82107198

You sound like a child

>>82108781

The real world, you know the one that doesn't boil down to your myopic juvenile partisan politics

>>82108373

Most theists think God is eternal, which means they could easily believe God could start time. Theists think God has always existed (out of time), but the universe is temporal, in time. A timeless being could start time.

Most atheists don't think the universe is eternal, they believe it has a cause, but how can a universe cause itself? How could time start itself? Stephen Hawking has said if gravity exists, a universe could cause itself. But that implies that gravity existed before the universe, so gravity is eternal?

This is about either a) infinite causes or b) a first cause. Theists can easily believe in a First Cause because they already believe in an eternal being who could trigger a First Cause. But for someone who doesn't believe in an eternal being or eternal universe, like atheists, it still raises the question of how the first second came to be. I think Hawking has even said something like the universe has no cause (but then why would anything else need a cause?).

>>82108930
>Most theists think God is eternal
Based on no evidence.

>Theists think God has always existed (out of time)
Based on no evidence

Making things up based on nothing is a pretty lazy way of getting out of philosophical quandaries.

>>82108586
sjws think trannies have the right to do whatever they want to their own body.

but as soon as some lgbt freak wants to kill themselves, end their body, they can't stand it.

if people have a right to get "gender reassignment surgery" and fuck up their body, surely they also have a right to fuck up their body and kill themselves.

>>82108658
He was a commie bastard, running around the place wrecking private businesses and flooding market with free and untaxable counterfeit food to drive out any capitalists that went into food production.

>>82108979
To clarify I don't have all the answers, nor would I claim to, it's just that theists very obviously don't because they can never back up anything they say. The only difference between me and them is all the insane unprovable horseshit that they endlessly speculate because they just can't accept not knowing, they don't have any real answers to these tough questions either you're operating from a fundamentally false premise.

>>82108930
Most atheists aren't cosmologists, and their opinions on if and how the universe started are irrelevant.

>>82108979
Do you think personal experiences count as evidence?

Do you think spiritual experiences could count as evidence?

Hindus think God is eternal, and the universe is eternal, and that they're the same thing.

An atheist would insist there was a first second, the first second after the Big Bang. But what could cause the first second? Where is the evidence for something that caused the Big Bang? This isn't about evidence for the Big Bang. This is about evidence for what caused it.

>>82109035
t. jew

>>82109038
Religion is about a way to live, unlike science.

All origin stories are just that, stories.

>>82105951
Dame thing can be said about evolution.

>>82109094
>Do you think personal experiences count as evidence?
No

>Do you think spiritual experiences could count as evidence?
No

>An atheist would insist there was a first second, the first second after the Big Bang. But what could cause the first second?
I don't know, I actually have the humility to admit that rather then claim that I've been permitted direct communication with the supreme being of the universe who has explained everything to me.

>Where is the evidence for something that caused the Big Bang? This isn't about evidence for the Big Bang. This is about evidence for what caused it.
Yeah we don't know what came before the big bang, and that includes you and every other believer on the planet, nobody fucking knows. Why? Because it happened billions of years before the human race even existed! Why would you ever expect us to have perfect knowledge of such an era?

>>82109149
That's a very modern idea.

>>82104910
Oh fuck off you dumb /pol/ cunt. Norm is Norm.
Why are Americans obsessed with labeling everything?
Fuck off.

>>82109068

Well if they were to consider cause and effect they would eventually reach a paradox. Either there is an infinite series of causes that goes back in time forever (which is another way of saying time doesn't exist), or there is a first cause, a causeless cause, a cause with no prior cause. But if the first cause needed no prior cause, why would any other cause need a prior cause?

Theists can believe that a timeless being can cause time. Atheists probably don't believe in a timeless being, or an eternal universe. So atheists are stuck with the paradox of the beginning of time.

>>82105222
>GENDERED.com

>>82109233
>Well if they were to consider cause and effect they would eventually reach a paradox
As would theists, it's just they'd deny that's the case

>>82105286
He won't touch the guns and has already fucked over liberals for decades to come with his Scalia replacement. As long as he keeps up the deportations and fucks up sanctuary cities, at this point I doubt I'll regret my vote.

Im not a dickrider, though. He's pretty autistic and says dumb embarressing shit.

>>82105699
Christ that's bad. If a shopkeeper ever addressed me as xer I don't think I'd ever go back.

>>82106755
>childhood is believing in God
>teenhood is calling yourself athiest to be edgy and get attention
>adulthood is thinking that there can very well be God
>old/near deathbed is realising that God does exist

Pottery does not do this justice.

>>82108858
He's right, though.

Atheists only ever bitch and moan about Chrisitans, because their mums made them go to Sunday school, but will happily deepthroat Muslims, a far more extreme religion, for some reason.

>>82107509
Yes anon, all those posts coming from third world shit holes are all actually aryan ubermensch posters in disguise.

File: 6sjZ.gif (2MB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x288px

>>82108586
Can you imagine being able to kill any faggot by just calling him a faggot?
I would go to SF and start a genoside, no joke.

>>82107509
Just because you've been brainwashed into hating yourself and your country, doesn't mean non-whites aren't often hyper nationalists.

>>82109485
you forgot
>death is slipping into merciful nothingness, forever being spared the feeling of knowing you were wrong all this time.

>>82109527
>genoside
why are chimps so homophobic

>>82101752
>tfw panicking liberals are even turning on their Youtube Atheist allies

Yes. Everyone except you is from /pol/, and you should remind them of it constantly. I remember when Molymeme turned. You guys are securing new allies for us daily.

>>82109191

Do you know that stubbing your toe hurts because someone told you or because of personal experience? I don't know why anyone would say personal experiences don't count as evidence. Inductive reasoning takes a singular experience and expands it into a general rule, like, that tiger killed my friend, so avoid all tigers. It leads to useful stereotypes to avoid danger, but it doesn't account for every case. But taking things on a case by case basis can get you killed.

Science makes predictions based on evidence. The question is whether something that happens is a fluke or part of a larger pattern. People often dismiss anecdotes, and yet those aren't necessarily flukes, and can be part of a larger pattern. When people say a new experimental drug gave them xyz side effect, they try to figure how often (or in who) that happens.

You can say you don't know what caused the first second, but to assume the first second caused itself is a paradox. And if you assume the first second caused itself, why not God causing itself?

Nobody alive today observed the Big Bang. If nobody witnesses an event, how sure can you be of what happened? Someone could point to the CMBR as letting us peer back in time, but it can't let us peer before time.

Theists can give an answer on how non-time becomes time (eg, an eternal being caused time). For atheists, non-time becoming time on its own is a paradox, and still points to something existing outside of time.

File: 1491894227769.png (142KB, 1374x448px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1374x448px

>>82106472
They may have been at some point,but that doesn't apply now

File: 1493247645455.jpg (114KB, 364x442px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 364x442px

stop having a penis

>>82103874
I call myself a "Christian Humanist," because both sides assume I'm one of them and then leave me alone. It's the new unassailable middle ground.

>Oh well I don't believe in God but I think Jesus was a great many worthy of emulation.

>Oh well I'm not an atheist, I just believe that some more radical Christian sects are too superstitious.

>Oh I'm not either, I'm an enlightened centrist like you, see?

>>82109650
coward

File: 1493151721286.jpg (41KB, 394x392px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 394x392px

>>82106832
Agnostic only applies when you define God as some sort of esoteric prime mover. When got es defined the way it it by 90% of the population, then atheism applies. Just like you're an atheist and not agnostic in regards to Zeus.

>>82109650
> It's the new unassailable middle ground.
You're a cuck and belong in an oven

>>82109206
>Why are Americans obsessed with labeling everything?
>WAH AMERICANS LABEL EVERYTHING
>everyone who disagrees with me is /pol/ and american too
Verpiss dich einfach, du verschissener Hurensohn. Bring dich um.

>>82105222
>no fuccboi option

>>82103874
I just call myself an Atheist. Do Christians stop calling themselves Christians because some idiot teenagers happen to be in their group? Nope. So why should you?

>>82107806

>Unironically defending islam

You have to go back >>>r/eddit

>>82109607
>I don't know why anyone would say personal experiences don't count as evidence.
Because it's entirely subjective. If someone visits heaven during a near death experience is that their soul actually traveling to another dimension or is that a hallucination brought on by a lack of blood in their brain? We have literally no way of knowing, it's not real evidence.

>Inductive reasoning takes a singular experience and expands it into a general rule
Oh like the idea that ideas that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that kind of inductive reasoning?

>People often dismiss anecdotes, and yet those aren't necessarily flukes, and can be part of a larger pattern.
Once again, they're subjective, and the plural of anecdote is not data, it's still just anecdotes.

>
You can say you don't know what caused the first second, but to assume the first second caused itself is a paradox. And if you assume the first second caused itself, why not God causing itself?
Why not the flying spaggheti monster causing itself? What about aliens going back in time in a time machine and causing the universe? What about we're all just brains in jars hooked up to a giant computer simulating all this and we actually know absolutely nothing about the nature of the universe whatsoever, hence why it doesn't really make sense. How are any of these explanations any less valid? Doesn't that worry you at all?

>Theists can give an answer on how non-time becomes time
No they can't, all they can give is excuses for why their entity defies all the rules that they demand the universe obey, it's a completely logically incoherent argument. If everything needs a cause, why doesn't god? If not everything needs a cause, why do you need god? You haven't explained anything at all, that's not a real answer.

>>82105222
>man with boobs
Found /tv/'s gender

>>82109712
Ah so you're just as retarded as American.

>>82107998
Got a pic of that autistic rage?

>>82107198
As a gay guy, the obsession of liberals with Muslims and Islam sickens me. Everyone loves it when Sam Harris shits on Christianity, but when he does it with Islam everyone is offended.

>>82109765
>Everyone loves it when Sam Harris shits on Christianity

not the alt-right though, they got him as a public enemy everytime he opens his mouth

>>82109760
I'm not even the guy you talked to you worthless nigger.
You're so far up your own ass with your cognitive dissonance that you claim to hate "americans" for "labeling everything". Meanwhile all you seem to do is to talk and think in labels.

Just neck yourself nigger.

Reminder
All life is a freak of nature.

>>82109783
Vexed?

>>82109287

Is eternity a paradox? Is the existence of something eternal a paradox? Only if you insist that everything that exists must exist in spacetime. But even if you believe that, a Big Bounce theory could explain the eternal re-emergence of spacetime. But then you're left wondering if there was a first universe, and if so, what caused the very first universe?

Theists believe in an eternal being, and see no paradox in that. So theists could believe that an eternal being could cause time. That a timeless being can start time.

Atheists probably don't believe the universe is eternal, they probably believe the universe had a start, which means time had a start, which means there was a first second. But the first second causing itself is a paradox. Someone could argue that a phrase like "before time" has no meaning, or even "before the Big Bang" has no meaning. But why insist everything has a prior cause except the very first thing? And if there was a very first thing, how did it come to be?

Theists can say the very first thing has always existed, God.

>>82101732
the writer of that article just seems to be some dumb hoe. i'm surprised it provoked a thread with this many posts

>>82107066
Atheism's real problem is it's full of anti-theists hiding behind the skirt of a more respectable philosophy and that muddies the waters.

>>82109492
You mean SJWs. The famous atheists always shit on Islam too

File: godzilla-size-chart-with-shin-gojira-5.jpg (753KB, 1985x1175px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1985x1175px

>>82109527
Same. That would actually get me off 4chan and finally do something to benefit society.

File: 1480316729072.jpg (41KB, 711x669px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 711x669px

>>82109611
>gamergate

what tumblrina shill made this garbage?
The fappening is what happened. SJWs and KIA pretend it was some huge deal but you're delusional if you think people care about game politics more than fap matierial.

>>82109538
I just object to people talking like they know an entire board's demographics day to day.

>>82101796
>>82101752
>>82101732

>friendly atheist

This guy was a teacher at my school and literally was my speech team coach back in 2008~

>>82103968
>What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Image the backlash against peaceful Muslims?
I love Norm, and I've read this like 10 times, but I don't get it.

>>82107681
It's more complicated than that. During the Cold War the Socialist parties were BTFO because they were all infested with KGB agents.

The Democrats and the Republicans were never either Socialist parties, they were both center-right parties with differing economic policies. "Liberal" was meant in the European sense because the Democrats were a Liberal party by European standards, the Republicans were also Liberal, but more prominently a socially conservative party.

So Liberal came to refer to the Socially Liberal Liberals, and Conservative refers to the Socially Conservative Liberals. Neither party is Socialist at all. Actually the Democrats would probably do better if they were, but it would be a big risk. They'd lose Florida permanently because of the Cubans, and Blacks are actually very suspicious of Socialism, they prefer the neoliberal Clintonian narrative.

>>82101752
I don't think you can defend against the type of shit Bill Nye's show is by simply using the /pol/ card. You'd need to be legit gay to think that.

>>82103874
Remember when they tried to turn atheism into a club and label everyone as being in that club? The news media was going on and on about it for like an entire year in the early 1990s. It was similar to the elite, internet, hacker group known only as "Anonymous" type of "news".

>>82103968
>pic
>blaming others for the fly-in-the-ointment because they happen to be in one of the same demographics

If you are unable to control the other people in your demographic then you need to be blamed too. This is like trying to blame government leaders for a country's fuck up. If you don't want a fuck up, remove the leaders and replace them.

>>82109827
Yes the universe is more difficult to understand and explain to people when you actually have to stick to evidence rather then speculate about unverifiable hypotheses that defy the concept of cause and effect, what point exactly are you trying to make with these posts? You're just restating the same basic issue over and over again. If I started bleating "god did it and god's special!" every time I confronted a question I couldn't answer that would'nt make me more knowledgeable, just more arrogant and egotistical. Some things are unknown, others seem to be completely unknowable, what's that got to do with whether or not god exists? If you don't even know whether or not god exists why would you start believing in them?

File: 1493063783051.jpg (47KB, 602x481px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 602x481px

>>82110000
>>82110022

>>82108735
>how did the Big Bang begin? What caused the Big Bang?
We don't know, and we continue to do research to find out how.
God doesn't provide an answer to this question, just a copout. I could say it started with a computer simulation or an eternal unicorn fart. These answers are just as valid.

>>82109983
There aren't 50 million muslims in the whole of the united states, they're actually quite a small minority. It's physically impossible for the backlash to effect as many people as the initial attack, even in the absolute worst case scenario. I think that's the joke

>>82101732

This show is a joke. I started watching it, hoping for facts and figures, experiments, etc. - it's a bunch of leftist propaganda nonscience. The sex episode was particularly ridiculous. Science points in the opposite direction of transgenderism. But Nye won't admit this because it doesn't conform to his liberal politics. Rather than believe what he sees(like a real scientist), he desperately tries to see what he feels. It's embarrassing.

>>82110090
You're dumb anon.
The joke is that exploding a nuke is an unforgivable act, and the left would still care more about "peaceful" muslims than the victims of terrorism.

File: 1461951378253-0.jpg (140KB, 600x980px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x980px

>>82110039
>atheists are unironically this retarded
If you discount logic conclusions based on what we know about the universe because they lack a completeness of information, you should discount literally everything we know about anything because in no part of the scientific method there is an appeal to perfect information, only to the information provided to us.
You are literally just saying "eh, theoretically we could be wrong so why bother with the fact that God is the most logical conclusion to what we know about the universe".
Atheism is undefensible under any point of view

>>82109983
It's a joke about how some liberals rather than showing concern with the victims of the attack, focus on showing concern on the group that the perpetrator comes from.

>>82109780
I was referring to among liberals.

>>82105626

Did you ever think people choose their religion based on how they would like to actuate their personal spirituality in waking life, and not just to take a clever and 'correct' social stance?

File: IMG_2578.jpg (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

>>82110000
Look at that subtle off-white colouring. A tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has separate dubs.

>>82110140
wtf i love jupiter now

>>82101732
>its evolution, its science!
>in evolution, only things that manage to replicate actually are considered just that, evolution
>trannies and other freaks cannot replicate themselves as they have non functioning, and disfigured genitalia.

LOL

>>82105222

>Nancy
>Nancyboy
>Pansy

Can someone tell me the difference between these?

I'm reading /tv/ still right?

>>82109753
>Because it's entirely subjective. If someone visits heaven during a near death experience is that their soul actually traveling to another dimension or is that a hallucination brought on by a lack of blood in their brain?
But even "objective" evidence has to be interpreted by the human mind, subjectively. If there is a pattern to NDEs, there could be an explanation. Their experiences are evidence, just not necessarily evidence of heaven. If the same experiences can be induced by other means, it may point to another explanation.

>Oh like the idea that ideas that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that kind of inductive reasoning?
People use inductive reasoning based on their experiences, but science uses it too. But inductive reasoning is flawed, because it assumes the future will be like the past. That helps for survival, not necessarily truth.

>the plural of anecdote is not data, it's still just anecdotes
In any medical study, the plural of anecdotes is data.

>Why not the flying spaggheti monster causing itself?
Is that more or less plausible than the universe causing itself?

>What about we're all just brains in jars hooked up to a giant computer simulating all this and we actually know absolutely nothing about the nature of the universe whatsoever, hence why it doesn't really make sense
Maybe humans don't really know much about causality. I would think a First Second indicates a breakdown of causality.

>No they can't, all they can give is excuses for why their entity defies all the rules that they demand the universe obey, it's a completely logically incoherent argument. If everything needs a cause, why doesn't god? If not everything needs a cause, why do you need god?
If everything in time needs a cause, a timeless being would not. If everything in time needs a cause, wouldn't the origin of time also need cause? If the first second needs no prior cause, why would anything else need a prior cause?

>>82110140
>If you discount logic conclusions based on what we know about the universe
But I'm not doing that, you haven't presented a single logical conclusion this entire conversation, just endless speculation.

>because they lack a completeness of information
That's a very diplomatic way of saying "making up unverifiable bullshit based on literally nothing".

>you should discount literally everything we know about anything because in no part of the scientific method there is an appeal to perfect information, only to the information provided to us.
Strawman, I don't want perfect information I want proof. Maybe the doctor can't tell you when you're kid will die to the calender date but they should be able to figure out where the tumours are.

>You are literally just saying "eh, theoretically we could be wrong so why bother with the fact that God is the most logical conclusion to what we know about the universe".
You've yet to prove that god is "the most logical conclusion to what we know about the universe", you've yet to provide anything logical or conclusive whatsoever.

>Atheism is undefensible under any point of view
No theism is indefensible under any point of view that doesn't allow for massive speculative leaps of logic based on literally nothing.

>>82105230

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think they could've dumbed it down any more. Like the intended audience has zero education. I know not everyone went to college, but fuckin' hell. Are people dumb enough to believe this guy when he says gender is on a spectrum?

>>82110140
>Atheism is undefensible under any point of view
Yeah, when you define God as only the first cause, something that 90% of Christians would say is on par with atheism. Don't say Catholics define god as only a first cause, because that would make the entire doctrine false.
A first cause is a meaningless thing, it can be literally anything I can think of, because it is an unfalsifiable, untestable claim.

>>82110295
>But I'm not doing that, you haven't presented a single logical conclusion this entire conversation, just endless speculation.
not speculation by any measure

>That's a very diplomatic way of saying "making up unverifiable bullshit based on literally nothing".
no it isn't, you are apparently too dumb to get the point

> Maybe the doctor can't tell you when you're kid will die to the calender date but they should be able to figure out where the tumours are.
Then you should be able to figure out that although you can't take a camera to the beginning of time and tape God creating it, it doesn't stop it from being the most logical conclusion to the data we have about the universe.

>You've yet to prove that god is "the most logical conclusion to what we know about the universe
It's proved by literally everything we know. There's no compelling argument for the opposite. If you say otherwise you are just delusional

>No theism is indefensible under any point of view that doesn't allow for massive speculative leaps of logic based on literally nothing.
I've been 13 too, you'll grow out of this bullshit anon

>>82110358
You christfags really crack me up. Have a good life, it's the only you'll get :^)

>>82110140
I'm glad someone actually paid attention in /his/tory class.

>>82110330
>when you define God as only the first cause,
why would you define God ONLY as the first cause? It's just one of his features.

>Don't say Catholics define god as only a first cause, because that would make the entire doctrine false.
It's part of the Catholic doctrine about God, so I don't understand your point at all. Of course God isn't just a first cause, he's much more. If he was only the first cause he wouldn't be God anyway.

>A first cause is a meaningless thing, it can be literally anything I can think of, because it is an unfalsifiable, untestable claim.
Again, it is only one feature of God, don't elevate it to reject the other ones he has.

>>82110399
I accept your admission of defeat ;)

File: 1468610733267.jpg (18KB, 510x476px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 510x476px

>>82110130
>Unforgivable act
>America did it twice
Right.

>>82110358

Maybe you can both agree on this :

There's as much empirical evidence for the existence of God as there is for evolution. Macroevolution, that is(trans-species change).

>>82110480
evolution is irrelevant on whether God exists or not, so I don't see why it is relevant that we both agree on it

>>82110358
>>82110411
Oh then you believe in a theist God?
What makes him more plausible than the others before him?
You have yet to provide any sort of explanation or evidence for this God. If he acted upon the world then surely there is evidence for that.

>>82109765

That's because liberals only have ad hominem attacks, like "hatred", which they use to shut down an argument, because they have no real argument.

And when they throw out their insults, like "racist", "sexist", etc, liberals aren't actually interested in helping racists become less racist, or helping sexists become less sexist. They just want people to shut up and stop talking, silence them, censor them.

Censorship of what an opponent is saying is a sign of weakness.

>>82101732
most over-rated person EVER

>>82110480
Don't be retarded, the evidence of evolution is clear.

>>82109786
that won't give you any cover you freak

>>82109878
>implying anyone read the article

>>82110537
no proof

>>82110504

It's absolutely relevant. If you're asking the big questions - Where did we come from? Why are we here?

Also, you're kind of a cunt, aren't you.

>>82105222
If gender and gender expression can be boiled down this much, why even have labels?

>>82101732
>Tfw you used to be atheists but then realized that athiest are always trying to fill a hole in their heart with hedonism
>Started reading Saint Thomas and kierkegaard.

>Start working out, praying. Start believing objective truth and a prime mover.
>Converted to Catholicism.

Now I'm married and go to church every Sunday. Much more fulfilling then being an subjective morality atheist.

>>82110537

Where is it clear? It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God. They're both religions in that way, but evolutionists would rather call it "science."

>>82110510
>What makes him more plausible than the others before him?
The fact that he's by any measure, even atheist ones, more plausible. Even you accept the principle of first cause as an atheist, and that is Catholic theology about God.

>You have yet to provide any sort of explanation or evidence for this God. If he acted upon the world then surely there is evidence for that.
Muh evidence is a really bad argument. What is evidence for one person, can be lack of evidence for someone else. In the idea of "evidence" regarding the existence of God there's no possibility to define an objectivity when pursuing evidence, because it is ultimately dependend on human agency.
A 4chan post isn't really a good way to "show you" the proofs for the existence of God. Everyone comes to realise he exists and is with us in a different way, each one of us has a different path to walk. The only one that will show it to you is God himself, but first you must become humble and search for him with an open heart and mind.


>>82110581
When we strictly examine whether God exists or not (like we are doing), where we come from and why we are here remains completely irrelevant. So no, it is not absolutely relevant at all.
If by being a cunt you mean being truthful, then I guess I am one.

>>82110649
Oh for fucks sake creationism is so boring to talk about. It is flat earth tier.

>>82110039
The beginning of the universe defies the idea of cause and effect, unless you believe that something preceded it. At least theists believe a timeless being could start time. An atheist is stuck with the narrative that the first second caused itself.

I'm not saying theists are more knowledgeable. Maybe they're sidestepping a paradox related to the origin of time by insisting on the existence of a timeless being. But atheists are left with the paradox of how time starts.

And one reason people believe in God because it gives certain moral codes more authority, than "some other ape thinks you should do this", so that it becomes a rule, a law, even a commandment, something above mob rule.

If all humans have is mob rule, then I guess the religious mob is in the majority.

Theists can believe in God-given rights. Theists can defy a mob. Without God, there's no such thing as God-given rights, only the mob.

>>82110662

How can you truthfully "strictly examine whether God exists or not" without asking "where we come from and why we are here"?

Pro tip : you can't.

>>82110702

Nice counter-argument. I like all the facts you used.

>article title clearly in URL
>OP green texts it anyway

Literally what did he mean by this?

On a serious note though does that bother anyone else right in the autism?

>>82110510
Evidence of God destroys the virtue if faith.

A proven God destroys the freedom of seeking objective truth. The path to the goal is just as important as the goal itself.

God takes less faith then egalitarianism and other nonsense secular morality that are merely bastardized Chirstian virtues.

Daily observation disproves most secular values. The same can not be said for a prime mover, God.

>>82110075

Unless you say the computer simulation or unicorn fart are eternal, they wouldn't be an answer to how time started.

God is seen an an Absolute, something ultimate, something above and beyond the material universe (although some religions think God and the universe are identical).

It's fine to admit we don't know what caused the Big Bang, what caused the first second. But unless it caused itself (which is a paradox), it points to something timeless.

Stephen Hawking says there is no time inside a black hole, so a universe could spawn from that. But that still posits the existence of a black hole that exists before the universe, which raises the question of what caused the black hole?

These are questions about causality. Something that has always existed could start something that exists only temporarily. But if the universe caused itself, that makes as much sense as saying God caused itself.

>>82110295
>I don't want perfect information I want proof.

Weigh yourself in kilograms. Then figure what 0.4mg/kg compared to your weight would be in milligrams. Obtain that many milligrams of DMT. Then inject that DMT into your veins.

There is your experiment.

>>82110741

Excellent points. Without the belief in God there are no moral absolutes. Everything is relative. A perfect example is the Nuremburg Trials. The Nazis were just following orders, right?

>>82110662
>The fact that he's by any measure, even atheist ones, more plausible
????
>Muh evidence is a really bad argument
Evidence is the only argument. There is nothing that prevents me from applying this method to the existence of God. What you are describing about personal evidence is completely meaningless because other people from other religions can claim the same.

>>82110741
>atheists are left with the paradox of how time starts
No. Scientists are left just researching and experimenting to find out how. Saying "there is a prime eternal mover" does not resolve any questions

>>82110907
>Unless you say the computer simulation or unicorn fart are eternal, they wouldn't be an answer to how time started.
I can define my unicorn as absolute and I have the same evidence as you, none.

>It's fine to admit we don't know what caused the Big Bang
That has been my point all along. As a scientist myself, I proudly admit that we don't know that came before the big bang, so we keep investigating. You on the other hand already claim have the answer in an absolute god, but you have no evidence to claim that.

>>82111147
>How can you truthfully "strictly examine whether God exists or not" without asking "where we come from and why we are here"?
>Pro tip : you can't.

I never got an answer to this.

>>82110649
bait

>>82110907
>It's fine to admit we don't know what caused the Big Bang, what caused the first second. But unless it caused itself (which is a paradox), it points to something timeless.

This guy gets it.

File: Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome.jpg (88KB, 379x470px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 379x470px

>>82110320
>Are people dumb enough to believe this guy when he says gender is on a spectrum?

A spectrum is like a line with two ends.

For example, ROYGBIV is a spectrum of visible light. Red light has a wavelength of 650nm one end of that spectrum, violet light has a wavelength of 400nm on the other end of that spectrum.

You could also look at gender as a spectrum, with male on end end, female on the other end. And in between are mutated people, intersex people.

For example, someone with CAIS has a Y chromosome but they don't respond to androgens, so they appear female from the outside, and have testes inside their body instead of ovaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

Pic related is a naked person with a Y chromosome but also CAIS.

However, people who use the word "gender" to refer to personalities and not sex need to be slapped.

>>82111344

I'm not baiting. It's what I believe.

>>82110330

A First Cause isn't meaningless. Deists believe God was the first cause, or first mover.

And plenty of atheists assume life started on its own (an unfalsifiable, untestable claim) and that the universe started on its own (an unfalsifiable, untestable claim). If scientists ever do create primitive life in a lab, that only supports intelligent design, since humans are intelligent beings and they designed whatever conditions led to the emergence of said life.

>>82111428
>life starting on its own is unfalsifiable but God creating life isn't

>>82110776
You can actually. We literally did it in this thread. Thos other questions relate to other features of God, not to his existence.